It's not often that a Quorum Report story makes me laugh, but oh boy, this afternoon was great. Republican consultant, Royal Masset goes off on a claim that TRMPAC wasn't responsible for winning even a single House seat in the Texas Lege.
"Say something often enough and people will believe it, even if not true says regular contributor Royal Masset" the banner screamed as I thought, yeah, Denial is more than a river in Egypt. The money quote...
I do deny that. Dick DeGuerin is wrong. Tom DeLay and TRMPAC had no impact on the 2002 State House elections. Their efforts won 0 State Rep seats. None. Zero. Nada. Zip. If TRMPAC did not exist the Republicans would have won the same 88 seats.
... But I think it is very important that the truth be told here. The notion that Texas' legislature can be bought is a lie.
Let me pick myself back up off of the floor. The lege can't be bought? Hahaha. Good one. I find it really hard to believe that a Republican PAC, run by people who see politics like business, would spend money that has no effect on house races. It flies in the face of Republican Political Economics.
Let me know where I should send Royal Masset's invitation to join the Reality Based Community.
Using the recently-released Edison/Mitofsky 2004 exit poll data (back-up | code-book | my Excel spreadsheet), a few interesting statistics about Texas Democrats can be constructed.
Exit polls are, of course, polls, so take with a grain of salt. I sure wish those urging that exit poll discrepancies prove voter fraud would take a chill-pill.
UPDATE: Some errors in the age tabs were fixed. The under 30 share of the Democratic vote is 20 percent, not 8 percent (8 percent is the 18-24 share).
The entire Texas electorate is summarized on the CNN web site, and my weighted numbers essentially match theirs (adjusting for rounding).
Numbers may not add up to 100 due to missing data, etc.
Democratic Voters (32.1% of total electorate, MoE 2.4%)
Presidential Vote:
Kerry
Bush
90
10
Ideology/Philosophy (self-reported)
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
24
51
23
Gender:
Male
Female
47
53
Race/Ethnicity
White
Black
Latino
Asian
41
29
28
1
Age
Under 30
30-45
45-65
65+
20
21
42
15
Size of Place
500000+
50000 - 500000
Surburban
Small Town
Rural
31
23
31
9
5
N: 577, Approx Margin of Error 4.2%
I'm not going to reproduce the Kerry and Liberal voter cross-tabs here, though I will note an odd quirk - 32 percent of self-identified "liberal" voters reported voting for Bush (approximate margin of error 6.5%).
The exit poll data contains a number of other interesting variables (region, religion, income, urban/rural, etc.) but I am busy working on a paper this weekend, and don't have the time to crunch those numbers.
A Burnt Orange Flashback; and, let's do it right this time
By Jim Dallas
I'm once again starting to ponder quantitative election models. My last foray into this field was a couple of years ago; I ended up producing a rather-flawed (mathematically speaking) model that ended up producing a pretty good forecast, although that's probably just a coincidence.
My 2003 prediction got 48 of the 50 states called correctly; but one of the errors was a doozy. Calling West Virginia for the Democrats looks downright embarassing in retrospect:
Still, 48 out of 50 ain't bad for a model which was created by an innumerate slacker like me. In fact, this was far more accurate than my "expert" subjective/qualitative/bullshit/whatever projection I made a week before the election:
I'm intrigued by the folks over at Pollyvote, who did a really, really good job.
I'm going to go back and re-think the whole thing, now that I've got a few years to play with computers.
Steve Clemons, on his excellent Washington Note blog, noted a poll this week pitting president number 43 and president number 1:
The C.V. Starr Center for the American Experience at Washington College, founded in 1782 and located in Chestertown, Maryland, just released this interesting polling data and comment:
If George Washington returned from the dead and attempted to recapture the presidency of the United States, he would beat the incumbent President Bush by nearly 20 percentage points, according to a new national poll conducted for Washington College by the public affairs research firm of Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. Asked to choose between George Washington and George W. Bush, Republicans in the survey supported Bush by a margin of more than 2 to 1, while Democrats and independents overwhelmingly favored Washington.
Apparently because the American people don't know the real truth about George Washington:
While most Americans remember the myth of the cherry tree, fewer and fewer Americans under the age of 50 can identify any of the pertinent facts of his life. And let's face it, "First in war, first in peace, and seventh in the hearts of his countrymen," doesn't sound very impressive.
Indeed it doesn't. Let's remember that George Washington was a big government tax-and-spend "elitist" flip-flopper who married a wealthy widow, who claims to have seen real combat. Sure, his supporters might try to claim he's likable and not boring, but what do they know?
P.S. Seems like somebody beat me to this punchline. But they don't have my pictures of Hanoi George.
Crazy, reckless, and anti-social, in an honest sort of way.
By Jim Dallas
Mark Kleiman, The Poor Man, Atrios, are all flabbergasted at a recent column whereby Gregory Djerejian argues, in essence, that it would have been horribly polarizing for John Kerry to condemn torture (quoting world-famous mental contortionist Andrew Sullivan), but the fact that he didn't showed that he was a wuss and wasn't worth voting for.
Apparently after taking enough pot-shots, Dejerejian shot pack with a little post-script:
Spare me the flames that my position is absurd--ie, voting for the guy who presided over the torture mess--and against his opponent, simply for not condemning it more loudly. This episode was merely one of many (if a significant one for me) revelatory of Kerry's character. Here, in case you missed it then, is a piece on why I supported Bush contra the Massachusetts Senator.
And therein lies the key; Dejerejian knows that he's being non-sensical, but it doesn't matter because it's really about "character."
And that pretty much fits the profile. For example, "Democrats don't really mean it when they say they care about the poor" (despite, well, an occasionally decent track record) somehow justifies, for one relative, voting for the Republicans which loudly and proudly proclaim their indifference or outright antipathy towards social justice.
Now, say what you will about Kerry, but we already knew what the script was going to be before the campaign started. Because it's the same script that was applied to Gore, to Clinton, to Dukakis, and Mondale. That they're lilly-livered limousine liberals who don't believe in anything, are at best spineless debaucherers and at worst criminals.
If I ever go on Jeopardy! and Alec asks me, "this was the Republican party line about the Democratic candidate in [random year]," I know with certainty that the answer will be "what is 'he's an untrustworthy, flip-flopping extreme libertine?" (Now give me my "Cliches for $400, bee-yotch.")
See, it's not about results at all. If it were about results, a reasonable person would say, as the Poor Man does, that:
[T]he way to oppose torture is by opposing torture. That's how you do it. You don't do it by voting for the torturer, attacking the people who won't, and then saying "oh, but torture is bad." You don't do it by sitting above it all and denouncing those with more courage for their unsightly partisanship.
It really boils down to the buying into of crude stereotypes about liberals and Democrats (Kerry is a nominal member of the former group and the archetypal member of the latter), perpetuated by years of demonization and demagoguery (as well as an inability to fight back and creater a positive image by said liberals and Democrats). And now it's built up to the point that people are willing to put up with torture - even rewarding its architects! - just so long as they don't have to put up with those "lie-beral demon-crats." For a brief reminder of what I mean by torture, go here.
Now, can we agree that it's time to fight back? Do we really need any more examples of just how things have gotten out of hand?
Karl-Thomas just noted it, but 60.7% turnout in last November's election. That's really super, especially considering we still have one of the world's largest prison populations, and we don't have mandatory voting like some countries or even same-day registration (in almost all states, that is).
All Americans should pat themselves on the back for their commitment to democracy and patriotic fervor.
For the first time since 1977, the U.S. House and Senate were forced to separately debate the Electoral College vote count following challenges by Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer of California. Though the results were never in doubt, two Texans--Congresswomen Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Houston) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Dallas) were among the 31 House members who voted against certifying the results.
The Houston Chronicle notes:
The Democrats said they were not disputing the election outcome, in which Ohio's 20 electoral votes went to Bush and tipped the balance of the national election against Democratic Sen. John Kerry.
Rather, they said they wanted to press Congress to fix what they called a flawed election system that led to voter disenfranchisement in Florida in 2000, and in Ohio and perhaps other states last year.
"We, as a Congress, have an obligation to step up to the plate and correct (irregularities)," said Tubbs Jones.
Of course, Republicans including none other than U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Sugar Land), were appalled:
"Rather than substantive debate, Democrat leaders are still adhering to a failed strategy of spite, obstruction and conspiracy theories," DeLay said.
The Senate voted 74-1 to uphold the election results, with Boxer casting the only dissenting vote. The House voted 267-31.
The challenge to the Ohio vote began in the House, after Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and Congressional Black Caucus members raised questions about inadequate and jammed voting machines in Democratic precincts, the Chron noted.
Interestingly, Boxer and other Dems agree that a stronger election challenge would have been had four years ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court cast the deciding votes in Bush vs. Gore. Boxer said she didn't challenge the election in 2001 because Gore asked her not to.
John Kerry was absent from the Senate Thursday while touring in Iraq, but said he supported a close examination of the Ohio vote.
The last time the House and Senate were required to separately debate the electoral vote in 1877, when Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden.
Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County.
I'll probably get bored with it soon, but I'm flipping between the House and Senate debates on C-SPAN. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) and Sen. Barbara Boxer signed the objection to Ohio's electoral votes forcing each chamber to seperately debate the claims. I'm basically indifferent towards the challenge - I think that there were serious problems with the vote in Ohio, but not enough to have changed the outcome. However, if such a challenge raises awareness on electoral reform, then I guess it could do some good. There was legitimate cause to challenge Florida's electoral votes in 2000, and it's a shame that no senator stepped forward then, but this time there doesn't seem to be much point.
By Zack Exley. It's in response to Kos's calling him an idiot after reading an article where Zack was quoted in The Register, a UK paper where Zack claims he was misquoted.
Exley defends himself for his role in the Kerry campaign, and responds to Kos and other critics of the Kerry webteam with a long, but very informative rebuttal. I'm sure that Greg will find it to be an interesting read.
How large is the average candidate rally before the Iowa caucus? In order to find out the answer, I did a Nexis search, and dug up as many stories as I could with crowd estimates from this year. (Numbers below the fold).
Candidate - Event - Date - Crowd Size - Location
Five Candidates - Forum - June 20, 2003 - 350 - Newton
Kucinich - Peace Rally - July 12, 2003 - 100 - Des Moines
Kerry - rally - July 19, 2003 - "packed room" - Dubuque
Gephardt - Teamster rally - August 8, 2003 - 300 - Des Moines
Dean - Labor Day picnic - August 31, 2003 - 200 - Iowa City
Edwards - So. Cent. Iowa Fed. Labor - August 31, 2003 - 2000 - Des Moines
Dean - Univ. of Iowa rally - October 4, 2003 - 800 - Iowa City
Edwards - home event - October 22, 2003 - 50 - Dubuque
Dean - Howard in Howard rally- October 22, 2003 - 200 - Cresco
Six Candidates - Jeff/Jack Day Dinner - Nov. 15, 2003 - 7500 - Des Moines (Kerry: 2000 supporters)
Hillary Clinton - book signing - Nov. 15, 2003 - 900 - Des Moines
Three Candidates - forum - Nov. 15, 2003, - 200 - Des Moines
Gephardt - union rally - Nov. 29, 2003 - 100 - Dubuque
Kucinich - UNI raly - December 4, 2003 - 100 - Cedar Falls
Kucinich - UD rally - December 5, 2003 - 50 - Dubuque
Jim Dean (H.D's borther) - rally - December 5, 2003 - "two dozen" - Dubuque
Howard Dean - Gore endorsement - December 8, 2003 - "hundreds" - Cedar Rapids
Edwards - speech - December 21, 2003 - 200 - Robins
Dean - speech - January 2, 2004 - 300 - Ft. Dodge
Gephardt - speech - January 3, 2004 - 100 - Dubuque
All Cand - outside Iowa Public TV - January 3, 2004 - 200 - Johnston
Kerry - Ted Kennedy rally - January 10, 2004 - "hundreds" - Dubuque
Dean - Gore/Harkin/Dean UD rally - January 10, 2004 - 300 - Dubuque
Kucinich - native american rally - January 10, 2004 - 100 - Des Moines
Dean - Reiner/Sheen rally - January 12, 2004 - "hotel lobby" - Des Moines
Gephardt - union rally - January 12, 2004 - 400 - Des Moines
Edwards - Simpson College rally - January 13, 2004 - 300 - Indianola
Edwards - rally - January 14, 2004 - 500 - Des Moines
Edwards - NCSML rally - January 15, 2004 - 400 - Cedar Rapids
Kerry - rally - January 16, 2004 - 300 - Clinton
Edwards - rally - January 17, 2004 - 400 - Cedar Rapids
Gephardt - Clarke College rally - January 18, 2004 - 150 - Dubuque
Dean - UI rally - January 19, 2004 - 1000 - Iowa City
Latino Exit Polling Wrong, Corrected towards Kerry
By Karl-Thomas Musselman
NBC goes oops.
In a stunning admission, an elections manager for NBC News said national news organizations overestimated President George W. Bush's support among Latino voters, downwardly revising its estimated support for President Bush to 40 percent from 44 percent among Hispanics, and increasing challenger John Kerry's support among Hispanics to 58 percent from 53 percent.
The revision doubles Kerry's margin of victory among Hispanic voters from 9 to 18 percent. Ana Maria Arumi, the NBC elections manager also revised NBC's estimate for Hispanic support for Bush in Texas, revising a reported 18-point lead for Bush to a 2-point win for Kerry among Hispanics, a remarkable 20-point turnaround from figures reported on election night.
Greg and Ezra hit the nail on the head. Why the hell does John Kerry have $15 Million remaining in his campaign (not recount) account? If Kerry wants to even be considered in 2008 as a potential candidate, he ought to come up with a damn good excuse for this.
If you are a candidate in a down-to-the-wire race, you should be in debt by the end of the campaign. For a local example of this, take a look at Mark Strama. We have until December 11th to help him retire his campaign debt -- which I've heard is around $100,000. Strama won by 550 votes by the way. That's the way to do it.
Update: The DSCC and DCCC think the same way as Mark Strama. Campaign debt can be quickly reversed. Losing cannot. CNN reports:
Congressional Democrats and labor leaders also privately questioned Kerry's motives. One said he would personally ask the Massachusetts senator to donate some of the money to the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees.
Democrats lost seats in both the House and Senate on November 2, setbacks compounded by the multimillion-dollar debts they incurred in the process.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee borrowed $10 million in the final days of a campaign in which it spent heavily in Texas, where four veteran lawmakers wound up losing their seats. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee borrowed a smaller amount, more than $3 million according to officials.
Lets see here. John Kerry has about $15 Million in the bank. The DCCC and DSCC have about $13 Million in debt. Does anyone else see the obvious solution here? The DCCC may have been unsuccessful in Texas (Chet Edwards excluded), but at least they went down fighting throwing in everything they had and then some (and don't forget, the DCCC needs our help for those two pesky Louisiana runoffs next month). That's the only way to do it...
I decided to have five days of mourning following the election. So from Wednesday (11/3) through Sunday (11/7) I pretty much avoided the world and reality, and well -- mourned John Kerry's loss. I told myself I'd feel better by Sunday, and I was. I got up last Monday and made it through a relatively good week. So, I woke up this (Monday) morning with that post-election depression attitude again, and I was just sort of bumbling my way through my classes, and trying to forget how this country got screwed for the next four years. So, I asked myself what I could do. I went to watch the UT basketball game where we beat Tarleton State silly. But Brian Boddicker has graduated, so it's not quite as much fun to watch as the past couple of years. So, then I came home and watched Senator-Elect Barack Obama's convention speech for the gazillionith time, and I felt better. Even my very Republican grandfather (who lives in Illinois) likes the guy. Amazing. Obama '08 or '12 or '16 or '20 or whenever that man wants to run for president. Tell me where to sign up...
The Lasso has the top five counties for both Bush and Kerry.
The top five Bush counties are all pretty similar. They're all small, rural counties in the Great Plains / Upper Mountain West. The top Kerry Counties are Washington D.C., San Francisco, two Indian Reservation counties, and one Black Belt county.
To get an idea of the size of the Texas counties, here's the raw vote totals. Ochiltree and Roberts counties are in the panhandle. Glasscock is just east of Midland:
Ochiltree County:
George W. Bush/ Dick Cheney REP (I) 2,920 91.96%
John F. Kerry / John Edwards DEM 251 7.90%
Roberts County:
George W. Bush/ Dick Cheney (I) REP 428 91.64%
John F. Kerry/ John Edwards DEM 39 8.35%
Glasscock County:
George W. Bush/ Dick Cheney (I) REP 488 91.55%
John F. Kerry/ John Edwards DEM 44 8.25%
So, you ask, what were John Kerry's best Texas counties? All three were in south Texas.
Zavala County:
George W. Bush/ Dick Cheney (I) REP 777 24.91%
John F. Kerry / John Edwards DEM 2,332 74.79%
Starr County:
George W. Bush/ Dick Cheney (I) REP 2,552 26.09%
John F. Kerry / John Edwards DEM 7,199 73.60%
Duval County:
George W. Bush/ Dick Cheney (I) REP 1,160 28.35%
John F. Kerry / John Edwards DEM 2,916 71.27%
Last week, Bush became the first Republican president to be re-elected with House and Senate majorities since 1924. What do you think?
Beverly Banks, Systems Analyst
"So they still control the House, Senate, and Oval Office? Well, at least we still have the smug, condescending attitude that cost us the election in the first place."
Edgar Mendez, Data Keyer
"Our nation may be bitterly divided, but at least our government can agree on being ultra-conservative."
Sam Howell, Credit Checker
"What's so bad about this? Could some Democrat explain it to me in under an hour, without starting to scream or cry?"
Ted Jacobs, Dentist
"Now that the Republicans run Congress, the White House, and soon the Supreme Court, they'll just have to invent some new branches of government to dominate, as well."
Leo Watts, Custom Tailor
"The fact that 48 percent of Americans voted for a boring placeholder like John Kerry is actually a really good sign for the Left."
Erika Williamson, Interior Designer
"Hold on. I'm being text-messaged orders from my Republican congressman on how to proceed next. Put clothes in dryer? Yes, Rep. Burchardt."
Back in Doņa Ana County... And some Post-Election Thoughts
By Byron LaMasters
After a couple-of-day hiatus of trying to ignore the news and the blogosphere, I crawled my way back here. I was cleaning my apartment this afternoon, and managed to finally unpack from New Mexico. That got me curious as to how Kerry did in Doņa Ana County, where we block walked last weekend...
Kerry won:
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
JOHN F. KERRY and JOHN EDWARDS Democratic 30602 50.8%
GEORGE W. BUSH and DICK CHENEY Republican 29023 48.2%
DAVID COBB and PATRICIA LaMARCHE Green 96 0.2%
MICHAEL PEROUTKA and DR. CHUCK BALDWIN Constitution 52 0.1%
MICHAEL BADNARIK and RICHARD V. CAMPAGNA Libertarian 125 0.2%
RALPH NADER and PETER MIGUEL CAMEJO Independent 336 0.6%
Kerry's margin this year was slightly smaller than Gore's 2000 margin in the county:
Gore 23,905 51%
Bush 21,261 46%
Nader 1,158 3%
In the rest of the races in Doņa Ana County, I don't think that there were any significant changes. Democrats came within a few hundred votes of picking up a couple of state house races, but fell short in both cases. I was disappointed to see the one candidate we had the chance to meet -- challenger for state representative, Jeff Steinborn lose by about 400 votes or 3%.
Overall, it looks as if Bush's 2004 victory in New Mexico is due to the increase of his margins in the rural areas (espeically in the south) of the state. Kerry improved upon Gore's margin in Albuquerque and Santa Fe, but Bush improved upon his own margin in many of the rural counties. That offset Kerry's gains and more. It's a similar pattern nationwide. Kerry did even better than Gore in many urban counties, but that margin was offset everywhere by Republicans significantly improving on their rural margins. This ought to teach Democrats several things.
First, the Republicans decided early on in the campaign cycle to wage a campaign centered around base-vote mobilization. Democrats mobilized our urban base like never before, but it wasn't enough. No longer can Democrats pretend that we can always squeeze out a few more votes in our urban counties. We did that -- and while it was enough to carry states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan, it's not enough to get us to 270 electoral votes. Second, given this reality, Democrats must make a decision for 2008. In order to win national elections, we must aggressively court either suburban or rural voters. Both groups require different approaches, and the issues that appeal to one group are often opposed by the other. I tend to think that courting suburban voters is the way to go. That doesn't mean that we abandon rural areas, but that suburban voters offer Democrats the greatest potential.
A cursory look at Texas state representative races suggests that Democrats have great prospects with the suburban vote. Our three (assuming Vo's victory holds up) pick-ups were all in more-or-less suburban districts (Strama, Vo, Liebowitz), whereas our two losses were in more-or-less rural districts (Mabry, Ellis). Looking further into the results also shows a greater rural / suburban divide. Republicans did better than expected throughout east Texas. Max Sandlin -- supposedly even in some polls, got trounced. Meanwhile, Richard Morrison lost by a smaller margin in a suburban district. In races where one party did better than expected, Republicans did better than expected in their challenge to WD-40s (aka rural Democrats). I don't think any Democrats saw Dan Ellis's defeat coming, and I don't think many of us thought that Mark Homer or Jim McReynolds would have come as close to losing as they did. On the other hand Kelly White, Harriet Miller, Katy Hubener and others ran extremely effective campaigns against incumbent Republicans in relatively suburban districts.
My analysis of this election in the coming weeks will likely focus on the question of what went right -- espeically in suburban areas where voters responded to candidates like Mark Strama and Hubert Vo. I'm convinced that their are two keys to Democrats regaining a majority in Texas. First, is maintaining and expanding the Hispanic vote -- a challenge, but I'm confident. Second, however is the suburban vote. Right now, it's solidly Republican in this state. But, that's changing as we saw on Tuesday. By no means am I suggesting that Collin and Williamson county will carry Democrats to victory in 2006. That's lunacy. But make no mistake about it -- Democrats defeated three* Republican incumbents in suburban seats on Tuesday. That's not an accident.
It's a good speech, but nothing too remarkable. It's hard to beat Gore's concession speech though, after everything that he went through. Kerry looks a bit like he's in shock as well. I don't think neither him, nor John Edwards know what is next in their life. Both are good and honorable men that put themselves, their names and their families on the line against an unprecedented barrage of despicable and malicious attack advertisements against them by the Bush campaign, the Republican party, the Swift Boat folks, groups attacking trial laywers, etc. You have to feel for them and their families.
Back to the overall picture, I agree with most of what Jim has to say. Democrats must re-evaluate our strategies. Something went horribly wrong last night. I've spoken with various friends across the state, and elsewhere in the country in other states who are inclined to buy into conspiracy theories and fraud. That's silly. Unlike four years ago, George Bush won this election fair and square, and he has a small, yet clear popular vote mandate. I accept that.
I can't, however, in good conscience give President Bush a "fair shake". Jim writes that he has a historic opportunity to unite America. I disagree. He had that historic opportunity to do that in 2001, and he failed. How can I give a president that has governed from the far-right, that has sought to divide Americans by using the lives of gays and lesbians as a wedge issue, that has shown no interest in helping young people get a better education or well-paying jobs, that has divided Americans by states and region (the constant reminder that Kerry is a "Massachusetts" liberal -- somehow suggesting that Massachusetts, the birthplace of our nation and our democracy, is not as American as say... Texas), and has bungled just about everything in Iraq -- how can I give this president a "fair shake"? George Bush had a choice after winning four years ago, and then again after 9/11 to govern from the center and unite Americans. Both times, he rejected that course in favor of consolidating his base, and governing from the far right. For that, I can't muster a single ounce of respect for the man. There's a lot of Republicans that I can respect, and that I can give the benefit of the doubt from time to time. George W. Bush is not one of them.
So what is next? I don't know. We must follow the lead of John Edwards from today, and continue the fight. We are the loyal opposition. I hope that Democrats spend at least a few weeks reflecting on the elections before pointing fingers and blaming one group over another. I'll go on the record with this right now. John Kerry was the absolute best Democratic nominee given our options. Sure, Kerry made mistakes. Kerry was an imperfect and flawed candidate in many ways, but he is a patriot whose life and long career in public service exuded the ideals of the Democratic Party, and more importantly of America.
The Deaniacs will argue that a more principled candidate such as Dean could have made a more coherent case against Bush. I find it hard to accept an arguement that Howard Dean -- a man with little to no foreign policy experience could have made the sell to the American people that he could be an acceptable choice in leading the war on terrorism. The hawkish / conservative wing of the party will argue that Joe Lieberman would have done better. They might be right that Democrats need to move in a more hawkish foreign policy position in order to win national elections, but Joe Lieberman could never have inspired the Democratic base to give the hundreds of millions of dollars, and to volunteer on election day in the millions that made the election as close as it was.
The fact is that there is no leader of the Democratic party right now, and no obvious candidate (not to mention nominee) for President in 2008. Hillary will probably run, although I hope she does not. Edwards really doesn't have anywhere to go. I'm sure that he'll find something productive to do over the next four years -- but nothing that would give him a platform for a national campaign. If he has presidential ambitions, his best chance is probably to go home to North Carolina, watch his kids grow up a little bit, and run for NC Governor or Senate in 2008, perhaps setting up a run from president in 2012. Barack Obama is a true rising star, and has a bright future of many years of public service ahead of him. I'm grateful for that, because that man is truly a gift to our party and our nation. Here in Texas, Hubert Vo, Mark Strama and Lupe Valdez won key elections that give me hope for the future of our state -- despite painful losses in the congressional races here in Texas.
Who knows what the next four years will bring. I do fear for America, and that fear and frustration was obviously reflective in my posts over the past 12 hours or so. Sorry about all the F-bombs, Chris. As for the Bush gloaters in the comments, say what you want. I can take it. The Democratic Party has a long, painful road ahead, but it's a process Democrats need to explore together, and our fight must continue. The American people have spoken, and God Bless them. I'm glad it's all over. I need a vacation.
And apologies for the large image size. For those of you with dial-up, you know you probably should be VOTING right now instead of waiting for this to load.
It's out all over the place, but since a lot of the blogs are going down due to extraordinarily heavy traffic, I'll post what I've seen throughout the afternoon. Again, I stress that exit polls are a flawed science, and read this disclaimer before you try and draw a lot of conclusions:
NV CO NC PA OH FL MI NM WI
Kerry 48 46 49 54 50 50 51 50 51
Bush 50 53 51 45 49 49 47 48 46
If they're correct, this election is about what we've thought all along -- Ohio and Florida. If Kerry wins one of two, he wins.
Kos and MyDD have great news leaked from CNN:
Ohio - African American precincts are performing at 106% what we expected, based on historical numbers. Hispanic precincts are at 144% what we expected. Precincts that went for Gore are turning out 8% higher then those that went Bush in 2000. Democratic base precincts are performing 15% higher than GOP base precincts.
Florida - Dem base precincts are performing 14% better than Bush base precincts. In precincts that went for Gore, they are doing 6% better than those that went for Bush. African American precincts at 109%, Hispanic precincts at 106%.
Pennsylvania - African American precincts at 102% of expectations, Hispanics at 136% of expectations. The Gore precincts are doing 4 percent better than bush precincts.
Michigan - Democratic base precincts are 8% better than GOP base states. Gore precincts are 5% better than Bush.
I tend to think that applying actual turnout data to historical patterns is much more significant than exit polls. Seeing these turnout numbers in Democratic precincts gives me much more confidence than exit polls (which can be all all over the place). It just very well may be ACT and the Democratic 527s that will win this election for us.
Looking over at National Review's The Corner Blog - there's a good deal of exit polls leaking out. Speaking of the fickleness of exit polls -- they had Bush up by 8 in Ohio in the first batch of their exit polls, and then one came in with Kerry up 4.
Drudge also has exit polls that show Republicans doing well in Senate races:
Another bit of hard data that gives me comfort is the fact that in real numbers from Dixville Notch and Hart's Location in New Hampshire (that have voted and been counted), John Kerry outperformed Al Gore (from those locations in 2000). Matthew Gross analyses it. I had a similar thought this morning (although I didn't post it here) in my comment on Boi From Troy's post on the story.
Here's the trendlines (comparing Bush/Gore in 2000 vs. Bush/Kerry in 2004):
So Bush's twenty vote margin of 38-18 in these two towns in 2000 was reduced to a twelve vote margin of 34-22. That's a seven point swing towards Kerry as Bush's percentage in the two towns has shrunk from 68% to 61% from 2000 to 2004.
Update: Via Atrios is Zogby's final prediction: Kerry 311, Bush 213
Update: Kos has the 6 PM numbers:
Kerry Bush
PA 53 46
FL 51 49
NC 48 52
OH 51 49
MO 46 54
AR 47 53
MI 51 47
NM 50 49
LA 43 56
CO 48 51
AZ 45 55
MN 54 44
WI 52 47
IA 49 49
If you have young ones (or if you are a young one), why not print off this coloring-book-style Election Night map?
Teach civics with a box of crayons!
Of course, I still have the bottle of Jack I bought ... in a gas station!... in Las Cruces. And I intend to mix it up with soda and take a sip of Jack'n'Coke every time Kerry wins a state tonight.
Looking Good... I got them about 30 minutes ago with instructions not to post, but Kos has them up now, so it's good to see. I've been pretty relaxed the past several days (last week I was pretty anxious about the election). I'm confident. We will win. Say President Kerry. Start practicing.
Update: Grits for Breakfast has an election day poem for us.
Update: Jim asks me to update this thread with this important disclaimer. Exit polls are sometimes right and sometimes worthless. In 2000 they gave Bush an early lead, in 2002 they were all over the place, but in the 2004 primaries they were often relatively close.
Update: I'm getting more exit poll numbers on some non-swing states now -- no big surprises in any of them.
One of the occupational hazards of canvassing is the temptation to do silly things, like jump off of a small (3 or 4 foot) wall and on to a sidewalk below. I tried doing this Saturday night, and ended up losing balance, bouncing and spinning off the sidewalk, and into the road. With a scraped palm and a bruised shin. But I'll probably live.
At least I didn't rip a big hole in my pants doing a cartwheel, unlike a certain co-blogger...
Remember, Election Day is supposed to be cheery. Be careful. You don't want to be waiting in line at the Emergency Room when you could be waiting in line at a polling place.
Oh yeah, and I second everything Byron said about New Mexico.
I didn't have the chance to post on the New Mexico trip yesterday, but I did want to post on my thoughts on a few things.
We arrived at the Doņa Ana County Democratic Party office on Saturday morning. After a quick training, we were sent out with swing canvass lists of undecided and new voters. Most of us didn't believe that such voters existed, but sure enough there were. Most of us on the trip can point to at least a few voters where we believe that our two or three minute conversation made the difference between them remaining undecided or not voting, and voting for John Kerry. I had two specific encounters where I feel like I made a difference with an individual voter.
One young woman was concerned about health care, especially for her parents. They couldn't afford many of the prescriptions that they needed and she wanted to know what the candidates would do about that. Easy. Millions of people have lose health care under President Bush, and he has no plan. John Kerry, on the other hand, wants to give you and your family the option to buy into the same health care program that senators and congressmen give themselves. John Kerry had prostate cancer last year and he got great health care and treatment, because senators give themselves great health care. He wants your family to have the same. Young woman: "That sounds really good. I think I'll vote for change with John Kerry again". She was a little bit confused, but she told me she would vote early later in the day.
Voter #2 was a 19 year old guy concerned about Iraq. He wanted to know if Kerry would start bringing our troops home. I told him that Kerry would be able to get a fresh start with the rest of the world, and that he would do a much better job of bringing other countries into the fight to defend Iraq. Under Bush, America has paid 90% of the costs and 90% of the casualties in Iraq. John Kerry wants to bring other countries into Iraq and lessen the burden on America. Instead of giving Bush's oil buddies and Haliburton all those contracts and special deals that Bush has done, Kerry will give other nations a stake in Iraq. Voter: "Ok, I think I'll vote for Kerry on election day". He was an undecided / non-voter three minutes earlier, and today I think he's voting for John Kerry.
These were the "hard to reach" voters that we were told that in any other year they would be ignored because there simply wasn't the time, money or manpower. This year these folks were being canvassed two and three times -- and that's just by the Kerry campaign. We ran into dozens of ACT, ACORN and NAACP people while we were out canvassing. We ran into a few church groups and Bush / Cheney campaign people, but Democratic ground organizers far outnumbered Republican ground folks in Las Cruces.
On Sunday volunteers were flooding out the doors. Saturday was the last day of the swing canvass, and Sunday was the begining of the 72 hour rush to the finish. There were a couple of hundred people signed up to volunteer in their office on Sunday, and they showed up. Dozens of people were sticking precinct voting location information on generic Kerry / Edwards doorhangers that were probably put out last night. Dozens were phone banking, and several of us were sent out to election day voting locations to put up Kerry / Edwards signs everywhere we could imagine. Others in our group went out with 4"X8" Kerry / Edwards signs at busy intersections for visibility. Literally, the office was so overflowing that dozens of teams were sent out for visibility. As we left Las Cruces we probably passed at least five or six Kerry visibility teams on Main street and the road back to I-10.
Does this mean that Kerry will win New Mexico, or any other swing state for that matter? No. But it does mean that I can say from first hand experience that our ground game is absolutely phenomenal. It's by far the best I've ever seen. I know the Republicans probably have the best field organization that they've ever had, but Democrats have the best field organization ever in American history.
This is a modified version of David Leip's Election Night Timeline, with the states colored for the time-bloc when the "last" polls in that state close. For example, Texas is in the 8 p.m. block because polls do not close in El Paso until 7 Mountain Time. Also the times have been adjusted to Central Time for you Texas poll watchers.
I also added how many electoral votes are contained in each time block. In theory, we could know who won as early as 7 p.m. Central Time.
Click the map for an enlarged pop-up.
In the comments, I am informed that CNN has a similar and slightly different (probably more accurate) map. But mine has prettier colors!
Election Prediction: Who am I to disagree with Fafblog?
By Jim Dallas
Via Atrios, we find that Giblets is likely to win in an unexpected landslide today.
Since polls would never lie, I therefore have to agree with the Fafbloggers. Giblets will win every state but acursed Wyoming:
In two days Giblets will not just be your supreme leader, commander, and Giblets. He will be your constitutionally-mandated supreme leader, commander, and Giblets. In this Giblets is unstoppable! In fact Gibletsian state-by-state projections by Giblets's polling firm, Gibletsian Vision (G), show Giblets winning by a landslide - 535 to 3! (Wyoming will go to Bush. Damn you to hell, Wyoming. Damn you to hell.)
Gibletsian partisans may already begin prematurely celebrating Giblets's victory! Giblets has already commissioned a 500 foot tall sculpture of himself on horseback trampling his foes, to be entitled Triumphe d'Gibletse! On January 20th Giblets will spend all of his inauguration ceremony eating an enormous pile of gold!
But if - as some scurrilous rumors and half-mad acid-eating anti-Giblets propagandists have suggested - Giblets loses the election to John Kerry, it will be clear why. It will be because of the bias of the liberal media.
The liberal media, who again and again painted John Kerry as a weak-willed pandering flip-flopper, knowing that Americans appreciate the supple pliabilty of a flip-flopper's ever-shifting positions over the hard resolve of Giblets! The liberal media, who represented Kerry's every position as an incoherent one knowing full well that Americans would be helplessly seduced by a convoluted, byzantine rambler instead of a straight-shooter like Giblets! The liberal media, who entertained the notion that John Kerry was a traitor to his country who had deliberately wounded himself to get out of Vietnam and besmirched the reputation of his fellow veterans, knowing that Americans love a quick-witted spineless coward over a heroic anti-terror crusader like Giblets!
It's Election Day, and we're seeing some heavy rainfall here in the Houston area this morning. According to the Weather Channel, the same system will dump rain on battleground states Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri, West Virginia, and Arkansas today.
The wet forecast for Ohio worries me somewhat, since it will probably depress turnout, although the hourly forecast suggests that it will begin to clear up by about 4 p.m. or so.
Taegan Goddard says it'll rain in the (Republican) Florida panhandle, but the rest of the state should be dry.
Reading across the blogs today, there have been some interesting stories and report, official and personal, that talk about the large number of voters and the early voters. Some of that talk has been about Democrats being motivated to go early.
In our Liberal Arts Honors class of about 150 students, a place crawling with Liberals politically, the question was asked today, who has already voted? Very quickly and with amazing vigor, over 75% of the hands shot up in the room. As everyone suddenly took a breath in shock... wow.
I am willing to bet that in the on campus precincts, Kerry wins with between 63% - 68% of the vote. I'm also going to bet that there will be a couple of percentage points, i.e. more than 1% for Libertarian Badnarik. And of course, there will be some Nader and Cobb write-in votes, but I really don't feel those will amount to even a couple hundred votes.
By the way, if you live in precincts 147 or 148, meaning you live anywhere actually on the UT campus including Dobie or the Villas- you will VOTE TUESDAY at JESTER on the first floor from 7 am to 7 pm.
If you don't know where to vote or what precinct you are in, it's on your blue registration card OR you can search for your registration here and when you find yourself, it will list the precinct and location of voting.
If you already know your precint here in Travis, then go here to look it up with a handy map generator.
Quick Snap for UT students living just West and North of Campus.
Precincts
261 Pearl Street Co-op
265 St. Austin Catholic Church (on Guadalupe)
266 Lamar Senior Activity Center
274 First English Lutheran Church
277 Taos Co-op (on Guadalupe)
Vote Democratic. Vote for Libertarians against Republicans where there is no Democrat. Vote FOR the Capitol Metro Transportation Plan at the very end of the ballot, even if you vote straight ticket.
Go early as you can as the lines for student precincts will start swelling around 10-11 a.m. through lunch, and then after people finish their classes. Don't worry, if you are in line to vote even at 7 p.m. they must let you vote.
I'm on a bad internet connction, on the road here in Dona Ana county, so I'll be brief. When they say NM is a battleground state, believe it. Blockwalking today, we saw EVERY interested group trying to GOTV, and it appears houses are getting knocked many times over. The mission is truly to hunt down every last possible voter.
I thought the Iowa caucuses were crazy, but this right here is the big enchilada.
More thorough after-action reporting when Byron and I get back to Texas.
The Early Vote is cast in Texas and the results from Travis County are in.
On Friday, an astounding 30,987 votes were cast bringing the total Early Vote draw to 217,428, or 37.17% of 584,949 registered voters.
Early vote has been less than election day voting in Travis County traditionally, so even assuming a 50-50 split, my prediction is that a 70-75% turnout for the Austin area is in the cards. That's huge when you consider that in 2000, Travis county had a turnout of around 51%.
The University of Texas Campus had lines up to 150 at some points this afternoon. There were about 40 in line 15 minues after the polls closed even. There were 1984 votes cast at UT today, the highest daily vote return. All 23 early vote locations in the county cast their early vote record days today.
Well, it's that time in an election year. Bloggers wear a lot of hats. We're part-time party activists, part-time news regurgitaters and members of the notorious blog echo chamber. Most importantly, we're full time political news junkies and probably have just as good of a read on the election as anyone, so there comes a time where we ought to stick out our necks, put our names and reputations on the line, and make a prediction or two.
So, without any further disclaimers, check out the extended entry for my predictions on the Presidential race (popular vote and electoral college) and races here in Texas (and make your own predictions on this thread). The winner of each category will win their choice among several books that I have to give away.
President: John Kerry 277, George W. Bush 261 (Popular vote: Kerry 51%, George W. Bush 48%, Others 1%).
Kerry wins all Gore states except Iowa + Ohio and New Hampshire.
I think that Iowa and Florida are extremely close, but I'll give them to Bush. I think that it's certainly possible that both go for Kerry, giving him 311 electoral votes. If Bush wins, I predict that he'll win without Ohio. Ohio has been trending Kerry in the past week, and I think it goes for Kerry either way. I think a likely scenario is a Bush win with 280 electoral votes by winning the states he won in 2000 minus Ohio plus New Mexico, Wisconsin and Iowa.
My prediction for Kerry is based on two assumptions. First, minority voters turn out in very large numbers. Republican pollster Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates basically say that the race is dead even, but when adjusting poll results for a large minority turnout, Kerry's lead grows to several points. Also suggesting a very large minority turnout is the well known and unprecidented level of organization, coordination and funding of Get Out the Vote organization of Democrats and left-leaning groups.
Second, undecided voters will break for the challenger as they traditionally do in the final weekend. There's some doubt as to whether the tradition will hold in this election, because of the focus in this election on national security. I think the tradition does hold for several reasons. Polls of undecided voters show very low approval and reelect numbers for President Bush. The question of these voters is not whether they like President Bush or not. They've already decided that they don't. The question is whether John Kerry has met the threashold of acceptability on the issue of national security. It's taken a long campaign, and most importantly three debates for John Kerry to reach that threashold, but I think he's finally reached it among the type of voters who will decide this election. These voters are people who might have voted for Bush or Gore in 2000, they rallied to Bush after 9/11, they supported the war in Iraq from the begining, but they have deep reservations about how Bush has handled the war. While Kerry's lead in newspaper endorsements is unlikely to swing many votes, I believe that its reflective of the thought process of many undecided Americans in this election cycle. In recent days, I think Andrew Sullivan and The Economist well articulate the reasons why John Kerry is the best choice on national security issues, despite the flaws that some find in him. The only question in my mind, is whether the views of the Economist and Andrew Sullivan are widespread among undecided voters making up their minds this weekend, or if their views simply represent the pundit class elites who quick to overthink and overanalyse. I honestly don't know.
Texas Congressional Races:
CD 1: Sandlin 51, Gohmert 48 CD 2: Poe 51, Lampson 48 CD 17: Edwards 53, Wohlgemuth 46 CD 19: Neugebauer 54, Stenholm 45 CD 22: DeLay 52, Morrison 44 CD 32: Frost 50, Sessions 49
Sandlin has run a strong campaign, and has the NRA endorsement. He's running very strong in rural areas -- strong enough, I belive to offset Gohmert's margin from Tyler/Longview.
Lampson has a shot, esspecially if he gets a huge turnout from Jefferson County (Beaumont), but in recent weeks, it does look as if Democrats are less confident about Lampson than they are about Frost, Edwards and Sandlin. I don't have recent polling from the race, so its basically a gut feeling.
Edwards is in the best position of any Texas Democrat. He won't win in a landslide, but I think he'll win with a solid margin.
Meanwhile, Charlie Stenholm is in the worst shape of any Texas Democrat. Like Edwards, I think Neugebauer will win by a solid, but not overwhelming margin.
I hate Tom DeLay, but I do have a hard time seeing him lose in his overwhelmingly Republican district. I think the race is in the single digits as Tom DeLay has gone negative in recent days, but I still see DeLay winning.
Frost / Sessions is going down to the wire. It could go either way, so I decided to be optimistic and give Frost a one-point win.
State Representative Races
Democratic Pick-ups: Strama (Stick), Vo (Heflin), Liebowitz (Mercer).
Republican Pick-ups: Anderson (Mabry).
I'm not very confident about these picks. State Rep races are hard to peg, but this is my best shot. There's a lot of races I think could go either way: Snow / Frost in TX-1, Hughes / Glaze in TX-5, Rose / Askew in TX-45, Baxter / White in TX-48 and Allen / Hubener in TX-106. All those races will likely be decided by five points or less, so its hard to make an educated guess when I'm much less knowledgable about those races than I am about the congressional races. I could easily just call all of those races toss-ups to various degrees, however, for the purposes of my contest, which I'm asking you guys to tell me your picks, I figure that I'd give incumbents the benefit of the doubt and only pick the four challengers that I believe have the best chances of victory. I actually think that Democrats do pick up 3-4 seats in the state house, but I'm just not sure which ones they'll be. I expect to be wrong on at least several of these.
Here's the challenge. I have a bunch of books that I need to give away -- Students for John Kerry got a shipment of free books from Bill Press's publisher when he had to cancel his visit to the University of Texas. So, here's the deal. Post your predictions by the time the polls open on Tuesday (7 AM CST) in this comment thread for two categories:
Congress: Post your predictions for the six congressional races that I posted on. Then, post the margin for the winning candidate. The winner will be the person that gets the most winners right. In the case of a tie, the winner will be the person who's average margin is closest to the actual margin.
State House: Post your predictions for the races in which the challenger defeats the incumbent party. You get a point for each race you call correctly, and lose a point for every race you either 1) fail to call correctly or 2) call incorrectly. Whoever has the most points wins.
What do you get for winning?
I'll send you your choice of three books:
The President of Good & Evil by Peter Singer.
Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken.
Bush Must Go by Bill Press.
I just received the early vote chart by location in Travis County good through yesterday. One thing to note, the turnout figure is high because there are more registered voters than the number used in the spreadsheet. In fact, if you look at this site you can see that it's nearing 585,000 registered. Also, precincts 147 and 148 are the two on campus here. The active registrations before this fall for each was about 700 and 900 respectivly. They are now as of today, 1803 and 2634. You can thank University Democrats for that.
The Secretary of State has new numbers good as of yesterday. 1,534,963 total votes cast among the top 15 counties with an 18.87% turnout. When you count in the rest of the state, I would be willing to guess that actual turnout is a bit higher as the smaller counties in Texas have had a history of higher turnout than the Urban ones (like sad Harris County and Hidalgo County).
Travis County here isn't slacking at all, yesterday there were about 18,000 cast, today around 20,000 cast when you add in the by-mail votes. I expect it to climb here over the next three days. On campus, yesterday's vote, 1350, was 1 shy of the highest which was the first day of voting.
I don't know if you've seen georgewbush.org, but it is an anti-Bush site with almost the same domain and the same layout as the real Bush site and is really quite funny. Something even funnier is that a lot of Bush-Cheney employees and other GOP types accidently sent things to their friends with "@georgewbush.com" email domains to "@georgewbush.org" thus sending them to the "catch-all" account for this website. The site's creator then felt compelled to post all of these emails online at their Dead Letter Office. Really funny, right?
Excpet when it is scary. A BBC reporter found two emails referencing a "caging list." The list can be found here and here. I saw these and didn't think anything of it before I read a story on Kos that explained what "caging" is: keeping Black folks from voting. From the BBC:
A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals. Election supervisor Ion Sancho believes some voters are being intimidated
Two e-mails, prepared for the executive director of the Bush campaign in Florida and the campaign's national research director in Washington DC, contain a 15-page so-called "caging list".
It lists 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida.
An elections supervisor in Tallahassee, when shown the list, told Newsnight: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day." [...]
In Jacksonville, to determine if Republicans were using the lists or other means of intimidating voters, we filmed a private detective filming every "early voter" - the majority of whom are black - from behind a vehicle with blacked-out windows.
The private detective claimed not to know who was paying for his all-day services.
On the scene, Democratic Congresswoman Corinne Brown said the surveillance operation was part of a campaign of intimidation tactics used by the Republican Party to intimate and scare off African American voters, almost all of whom are registered Democrats.
Around these parts I'm starting to drift closer and closer to the tin foil hat crowd. I covered the phones here at the TDP Headquarters for about an hour today while our receptionist was out to lunch. In that time I answered 3 calls with serious voting irregularities/campaign suppression. At other times I have answered to hear tales of election judges wearing GOP buttons and GOP candidates standing behind the clerks' table shaking hands, computers marking Republican boxes when the voter attempted to vote Democratic, ballots being put into cardboard boxes and on and on. Something shady is going on.
I am starting to worry that traditional voter suppression is giving way to outright election fraud. I think I am probably just a little worried about things in general but we definitely need to make sure the light is shed on everything we read/hear about. If the light is on their activities it will infinitely harder for them to get away with it, so let's keep up the heat.
It's official: over a million Texans (at least 13 percent) have already voted by early ballot -- in just the "Top 15" Counties, which contain about two-thirds of the state's registered voters.
So the true number may have already surpassed 1.5 million, although we really won't know about the other 239 counties in Texas until Election Day. Again, this is just an extrapolation, so the overall statistic would still be about 13 percent turnout.
Karl-Thomas hinted that the million-vote milestone would likely be broken over the weekend, and he was correct.
Turnout so far has been highest in Collin, Travis and Williamson counties.
My observation is that usually about a third of the vote will be cast early, depending on the type of election. In 2000, registered voter turnout was 51.8%, and early vote turnout was about 20 percent.
Given similar ratios, we're likely to surpass that. In Texas I think we'll exceed 55%, and perhaps get closer to 60%.
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush faced a challenge unlike that any other president had ever faced before him. With the taking of 2,984 American lives in a coordinated terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the nation stood ready and united to follow its president. Members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to sing "God Bless America." There were no party labels that morning.
Three years later, the nation stands bitterly divided. This division is based on no mere difference of opinion. It is a deep and troubling division that is poisoning the ability to govern, to reason together.
Bush is not solely to blame for this discord. But the president and his policies have done much to feed this anger and bitterness. The president is responsible for setting the tone of his administration. The tone in Bush's presidency has been fractious, politically divisive, and aggressively partisan.
For Texans familiar with Gov. George W. Bush's bipartisan successes in Austin, this failure by the president to reach across party lines, this failure to capitalize on a national yearning for unity in the wake of 9/11, has been a huge disappointment.
[...]
It is no easy thing to endorse Sen. Kerry. Endorsing Kerry requires a leap of faith. It means believing that he will do all in his executive power to keep the country safe. That means believing that Kerry has the stature and the ability to command to lead this country in dangerous times.
We do know that Kerry stands closer to the mainstream thinking that has framed American foreign policy throughout history. Seeking, but not requiring, international cooperation to deal with world threats is an American tradition that extends back over many Republican and Democratic presidents. That international cooperation in a crisis makes American power in a crisis that much stronger. But America's position as a world leader stands weakened today precisely because of the Bush administration's arrogance in dealing with other nations.
Kerry has a long record of supporting fiscal discipline. He wants to return the nation to a pay-as-you-go policy that helped end decades of deficit-spending. But the pay-as-you-go policy was discarded by the administration and the Republicans in Congress.
Like Bush, Kerry is a free trader by natural inclination and by his record of votes. He voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has been a boon for South Texas.
But in the final reckoning, this endorsement is more about George W. Bush than it is about John F. Kerry. We feel far better about Kerry after seeing him perform capably in the presidential debates. He is not the weak-kneed flip-flopper portrayed in the Bush campaign ads. Yet the decision is a close and anguished one.
Also, via Brazoria County Democrats and Kuff is news of an endorsement of Kerry by the Baytown Sun.
Meanwhile, Sarah has information about a rally against the Statesman yesterday for their endorsement of Bush. The Lasso has some coverage. Amblongus has some thoughts on the Statesman endorsement and the View from the Left has cancelled their subscription. I've never subscribed to the Austin American Statesman myself. Give me the New York Times.
Total Vote to Date (including Mobile and Mail): 102,516
That's a turnout of 18.5% of registered voters already.
(Just to note, it started raining Saturday evening and was also generally nasty for much of Sunday, a very likely explanation for the dip in turnout. In addition, Sunday voting was on shortened hours.)
Interestingly, not all places dipped in turnout equally this weekend. As expected the UT Campus location went from a solid 1200+ a day to less than 200 a day. Most of the Randalls locations were steady from Friday to Saturday with about a 50% drop to Sunday. Home Depot actually ticked up on Saturday as did Highland Mall and Northcross Mall. The HEB locations also faired better than average.
At some point I may make a chart when the next couple of day's data is in again.
If you would like to look at the number yourself, here is the file.
Much has been said of the the stunning early vote number pouring in across Travis County. This has been seen across the state's largest counties as reported by the Secretary of State's office. Though the latest numbers won't be up until Monday, it is very likely at this point that over 1,000,000 Texans have cast their ballots, over 10% of Registered voters.
So is it happening just in the urban core of Texas? A little research from the Texas Newspapers list shows that is most certainly NOT the case.
Something is different this year. Turnout is up across the state from the biggest cities to the smallest towns. There is something fundamentally different about the electorate. (I've overheard that here in Travis County, 17% of those who have already cast ballots have never cast one here in Travis County before: think students and inactive long time registered voters.)
First, from my Hometown of Fredericksburg in Gillespie County...
An unprecedented turnout marked the first two days of early voting here this week for the Nov. 1 general election as well as for City of Fredericksburg and County of Gillespie special property tax freeze balloting.
At the county courthouse both Monday and Tuesday, lines of voters spilled out of the county commission courtroom where early in-person voting was in progress and streamed through the adjoining hallway and even at times extending out through the building's front door. (picture)
"It's been really astonishing," said County Clerk Mary Lynn Rusche who is overseeing balloting for both the general election and the county property tax freeze election.
As of 4 p.m. yesterday when early voting ended for the day, a total of 1,304 ballots had been cast Monday (666 ballots) and Tuesday (638 ballots). (County Population ~20,000)
"We've been busy since early voting started here at 8 a.m. Monday," she said. "I could tell by the high number of mail ballot requests that we had received here through last week that early in-person voting was going to be heavy, but this is far beyond what I imagined. It's really great!"
She added that many of the voters there so far this week are new voters who in the past had not voted early...
Mrs. Rusche said this week's voting is far beyond anything she has seen since 1979 when she began working in the county clerk's office as a deputy clerk and especially since no-reason early voting was allowed around 20 years ago.
More below the fold...
From Kerr County: The first day of early voting for the 2004 General Election was described as heavy, with 1,451 Kerr County citizens marking their ballots before the polls closed at 5 p.m. Monday, according to the county clerks chief deputy, Nadine Alford.
Voters lined up out the door throughout the day, waiting for a turn to cast their votes, she said.
With long lines that began at 8 a.m. Monday, poll workers had little time to break during the day, even for lunch, said Kerr County Clerk Jannett Pieper. Both the county clerks office and the voter registrars office reported busy phones and steady streams of traffic throughout their offices all day.
Also in Kerrville..In the last two weeks, 1,148 Kerr County citizens registered to vote or updated addresses, Rector said.
Impressive for a County with about 40,000 people. And by Wednesday, over 4000 had voted in Kerr County.
From Longview News-Journal:
Upshur County:"We've had a tremendous turnout," Upshur County's assistant elections clerk Glenda Cox said late Monday afternoon. "We've had 419," Cox said. "We've never had a first day like this; it's really been good today. It's really unusual for Upshur County to vote this much on the first day."
Rusk County:In Rusk County, where voters are deciding on a new sheriff and choosing a district attorney, first-day balloting was "very, very heavy," said Diana McKey, elections clerk. "We had 656 votes by 3:30," she said. "We've never had that many on a first day."
Gregg County:"The line has been from the voting table out to the door all day long," said Kathryn Nealy, Gregg County deputy voter clerk. "The election has been highly publicized and people are interested in this election."
Also, she said, her office has received three or four calls coming in at the same time all day Monday. "We've had calls all day long," she said. "The majority of the calls have been 'where do we go vote?'
From Brazoria County: On Monday, 3,288 people cast ballots, by far the highest opening day total in the county since early voting by appearance began in 1992. In 2000, 2,950 people voted on the first day....
Brazoria County Clerk Joyce Hudman was almost giddy Tuesday talking about the turnout. She said north-end voters are coming out in the greatest numbers, creating the need for more voter sign-in sheets than usual. In Manvel, they vote one sheet, maybe, she said. They voted six sheets (Monday).
Hudman said early voting usually doesnt peak until the second week. I think it will pick up next week, she said.
Hudman said shes also getting a lot of phone calls from people asking about limited ballots.
People are so motivated they are asking to vote even with limited ballots. Here in Travis County, the clerks office has told a tale about in past years, those that call asking where they need to vote if they forgot to change their registration to Austin gave up after learning they had to vote back home. This cycle, they are saying "OK" and heading out across Texas to go vote.
From Anderson County: "Lines were long during the opening day of early voting at the Anderson County Courthouse, with more than 650 people casting ballots in next month's general election...
Brown said she believed Monday's turnout was a record for the first day of voting in Anderson County.
From Lamar County: "Marlowe said she expects a record turnout both at the early voting box and in the election in general.
Weve had 1,246 ballots cast in the first three days, Marlowe said, explaining that 420 voters cast ballots on Monday; 475 Tuesday and 351 Wednesday."
From Erath County: Early voting for the Nov. 2 general election is off to a strong start according to Erath County Clerk Gwinda Jones.
People are standing in line to vote today, Jones said on the first day of early voting. We expect it to be pretty heavy today. In fact, as of late Monday afternoon, nearly 500 voters had cast their ballots early at the courthouse.
In Comal County: Comal County elections worker Cynthia Jaqua said 7,731 had cast ballots in the county elections as of Friday afternoon. Jaqua said 4,739 ballots were cast in the first week of early voting in the presidential election four years ago.
Personally, I don't care too much. Undecideds and conservative independents considering voting for folks like Mark Strama, Kelly White or Patrick Rose might be more apt to take the Statesman's recommendations on local races after seeing their endorsement of Bush. There's more to it than that, however. I received several emails earlier this week that a Bush endorsement by the Statesman was forthcoming, including this.
Just heard the horrifying rumor from a source within Cox Newspapers Inc. that Austin's paper will endorse Bush this Sunday.
We have to try to stop such an outrage.
E-mail the person responsible for this decision, publisher, Mike Laosa: mlaosa@statesman.com
Or call: (512) 445-3500
If you are horrified, let them know. If you are going to tell everyone you know, let them know. If you are willing to cancel your subscription, let them know.
If there is any chance to change this decision, we have to write or call today.
Send this to everyone you know.
I don't know the validity of the email, and I didn't post it at the time, because, frankly, there's more important fights to fight less than two weeks from election day. The Statesman endorsed Bush in 2000, so their endorsement of Bush this year is not a big surprise. Overall, the paper is relatively fair in my opinion, especially in taking on Republicans in the legislature. I don't know the background to the Bush endorsement, so go ahead and believe what you want about it.
Do you want this to be the BOR headline on November 3? I know I don't. That's why I'll be going to New Mexico with Students for John Kerry to canvass the weekend before the election. We're leaving from Austin Friday afternoon (10/29), we'll canvass for John Kerry in the Las Cruces area Saturday and Sunday, then return to Austin late Sunday night (10/31) / Monday morning (11/1). Interested? Everything except a few snacks / meals is paid for, so if you want to go, we can accomodate about 15 12 more people. Email your name and phone number to: NewMexico AT UT4Kerry DOT com if you want to go, or would like more information. Update: Jim D. is going, too. Are you?
Update: I'm getting tired of this post being on top, so I've timestamped it back to real time, but we've still got some space left in our vans. I'll post again Sunday or Monday to remind people if we have space left. And I'll be working for Strama or White here in Austin on election day for sure. I think that a lot of us who have been working on Texas races this entire cycle want to spend a weekend in a swing state to feel like we're making a difference in the presidential race. It's not just a Democratic thing. The guy I debated on UT's television station last week is going to Ohio for the GOP 72 Hour plan. So, anyway, I don't care where you go if you're a Democrat, as long as you're working in the final days to get Democrats elected.
Well, it is late at night, and I have not received the vote totals yet today for the County. But I do know of one number and that is the UT Campus vote!
To recap:
Monday: 1,351
Tuesday: 1,298 Wednesday: 1,310
No slacking of the voting here on campus. There was a huge Welness fest on the West Mall which was no doubt responsible for bumping things up a bit over yesterday's total. I talked to one of the clerks again today who said that in the 1:00-2:00 rush, there was a line clear across the lobby of the UGL (so that's what, 100-150 feet?) He said that usually that only happens just before the last days of early vote at which point the lines actually start to go out the door.
The officials here are just giddy when you talk to them. They havn't seen anything like it and are amazed that the numbers are keeping up the way they are. If this does indeed keep up ( I have this nagging feeling that it's all going to drop off but as each day goes by proving me wrong confidence grows. ) it's going to be one heck of an election on Nov. 2. I would not want to try to manage the lines in Jester that will handle both campus precincts.
In addition, I asked if they have had any problems with students not being able to vote and no systemic problems. Just one isolated case that wasn't very complicated to resolve ( I didn't get details. )
As far as the State of Texas goes, on Tuesday, 153,320 voted, almost 10,000 more than voted on Monday. On Wednesday, 147,148 early votes in Texas were cast bringing us up to over half a million in three days statewide.
Travis County?
Monday: 15,983
Tuesday: 15,857
Wednesday: 16,817
That's without mail ballots but you get the picture
They've got Iran's endorsement, Iraq's Allawi allowed himself to be used as a Bush campaign prop several weeks ago, so that begs the question: Will something in North Korea be used for the October surprise?
I thought it was a little odd that there was a line almost out the door at the Precinct 7 Constable's Office this morning (where I voted).
Turns out its not so odd this year.Top-15-County First-day early voting turnout is four times what it was in 2000! And an almost 600% increase over 2002!
(190,271 votes in 2004 versus 43,733 votes in 2000; the only change to the list was the substitution of Lubbock County with Williamson County in 2002 and 2004).
And it's not only from the news media, but from the experience of a friend of mine, Chris - who I first met in the summer of 2003 with the Dean campaign in Dallas:
We waited in line for around an hour and a half, and 2 of us voted. John was DISENFRANCHISED! He registered to vote in the UC Breezeway in August, and he hadn't yet received his voter registration card. I was like, it's fine, you're still on the rolls even if you don't have the card. He wasn't. One of his suitemates who "registered" at the same as John isn't on the roll either. They aren't exactly sure with whom they "registered" but signs point frighteningly to Get Out the Vote. This is frightening because Get Out the Vote registered 1500 some UM students. If Get Out the Vote fucked up in some way, this could mean massive, widespread disenfranchisement of UM students. The poll worker called the downtown office to verify that he was not on the roll. I told him we weren't leaving until he at least filled out a provisional ballot. This is when the poll watcher became involved. Now we had three people on the phone (the worker, the watcher, and the clerk) trying to figure out what the hell. The worker's people told him to call the elections office and confirm what they were saying--only fill out a provisional as a last resort. The worker and the clerk were saying that he's never been registered to vote in this county and that there was nothing they could do. BULLSHIT! I told them that he was filling out a provisional ballot before we leave. They said that it was pointless because as someone who isn't registered, "you are nothing to us." On our way out, we got the card of a lawyer who saw it happen, and passed by a Morales supporter who called her people cause he didn't vote.
Something was especially fishy about the situation at the poll. The worker was trying to shove her point down the watcher's throat by saying that he doesn't even have proof of address. This is where I jumped in.
"He can just sign the affidavit! The one where he writes his name and address and signs it! That takes the place of proof of identification!"
"That's right," she says.
"Okay then, why are you even saying it?!"
They made me show picture ID, which was unnecessary because I've voted in this county before. I could've used a credit card, a pay stub from work, or even a bank statement. But no, "photo ID please." I said to her that I didn't need it. "Yes, you do."
Also, I couldn't find the voter rights and responsibilities posted ANYWHERE! That should be posted where people can check it out. The poll watcher dropped the ball on this one.
Welcome to Florida ladies and gentlemen. This is only the beginning.
Damn, Chris, I wish you could bring us better news, but then again, what do you expect when you put a Bush in charge of the damn thing?
Voter Fraud is Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious (Whatever that means)
By Jim Dallas
My usual approach to such stories is, "Well there goes the media trying to cover up real Republican fraud by feeding us minor and irrelevant stories of Democratic voter fraud."
But this story is too ironic and amusing to pass up. All Americans, Democrats and Republicans, should join in wondering what the heck is going on in Defiance, Ohio...
...and then after joining in the fun, all Americans should be equally concerned by the real vote suppression going on all over the country.
Also, after an agonizingly long time, I decided to vote against City of Houston Proposition One and for the arguably draconian Proposition Two. I personally prefer broad principles of action over arbitrary numbers, and prefer the more open framework of Prop 2 accordingly. If we're going to have a revenue cap, lets at least have one based on a formula, rather than made-up numbers.
Moreover, after casting a bunch of other fairly responsible votes, I was ready to do something crazy and stupid.
I'm sure, of course, that when the City of Houston turns into a Mad Max-style distopia because of the horrible funding shortage my vote will cause, that I will get my just desserts.
Moreover, if you think I am right, I urge you to go vote and make it two votes! If you think I am a moron, go vote so you can cancel out my vote!
No, it may not have the circulation of the New York Times, but the Daily Texan came out clearly for John Kerry today. The editorial mostly attacks Bush on both foreign policy and domestic policy. On Iraq, they write that "More than 1,000 American soldiers have died for this oversight [WMD's in Iraq], and the United States continues to fight a war that has no definite exit strategy. On gay rights, President Bush has engaged in an "open attack on the gay community". On government, the Texan goes on to say that the "citizen's relationship with the government is worse than it was four years ago". The praise for Kerry isn't glowing, but it's unique insofar that the Texan writes that perhaps Kerry's greatest presidential quality is the one that Bush attacks most frequently - Kerry's supposed "flip-flops":
The Bush-Cheney campaign itself offers the best endorsement for John Kerry: He changes his mind.
When it became increasingly obvious that the war in Iraq was based on faulty intelligence and downright ignorance, Kerry was willing to call out the administration. As law enforcement officers began using anti-terrorism powers to create an unsettling culture of surveillance in America, Kerry attacked the way the Patriot act is used.
Far from being a mindless flip-flopper, Kerry has proven that he is willing to listen to public input. Kerry's brand of flip-flopping would be a welcome change from an administration that simply refuses to admit mistakes or accept any responsibility for the disaster zone it has created in the Middle East.
It's about time that someone in the White House has an open mind.
The Daily Texan endorses John Kerry for president of the United States.
After all, isn't "flip-flopping" really just synonymous for "admitting one's mistakes" - something that the current administration has failed to do.
I've said for awhile now that the Dallas Morning News would endorse Bush, but they've become so utterly predictable with their endorsements, that I even called when they would do it. So, I'll take credit for it here.
As for their endorsement, it's basically what you'd expect from a newspaper that backed Goldwater and segregation four decades ago (and a paper that a bit more recently said Bush won the first debate). You'd think they just copy+pasted the talking points from the Bush / Cheney webpage. It starts with "Americans want and need a president with a backbone steeled by courage and a heart tendered by compassion", and well you can pretty much just use your imagination to figure out where it goes from there.
Overall, I don't think that newspaper endorsements matter that much for the presidential race. I do think that they matter a lot of downballot candidates where most voters have not heard of either candidate, and independent voters will vote often vote for the candidate backed by their local newspaper. Most newspaper endorsements for president are pretty easy to track based on their previous editorials, but I do think that it is of some significance when normally conservative newspapers endorse the Democrat and vice versa. That's why it was interesting to read this:
Kerry gained the editorial backing of at least 28 papers, with Bush winning the support of 14 that we know of, giving Kerry the lead by 43-27 in E&P's exclusive tally. He has many more large papers on his side, maintaining his "circulation edge" at nearly 3-1: approximately 8.5 million to 3 million.
[...]
Among Kerry's new supporters were five papers that had backed Bush in 2000: the Bradenton Herald in Florida, the Daily Camera in Boulder, Colorado, the Columbia Tribune in Missouri, Colorado and the Daily-Herald in Arlington Heights, Ill., and Muskegon (MI) Chronicle.
Two other papers that backed Bush in 2000 announced they would not pick either candidate this year: the Tampa Tribune and the Winston-Salem (NC) Journal.
These are minor things, but I do believe that endorsements of Kerry from newspapers with moderate to conservative credentials might help some undecided voters close the deal with Kerry.
Kerry endorsements coming in the newspapers tomorrow:
The New York Times endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17
"We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. ... He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core."
The Star Tribune, Minneapolis, endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17.
"Kerry knows how to effectively join with U.S. allies to leverage the vast power of international will. ... Kerry's approach demonstrates maturity, nuance and thoughtfulness. Those qualities don't always play well in campaign sound bites. But they will serve America exceedingly well in the Oval Office."
Dayton Daily News, Dayton, Ohio, endorsed Kerry on Oct. 17.
"John Kerry is a credible, prepared, likely choice for a nation that should expect more sophistication, more skill, less failure and more focus on the problems of the American mainstream than George W. Bush has offered."
The New York Times is nice, but expected. The other two though, are major papers in major swing states. Bush will get one endorsement tomorrow in a major (although not as big as either of Kerry's) swing-state newspaper:
The Carlsbad Current-Argus, Carlsbad, N.M., endorsed Bush on Oct. 17.
"We believe President Bush should be re-elected because he is better prepared to lead the war on terror. We believe his firm conviction and stalwart stance to pursue the terrorists and destroy them is the only way America can navigate toward a secure tomorrow."
I have a sense the Dallas Morning News will endorse Bush tomorrow, but they might wait a few days. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
When Atrios calls Bush a retard, this, apparently, is an insult to the mentally-challenged.
Who am I to disagree?
UPDATE: Greg Wythe is, as usual, more interested in making legitimate debating points than in making cheap shots. I guess that's one thing we just don't have in common.
This debate, I decided to forego any attempt at journalistic objectivity and instead focused on leaving no beer bottle left behind. By about the third bottle, somewhere in the last 15 minutes of the debate, President Bush was making perfect sense. Too bad I didn't figure this out four years ago.
But as I've had the opportunity to get un-buzzed as well as get over the Astros losing the NLCS opener, I have been amazed at the media coverage of Bush's "I'm not really concerned about Osama" gaffe.
Not only has the President destroyed any last shred of credibility he may have had, he has (well, presuming that the news channels reshow it about 640 times (yeeeeeeeeeeeeargh!)) single-handedly proven Kerry's entire point about Iraq being a diversion.
KERRY WINS ABC REPUBLICAN HEAVY POLL: Of the 566 People Polled (38% Were Republican, 30% Democrat, 28% Independent) Kerry Won 42%-41%. [ABC, 10/13/04, 10:50pm]
And CNN:
Kerry 53%
Bush 39%
I wasn't sure how the instant polls would break down on this one, but I'm quite happy that this is shaping up to be a third Kerry victory, and a second blowout Kerry win. I thought Bush looked better at first, but about halfway through the debate, Kerry found his stride with solid, thoughtful answers in the second half of the debate. His answers really hit the mark in my opinion on issues like gun control, the minimum wage, GLBT issues (will the false bravado of a few gay Republican bloggers continue?) and especially the last two segments - the one about his family (the marrying up joke was great - even if it wasn't intended, Kerry proved he could laugh at himself a little bit. Also, the mammathon should be a winner with women) and the closing statement helped to reassure voters that still have doubts about Kerry on national security.
I left the television for an hour after the debate, so I'm not sure how the pundit class called it, but Political Wire calls it for Kerry as well.
Television.... check. Internet access... check. Jim ready to liveblog with me ... check Time for Kerry to go three for three... sounds good to me.
Byron L. in regular font, Jim D. in italics.
9:36: FOX News is calling Bush out on the Bush / Osama gaffe... sorta.
9:35: CNN's Carlos Watson: Kerry won.
9:30: Overall, I think tonight was Bush's best performance. He wasn't too wound up, or too peeved. Still, I wouldn't call it a Bush victory. I think the media will filter through all the facts/myths, and many of the things that Bush said won't pass the smell test.
9:30: That's the second time. What the heck are the "armies of compassion"? Does Bush want our army to be more compassionate? That sounds a lot like fighting a more sensitive war on terrorism to me.
9:29: I think Kerry has done a good job of showing to us his principles tonight.
9:27: GOD DAMNIT. Cards up 6-4.
9:26: The DailyKOS IRCers say Kerry is playing the Mom card
9:23: Bush: No sucka, John McCain is my bitch!
9:16: Little girls? Little Girls!?!? Who does Bush think he is... John Edwards?
9:11: Good way of framing the gun issue for Kerry. It's a no-win issue for him, but he framed it just about as best he could, especially by hitting at the law enforcement angle.
9:09: The first Gulf war. Smart for Bush to remind folks about that even though this debate seems to continually gravitate towards foreign policy.
9:07: What boggles me is that Bush seems to vacillate between angry and humbled. It's like he's being smacked around.
9:00: Do you oppose Roe v. Wade? No answer.
[The first hour is in the extended entry.]
8:59: That was the best two minutes for Kerry for the night. Bush just has no creditability on issues like jobs and a minimum wage. On both issues, Bush changed the subject to education within seconds.
8:58: KILL KERRY! KILL KILL KILL! Attack the House Republicans! YES! YES! YES!
8:56: Video Proof: Bin-Laden doesn't concern Bush.
8:53: Maybe the immigrants can practice their love on women.
8:52: It'll be fun to fact check that after the debate (Bush's response on the second Social Security question).
8:46: The cost of doing nothing? You mean the cost of not stopping the raiding of social security by the Republican congress?
8:45: Astros 4-2 end of 4th inning
8:42: Bush is going on his paranoid anti-commie rant.
8:41: Bush says just don't trust any news networks anymore? Ok, that might play with the conservative base, but I think beyond that it falls flat.
8:38: Smacked DOWN
8:37: Kerry has got his groove back
8:35: Buggy and horse?
8:34: HAHAH Bush just cowered before Kerry.
8:30: Good to see Kerry go on the record saying that homosexuality is something that is decided at birth, and on the record for various benefits for gay and lesbian couples, although it would have been nice to see a follow-up on what he meant specifically by that.
8:29: YOU ARE CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION TO DENY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE, Mr. BUSH! SHUT YOUR FUCKING PIEHOLE! Kerry seems a lot more sincere in answering this question.
8:28: ASTROS UP 4-2! Go Astros!
8:25: Shocker on this one: "Ted Kennedy is the conservative senator from Massachusetts".
8:21: Whooooow! My brain cells just can't function that fast!
8:21: Tony Soprano - Now that was a good line, JFK
8:18: OK, I'll be fair. Bush is going into his canned "liberal liberal liberal!" attack
8:17: Wow. We hear "Massachusetts" and "tax gap" at the same time. I guess Bush forgot about that timber company that he owns again.
8:15: I'm inclined to agree. Kerry's trying to get every zinger into the first thirty minutes. It almost seems like what Bush did in the first debate.
8:14: Kerry's off key, he's throwing in irrelevant attacks instead of answering question.
8:12: Now George Bush should know something about bait and switch.
8:11: Kerry personalizes it. Those kids in Arizona, and oh yeah, two other random states, Ohio and Wisconsin.
8:11: Blame the lawyers
8:10: 1) Bush feels our pain, he didn't get a flu shot. 2) Flu vaccines are tied to tort reform? Huh?
8:09: Bush is lying already WTF is Bush talking about?
8:08: Ex-a-ger-a-tions? It'll be easy to bring up some "Al-Qaeda is not the priority" quotes post-debate.
Pandagon has it now:
BUSH: "And [Osama Bin Laden is] just hes a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. Hes the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match So I dont know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just dont spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I I truly am not that concerned about him."
[Bush Remarks, 3/13/02]
8:07: Nuisance. That was quick.
8:04: Both are wearing red ties! Fashion faux pas!
7:57: Also liveblogging, Swanky Conservative, Vodka Pundit, Washington Monthly and Pandagon.
I'm not going to go on about how blatantly obscene Sinclair Broadcasting is for planning to air what is effectively a one-hour Swift Vet liars infomercial (who have equated their opposition to Holocaust deniers), because it's being effectively combated by most of the major lefty bloggers.
I'll simply direct our readers to the Boycott Sinclair Broadcast Group Advertisers webpage where you can call Sinclair advertisers and urge them to stop advertising on Sinclair.
For more information just check out Kevin Drum, Kos, Atrios and Josh Marshall and scroll down to get all the latest. Don't forget Media Matters as well. The five of them seem to be leading the charge, so follow their lead...
I for one am getting pretty tired of people carrying on about the "October Surprise," as if it was a certainty. You know, the October Surprise comes around every four years, sort of like locusts, or sunspots, or disco.
There is no good reason to suspect that an "October Surprise" is inevitable, and indeed, the October Surprise could very well be the lack of anything surprising at all.
Specifically, I am getting kind of tired of people saying that Osama is going to be produced on schedule. Now that's mighty rich, because what sense it would make at this point? Half the country is predisposed to believe such as "surprise" would be a gimmick. And I'm not sure what it would accomplish, either; sure, we may have "75 percent" of Al Qaeda, but as soon as we got 100 percent, the justification for permanent war would evaporate. And considering that is Bush's only, uh, "real issue"...
I'm not naively suggesting that nothing will happen; I am suggesting that it is naive to assume it would be so obvious and gaudy as "The October Surprise," you know, as obvious as a swarm of locusts, sunspots, or disco enthusiasts.
Kevin Drum creates a quantifably "deception index." Currently Bush is leading Kerry by a 2-to-1 margin.
Reading the comments, the contrast becomes even more clear. The Bush haters are wondering how Kevin can consider Bush's deceptions about Iraq to be so minor ("Over a thousand dead troops is only worth 15 points?"). The Kerry Haters are latching on to pathetically small things ("The $84 was for oil, not for timber!") to try to prove these somehow prove moral equivalency.
Email Sinclair Broadcasting group and urge them not to broadcast the anti-Kerry attack film Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal between now and the Nov. 2 presidential election.
David D. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer
E-mail: comments@sbgi.net
Contact your local Sinclair station
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030
410-568-1500 (Main Telephone)
410-568-1533 (Main Fax)
Jib Jab has a new video - "Good to be in D.C." Not as good as "This Land", but funny regardless. Some might view it as anti-gay with Jim McGreevey prancing around like a nelly queen, but it's meant to be a satire, so yeah, if you have a big problem with it, you should probably lighten up a little bit (and it's about time that John Ashcroft be outed anyway).
This is good to see. The DNC has just launched an $8 Million campaign targeting young voters in placing ads on Comedy Central and VH1:
Today, the Democratic National Committee formally unveils an ad that's unlike any other this year. The 30-second message, called "On the Road," is the first major ad to target young voters, a key bloc for John Kerry. The commercial ran this weekend during NBC's Saturday Night Live in 13 close states, New York City and Washington, D.C. Today, it starts a one-week run during Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and on VH1. It's one of three DNC ads that the party will spend about $8 million to air this week.
Watch the ad over at: What Makes George Tick.com and vote in their survey. Is it, 1) He Doesn't Get It, 2) He Doesn't Care or, 3) He's Not on Your Side. How about all of the above?
Seriously, it's good to see the DNC specifically targeting young voters. Whether it'll do much to increase turnout or swing young voters towards Democrats is debatable, but at least they're trying.
The Houston Chronicle says that at least one Houston oil man was in cahoots with the "UN pussies."
Here's what I suspect the true story is on this oil-for-food scandal.
The oil-for-food program was corrupt, but everybody was getting a cut of it. By 2001, the whole sanction regime was falling apart, and that was good for business.
But then, somebody got a little greedy, and so we had to make an offer they couldn't refuse.
So yes, the Duelfer report does explain our justification for war, I think, if by justification you mean "it proved that this really was all about oil."
Of course, I'm stating this as suspicion, not as fact.
Dave Neiwert has his own spin on Bush's Dred Scott ramblings. What I find compelling here is Neiwert's linking of "strict constructionism" with "legal formalism," which lit up my student's brain when I read it. Yes, yes, Neiwert is making a totally obvious point, but you know I've been spending more time trying to learn about simple things like the statutes of fraud and personal jurisdiction, and less time pondering the forms. But what the hell.
If I've learned anything about the philosophy of law so far in this first semester, it is that for atleast a century almost all credible legal scholars have considered legal formalism to be an archaic, obviously wrong theory that was laid to rest years ago. Sort of like how biologists and spontaneous generation (a theory that rose and fell contemporaneously with legal formalism), or geographers and the flat-earth hypothesis.
A few weeks ago Dean Rapoport, who is probably both the smartest and also most perky person I have ever met, came down to lecture our contracts class on Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon. She almost had a joygasm when lecturing about Judge Cardozo's famous line in the opinion that begins with the phrase "[t]he law has outgrown its primitive stage of formalism when the precise word was the sovereign talisman..."
So here we have Bush, apparently endorsing a return to legal formalism. Building a bridge to the nineteenth century, if you will. But atleast he thinks slavery is bad; his "ownership society" proposal notwithstanding.
I wonder if Bush had any idea what he was talking about. I know that I surely do not.
DailyKOS has a little diatribe about econometric models of presidential elections this morning. In it, he says, "[t]o be fair the modelers have always taken their models less seriously than the general public."
The comments, I think, put it better. Here's what user DemfromCT says:
[A] tool in the hands of the ignorant can be dangerous. I don't think the press should be allowed to get their hands on a weapon of math instruction.
As someone who has tried to approach econometric modelling as an actual attempt to nail an election (as opposed to prove some generalized point about human nature), I have this to say: naive regression-based modelling is, essentially, a really underpowered means of grappling at the problem of election prediction.
I share the sentiment that (I think) Chris "Empirical Left" Bowers over at mydd shares: that statistical analysis of political events is a worthwhile endeavor. But I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that it will ever yield a highly-reliable prediction model. Any prediction model that works significantly better than a coin-flip, I'd be pretty happy with.
Anyway, I gave up in the spring on my project, simply because I didn't have the time to finish it. I will probably start again sometime before the 2008 election, and I have some interesting ideas I'd like to play around with.
And we had Britain, and Italy, and Poland, and Ukraine, and Fiji, and Vanuatu... and then we went into Iraq to take down Saddam! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEARRGH
Aside from the timber flap, the weirdest moment of the debate for me was definitely when Bush cited the Dred Scott decision while simulaneously praising strict constructionism.
No doubt, the Scott holding was bad (Atrios explains), but arguably it was also the "strict constructionist," or at the very least, the conservative holding. I remember studying the case in high school and college, and no doubt it is a stinker, but it was not one that was premised on radical activism but simply very bad logic in defense of the status quo.
Look, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have given Dredd Scott the time of day. And lest we forget, the holding in regards to the Missouri Compromise was premised largely on a strict (mis)reading of the Constitution.
Consider these West Headnotes to the case:
92 Constitutional Law 92II Construction, Operation, and Enforcement of Constitutional Provisions 92k11 General Rules of Construction 92k16 k. Matters Extrinsic to Instrument in General. Most Cited Cases
No change in public opinion or feeling in relation to Negroes should induce court to give to words of Constitution a more liberal construction in favor of Negroes than such words were intended to bear when instrument was framed and adopted.
92 Constitutional Law
92II Construction, Operation, and Enforcement of Constitutional Provisions
92k44 Determination of Constitutional Questions
92k45 k. Judicial Authority and Duty in General. Most Cited Cases
Duty of court is to interpret Constitution as framed with best light court can obtain on the subject and administer Constitution as it finds it according to its true intent and meaning when adopted.
Incidentally, this last headnote seems to just about sum up George W. Bush's favorite justice, Antonin Scalia's "original intent" theory. The legacy of the Scott case lives on today.
Frankly, I can't help but believe that the sort of judges Bush would appoint are precisely the ones who are likely to give us "the next" Dred Scott decision.
This will be the thread for debate liveblogging tonight. I think I've got Jim committed to liveblog with me (he was going to on Tuesday, but fell asleep. I guess law school will do that too ya).
9:34: "Saddam would still be in power and the world would be a lot better off."
9:33: Kerry's greatest strength has been how he has humanized every issue.
9:30: Ouch. This may just be the key to the night. Bush had the perfect chance with the last question about mistakes to be humble and to show humility. He failed. He is certain, but also wrong.
9:29: I think this was a grave mistake for Bush, to take a "yes or no" position on abortion. Most Americans have complicated feelings about abortion, and I think there will be broad sympathy for Kerry's position.
9:24: This is the moment I've been waiting for.
9:23: Ok, I'm reassured. Bush won't bring back slavery. But he opposed the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, and his running mate voted against sanctioning South Africa over Apartheid and against a holiday for Martin Luther King Jr.
9:22: "I would pick somebody who would pick me"
9:21: Oh here he goes pandering to the troglodytes.
9:20: Oh thank God, he's not for picking pro-slavery judges.
9:19: Bush is giving a fine response on the stem-cell question, although I think he is exaggerating the number of lines.
9:18: Cool. Pandagon is liveblogging after all.
9:12: Wood. I'm sure Wonkette will have something to say about that.
Update: She does: "Did the President of the United States really just ask Charlie Gibson if he "needed wood"? Where's Bob Dole when you really need him. . ."
9:11: Now that was odd. Need some wood?
9:10: Oh heck yes. Make him defend the PATRIOT Act.
9:08: Speaking of folksy. It's an interesting tack that Kerry is taking. He's reminding everybody that he, President Bush and Charlie Gibson are wealthy, but that he's on the side of ordinary people, and Bush isn't. I think it's effective. Kerry is an elitist. He can't deny it, and he isn't denying it. But he's effectively pivoted to say, "Neither of us is one of you, but I'm fighting for you - President Bush is not".
9:07: I like how Kerry keeps referring to Charlie Gibson and people in the audience. He seems like a real thinker.
9:05: Bush's "folksy" manner is backfiring. He looks like a goddamn moron.
9:04: Damn. Orwell.
9:03: Here's George Dubya Jetson again. I don't want a hydrogen car. I want a flying hydrogen car.
9:02: Did bush just say he was a good steward of the land? *gag*
9:02: "Bush has a record! Look at his record!" - lies.... all lies....
9:01: Bush's argument would be stronger if he actually could give examples of Kerry's "liberal" record. Kerry explains what he's done and what he'll do. Bush simply smears with a broad brush.
[The first hour of the debate in the extended entry.]
8:59: Just in case anyone forgot, George W. Bush is not a fiscal conservative. In fact, he's more liberal on fiscal issues than Carter and Clinton!
8:53: I am a Keynesian, or I would be, if I could pronounce "Keynesian"
8:52: The blame game. No problem is Bush's fault. He'll take the credit for all the good news, but when there's bad news on the deficit, he plays the blame game. Blame Clinton. Blame 9/11. Blame the war. Blame tax cuts. How about taking some responsibility for once?
8:51: That's right, Bush. Beat up on the trial lawyers. It didn't work for Launch Faircloth, it won't work for you.
8:50: Ah, the baseball anologies. Bush is only 0/2? He's worse than that!!
8:49: You know why Kerry is smiling? Because screaming "liberal" is no longer viable politics in a post-Bush nation.
8:47: Senator Kennedy?
8:45: JohnKerry.com!!!
8:44: In your face, Mr. President.
8:43: On to the domestic issues, and Kerry is kicking ass. Bush is making up excuses for selling out to the drug companies: they're unsafe, they're not approved by the FDA, Kerry hasn't done anything...
8:38: Oh yeah, this woman is REAL undecided. He worries because he is optimistic... and a screenshot.
8:36: Clear, concise, perfect line: "The president chose tax cuts for the wealthy over protecting the homeland".
8:34: Poland?!?!?!
8:32: Ok, Angry Bush is back!!
8:31: Show-off. :-D Kerry likes to rattle off names
8:30: Rumors on the Internets?
"We don't need mass armies anymore"??? Then why is there a backdoor draft of our national guard and reservists.
8:29: So far this has been fairly free of gaffes. Both the president and the senator have done quite well.
8:26: I think that Bush has replaced his angry, annoyed look with a confused, perplexed look. It's rather amusing. CNN is doing regular cutback to both candidates while the other is talking. OMG - "That answer almost made me want to scowl" - that joke was totally FLAT. Haha.
8:22: OMG, Did Bush just compare himself to Ronald Reagan?
8:17: 17 Minutes to bring up "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time". And Bush got it in the Wrong order.
8:13: Well, it took 13 minutes to bring up "the global test". Bush: "the kind of mindset that sanctions were working"? Uh, Mr. President, the sanctions were working. Good Kerry response. Bush should have taken the opportunity instead to bring up Kerry's vote against the 1991 Iraq war (after Kerry brought up supporting Clinton's intervention in the Balkans in 1998).
8:11: Bush sounds like he's about ready to pop.
8:08: More Dean bashing by Bush. Also liveblogging are Outside the Beltway and Wizbang.
8:06: It took two minutes: "A campaign of mass deception"
8:04: Wow. They like talked to each other for several seconds on the way out. If you didn't know better, you'd think they were old buddies at a class reunion. But impression will change quickly.
7:58: Looks like there won't be any liveblogging from Pandagon. Other livebloggers from the veep debate appear to be back:
Bull by the Horns, Washington Monthly and Vodka Pundit.
7:55: Alright. Jim and I are ready to go liveblogging. I'll be in regular type, Jim will be in italics.
Tonight's guest.... Bill O'Reilly. Ought to be hilarious. If you miss it, watch it at midnight.
Update: Ehh.. it's ok. Atrios's Presidency 101 test that Bush failed is entertaining me more, though.
Update: God. Bill O'Reilly is trying to pretend like he's an independent moderate - if he talked like this on FOX News, he'd never keep his show on the air. Geez. I was hoping for a good smack down by Jon Stewart, but he didn't have the chance as O'Reilly decided he'd audition for his potential 2006 U.S. Senate race against Hillary than to defend his "stoned slackers" remarks about the Daily Show audience.
Blistering attack by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), the youngest Democrat in the House on the possibility of a draft. The man was on fire. On fire... damn! (Via Smart Ass and BOP News).
I was actually interviewed by a Dallas Morning News reporter yesterday about the draft - we'll see if and when they publish a story about the issue. I don't think that a draft is extremely likely, but I do believe that the reelection of George W. Bush will make it more likely, and that, I believe is a legitimate election issue in which many students and young people are very concerned (Perhaps that helps explains Kerry's twenty-five point, 56-31% lead among voters age 18-29 in the Zogby poll released today, also via Smart Ass). The Bush doctrine of (nearly) unilateral action and preemption has already led us into a backdoor draft of our National Guard and reservists. The logical next step would an actual draft.
Update: Democracy for America has an anti-draft petition.
The Green and Libertarian presidential nominees were to debate today on the West Mall of the UT-Austin campus (apparently it was moved inside to the Union, not sure why). I was planning on listening to a few minutes of the debate as I passed by the West Mall, but taking a two minute detour to get to the Union really just wasn't worth my time to listen to two candidates - one of which is not even on the Texas ballot (Green nominee, David Cobb), and the other is a tax evading, UN bomb threatening, prisoner's muscle atrophying, constitution shreading nutcase who doesn't even drive anymore because he refuses to get a driver's license (Libertarian nominee, Michael Badnarik).
The Daily Texan has the story:
The Longhorn Libertarians and UT Campus Greens are hosting a debate between the two candidates in hopes of informing students that they have more than the two traditional party choices when voting. Ben Philpot of KUT radio and Daily Texan associate editor JJ Hermes will be moderating the event for the first 30 minutes. The second half of the debate will be open for questions from the audience.
The debate is targeted at allowing the audience to get honest views from the candidates about issues that the two major parties have avoided, said Bill Holloway, UT Campus Greens liaison and debate organizer.
Philpot said today's event will focus on similar issues as the Bush-Kerry debates, but he also plans to bring up topics specific to Texas, such as education, health insurance and immigration. Philpot said this debate will differ in that candidates are likely to agree on more issues, because they both disagree with the Democrat and Republican parties.
I'm all for a serious debate of the issues, and I'll admit that there's a good number of key issues in which the two major parties largely agree, and opposing views are often not heard (Israeli / Palestinian conflict, the drug war, the Patriot Act, the influence of corporate power, the death penalty, immigration, etc.). But as someone who doesn't really take third parties seriously in the first place, the third parties vying for the presidency this year give third parties a bad name.
Update: Speaking of the irrelevence of third parties, Nader failed for like the eighth time to make the 2004 Texas ballot today with his rejection by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Via Kuff).
Texans will make a difference in this presidential election, even if Texas isn't in play. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports:
The Kerry-Edwards campaign in Arkansas alone has roughly 100 volunteers from out of state, with most of those about 75 coming from Texas and working in the Texarkana office, said John Emekli, spokesman for the campaign in Arkansas. "I think the people in this region of the country know Arkansas is a battleground and can be won," Emekli said. "They can certainly make a difference in Texas, but they want to come somewhere they can swing the election to Kerry and Edwards."
Some volunteers are students who take time off from school, some are retirees, and others use vacation time, Emekli said. He said a dozen volunteers from Texas were expected in Little Rock this weekend.
If any southern state (excluding Florida) is truly in play, it is Arkansas. If Clinton's up to it, I'd have Kerry unleash him in Arkansas in the final weeks of the campaign.
Update: Speaking of Arkansas, it's a statistical tie according to the Wall Street Journal polling today, with Kerry leading by 0.2%:
Dick Cheney lied last night when he said that he met John Edwards for the first time before the debate.
We immediately learned that they met twice; at a prayer breakfast in 2001, and at Elizabeth Dole's swearing in ceremony (as opposed to the Patrick Leahy swearing "at" ceremony this summer).
Now, the Gadflyer reports on a third meeting before last night:
We hear this from Tim Russert:
"On April 8 of 2001, they were on 'Meet the Press' together. Dick Cheney first and then John Edwards after him. They stopped and shook hands."
The fact that Cheney fudged the truth for the sake of a good line is true to form. But let's think about this for a moment. This is what Cheney would have said if he was being honest:
"Once a week, I come up to the Senate to have lunch with Republicans. I don't talk to Democrats, because you're the enemy. If I do find myself at some kind of event with them, I'm as likely to say 'Go fuck yourself' as hello. And yet, we haven't had the chance to get together. That must be because you're not doing your job."
It doesn't really matter to Dick Cheney, whether it's big issues like Iraq and Halliburton, or small issues like factcheck.com and how many times he's met John Edwards. On issues big and small, Dick Cheney is a serial liar.
Update: For a list of all the Cheney lies throughout the debate, check out Washington Monthly.
Dozens of Business and Economics Professors Blast Bush Economic Policies
By Byron LaMasters
Max Speak has the letter. Here are some excerpts of the letter signed by seven professors at UT's McCombs School of Business among dozens others.
The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. [...]
Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse.
[...]
These sorts of deficits crowd out private investment and are politically addictive. They also place a heavy burden on monetary policy and create additional pressure for higher interest rates by stoking inflationary expectations. If your economic advisers are telling you that these deficits can be defeated through further reductions in tax rates, then you need new advisers. [...]
What is called for, we believe, is a dramatic reorientation of fiscal policy, including substantial reversals of your tax policy. Running a budget deficit in response to a short bout of recession is one thing. But running large structural deficits over a long period is something else entirely. We therefore urge you to consider the fiscal realities we now face and the substantial burden they are placing on our economy. [...]
At the moment, the most commonly accepted measure of inequality the so-called Gini coefficient is far higher in the United States than in any other developed country and is continuing to move upward. We dont know where the breakpoint is for the U.S., but we would rather not find out. With all due respect, we believe your tax policy has exacerbated the problem of inequality in the United States. [...]
Josh Marshall has the best speculation I can find.
To recap:
Cheney mentions "Factcheck.com" during the debate as an independent non-partisan location where viewers see a defense of Cheney's connections to Halliburton.
Next, millions of viewers (including myself) head over to Factcheck.com, overloading their bandwidth. When the dust cleared, we all realize that it's a dead site. Bought up by someone who used the random hits the site got to make money via ads.
Right after the debate, "Factcheck.com" starts redirecting to "GeorgeSoros.com". It would be interesting to know if Soros owned FactCheck.com or if a Democrat owned it an immidiately redirected it to GeorgeSoros.com. Either way, some one was on top of things - and it wasn't Dick Cheney.
He meant to direct viewers to FactCheck.org (yeah, old farts just don't seem to grasp the difference between that .org and .com thing). And what does FactCheck.org have to say:
Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.
[...]
Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "FactCheck.com" -- and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton.
In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right.
[2:14: Calling it a night here. Be sure to check the veep debate thread below if you missed it, and while you're at it, check out the DNC video.]
12:10: Politicalwire calls it for Edwards, as does Andrew Sullivan, Kevin Drum and Pandagon (slightly). I'm still calling it a draw, although I'd like to see more polls on it. I have a sneaking suspicion that Edwards may have had a positive impact with women (the CNN undecided group seemed to like him, and anecdotal evidence that I've seen here and there tonight seems to suggest that this might be the case).
11:03: Here's a line for Wonkette or Boi From Troy: "I love it when you tease me like that, Jeff" - Aaron Brown on Jeff Greenfield's headline on Newsnight.
10:52: Keith Olberman drew the opposite conclusion that I did. He called it a draw (as do I), but seems to give Edwards points on foreign policy and Cheney points on domestic issues. Huh?
10:47: Anyone have any snap poll numbers?
CBS gives Edwards the edge:
A CBS News poll of 169 uncommitted voters found that 41 percent said Edwards won the debate, versus 29 percent who said Cheney won. Thirty percent said it was a tie.
Of course, the wingnuts will dismiss it as liberal BS. I mean, obviously, Dan Rather's behind it...
Update: Got some more:
ABC: Cheney 43, Edwards 35, Tie 19% among debate viewers.
Voter Preference (before): Bush/Cheney 51, Kerry/Edwards 48%.
Voter Preference (after): Bush/Cheney 50, Kerry/Edwards 49%.
Internals of those polled: Republicans 38%, Democrats 31%, Independents 27% (509 registered voters, 4.5% margin of error).
So Cheney won by 8%, but the poll had a 7% GOP edge. So, basically a draw in that poll.
10:40: Cheney Lied. Cheney recognized Edwards at a prayer breakfast, and Edwards escorted Sen. Dole (R-NC) when she was sworn in by Dick Cheney. I guess Cheney is either very antisocial or just has a bad memory.
10:38: Another live poll list on Atrios. Vote for John-John.
10:26: Sen Leahy (D-VT): "The Vice President comes up every Tuesday, but he only talks to Republicans" - on why Cheney had never met John Edwards until tonight.
10:00: Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and girls, its Jon Stewart time!!
Remember to vote in the Houston Chronicle poll. That's the one poll Bush won last Thursday.
9:56: Ok folks. This dkos diary has all the polls we should vote in. You know the drill. Vote for John-John.
9:54: Yay. Women like Edwards. 9/10 in CNN's focus group when he talked about outsourcing.
9:47: Atrios has the post-debate GOP conference call information up, but it looks like the GOP learned from last week. My friend just called and the operator asked for his name. I guess the BC04 team decided to give them a list of the people invited. It might have just worked to make up a name, but we were too slow.
9:38: Cheney got the best jabs in on foreign policy. Edwards took too long to go on the offensive (Haliburton) and defend Kerry's record that Cheney ripped into. On the domestic front, Edwards dominated. Cheney's hard to listen to. He's dull, boring, uncharismatic. You can tell when he's on an issue that he cares about (Iraq, terrorism), and when he's just going through the motions (domestic issues).
9:29: Did Cheney just mention how the president worked across the aisle in Texas? And how did (Former Texas House Speaker) Pete Laney get treated for working with Bush? Oh, ya know, President Bush sat on the sidelines while Tom DeLay used illegal corporate money to take over the Texas House for Republicans, where Tom Craddick has run the most partisan, autocratic legislature in memory.
Zell Miller? Democrat? The dueler? Huh?
9:25: Bush/Cheney flip-flops: It's about time someone calls them out on it on national television. Thank you, John. (I blogged on this last week).
9:20: "I don't talk about myself very much". That was just soooo self-deprecating Mr. Cheney.
9:16: The experience question. And Edwards... please, say the line that he has the exact same experience in government as George W. Bush did in 2000. It's such an easy and revealing line.
9:13: Cheney wasn't aware of African-American HIV rates? Has he been living in fantasyland? I wonder what Cheney's record on HIV was while he was in Congress in the 1980s? I doubt that he was any more progressive on AIDS than he was on Apartheid.
9:10: Cheney talking about tax loopholes? I think we just entered a parallel universe or something.
9:06: Clintonesque. The swimming pool drain company story. Talking about the poor little girl who was deformed by the evil corporation that was too cheap to fix it with a two cent screw. It's the type of human connection that has failed Dick Cheney tonight. He's hit Kerry hard and effectively tonight, but I don't think he's made any deeper connection.
9:04: Nice, Cheney was speachless. That made me happy. There was nothing further that he could say to bolster the presidents case on the Hate Amendment other than to simply thank John Edwards for his kind words about his family. Cheney's silence demonstrated the complete inability of the Bush administration to defend the Federal Marriage Amendment. His first comments were rather incoherent, but thankfully, Cheney chose loving his daughter over supporting his boss's position in his final remarks.
9:02: Gay marriage... does Dick Cheney hate his daughter? First, he's totally incoherent.
As for Edwards - very nice. Remind all the wingnuts that Cheney has a gay daughter, then talk about Civil Unions and opposition to the Hate Amendment. He's better now, making the case for why gays deserve equal benefits.
[I've moved the first hour of the thread into the extended entry.]
8:56: Cheney talking about jobs again? Rolling back tax cuts for people making $200,000 will hurt small businesses and lose jobs?
Fact check: Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans in 1994, and 22 million jobs were created. Bush cut taxes for the fourth time this week, and still... net job loss - worst since Herbert Hoover. Who makes up this stuff? It's a bunch of right-wing Kool-Aide.
8:52: Old data? I guess that since it happened in 2002 or 2003, then Bush/Cheney isn't responsible for it? Huh?
8:50: Nice jab by Edwards. How did a jobs/poverty question turn into a talk about education? Because the Bush adminstration has done nothing about jobs, health care or poverty, so they try to change the subject and talk about a subject (education) that they've done little about, but one that they can try to convince enough people that they've tried to do something.
8:47: Another low blow by Cheney. "Senator Gone" (from Edwards "hometown newspaper? Any comment on what Bush's "hometown newspaper" had to say last week)? "The first time I saw you is tonight". He ought to look in the mirror. Where has Dick Cheney been over the past month as the president of the Senate? Has he been presiding over the Senate? Even on Tuesdays? Hell, no. He's on the campaign trail.
Ok, good. To recap: Kerry voted against the same weapons that Cheney opposed. Cheney voted for Apartheid.
8:41: I guess everyone's going to Factcheck.com. I can't open it.
Also liveblogging is Bull by the Horns. Thanks for the trackback.
8:38: Sanctions don't work, but we need stronger ones in Iran? Huh?
8:31: "34 Countries then, 30 today"? You've got to be kidding me. That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. What percentage did our allies pay then and now?
Thanks, John. $5 Billion vs. $200 Billion.
The sacrifice of our Iraqi allies? Wasn't their oil supposed to pay for everything? Oh wait, it went to Dick Cheney and Haliburton instead.
8:27: Yes, Dick, the record does speak for itself. Thanks, John. I would have liked to have seen Haliburton and the remarks about Cheney opposing the same weapons systems as John Kerry 10-15 minutes ago, but I'm glad it made it's way into the debate.
Also liveblogging the debate: Rooftop Report - thanks for the trackback. So is Swanky Conservative.
8:24: Does Dick Cheney have a single positive thing to say about anything? Is he going to start defending his record, or keep attacking. Time to change the topic, John. Talk about that "long resume"...
8:22: Snarky! "You probably weren't there to vote for that"! Damn! I guess he took his anger management from Bush in the first debate. My friends I'm watching this with are mocking him now. He looks evil. And he kept looking at his notes. Look at the camera, Dick!
8:20: This is why Edwards is on the ticket. The "global test" isn't about giving Paris a veto over U.S. security, it's about returning to the type of leadership that the United States has had between World War II and the end of the Clinton administration.
8:18: Well, Edwards responded to the "global test" thing, but not about Kerry's record of opposing weapons systems that Dick Cheney also supported.
8:14: Good retort by Cheney (after a slow start and not answering the first question). He said what President Bush should have said last Thursday night. Attack Kerry's record on defense since the 1970s. I was shocked that Bush didn't mention how Kerry voted against the first Gulf War when Kerry alluded to it during their debate. I was surprised Bush didn't mention Kerry's opposition to weapons systems (that Cheney also opposed... will Edwards remind America of that?). And I was surprised that Bush didn't come up with the "no US force without UN approval line". Cheney did a good job of picking up where Bush screwed up last week.
8:10: No connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Wow, they came out swinging. Cheney looks angry. Did he prep from Bush?
8:03: Ok, as for the real livebloggers: Pandagon and Washington Monthly. On the other side, there's Vodka Pundit and a gooper open thread here.
7:53: I'll start liveblogging the debate in a few minutes.
The Kerry "Dog Hunters" versus the Swift Vets has been one subtext of the 2004 campaign in which it often appears as if, even after thirty years, we are refighting the Vietnam war. Well, Glen Smith offers us another subtext. Forget Vietnam, we're refighting the Civil War. There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest it without looking any further than the 2000 election results. In 2000, Bush carried all eleven Confederate States. Meanwhile, Al Gore carried 17 of 23 Union states (three of Bush's six Union states were border states - Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia). In fact, Al Gore only carried three non-Union states - Washington, New Mexico and Hawaii. What to make of it? Well, the easy answer is that Democrats are the party of progress, and Republicans are the party that has used every social issue in the past generation to rally the racists and bigots to their side. Well, that's one way of looking at it. Glen Smith extrapolates on the topic a little further.
I enjoyed liveblogging the first debate last Thursday, and I think I'll try it again with the veep debate tonight. So, let me know what you'd like to see with our coverage, and hopefully I can convince Andrew, Karl-Thomas or Jim to help liveblog the debate with me.
And it's not even the left that had to correct him this time. Little Green Footballs (aka Kos for the wingnuts) finally allowed research to trump their initial euphoria over Kerry possibly cheating. I wonder how many times Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage repeated it first, though?
Another Angry, Annoyed, Abrasive Bush Debate Video
By Byron LaMasters
This one from the DCCC entitled "Miserable Failure" (In honor, I suppose of Dick Gephardt's number one contribution to the 2004 POTUS campaign). It debunks several of the Bush lies from Thursday night, along with pointing out his angry and annoyed expressions to Kerry's remarks (as seen in the DNC debate video.
Over in the dKos diaries, AlaraJRogers asks what a lot of us perhaps thought: Isn't Bush's reliance on multi-lateral talks with North Korea (in effect) giving Red China a veto over our nation's security policy?
Frankly, in watching the debate, I thought this would have been an obvious come-back for Kerry myself.
But here is the answer: No, Bush's multi-lateral talks doesn't give China a veto over our policy, because multi-lateral talks aren't really a policy at all.
The argument for bilateral talks is essentially that "bilateral talks" will not simply be bilateral, but will involve real negotiation and consideration. There will be actual give and take, like in haggling over a contract. That's what Kerry was hinting at. I think the technical diplomatic term for this is "constructive engagement."
For North Korea, getting nukes isn't simply about being a dangerous rogue state (although with Kim Jong-Il, movie fanatic and tyrant, that may be part of the deal). What North Korea wants is security guarantees, in addition to all kinds of economic assistance. Oh yeah, and all this has to come on the condition of the Kimists staying firmly in power.
Multi-lateral talks are not about haggling or barganing. They are simply about lining up as many countries as possible to "shame" North Korea, and to isolate them. You might as well call "multilateral" talks "unilateral" talks, because we're not listening, just talking.
True, there might be a deal cut, but when we're pulling in China "for leverage", the goal is to insure as complete and unconditional a diplomatic victory as possible. In contracts terms, if "bilateralism" is about bargaining, "multilateralism" is about duress.
This runs the risk, of course, of pretty complete failure if there's a miscalculation.
In theory, either approach could work, but consider the default, fall-back position we have in the event of failure is identical in both cases: we bomb North Korea.
With a bilateral agreement, it may be possible to avert this while at the same time put together a real solution to the "Korea problem," paving the way to a lasting peace on the peninsula.
With a multilateral agreement, we are simply trying to back the North Koreans into a corner, forcing their hand in this instance, but not at all structuring any kind of long-term, sustainable arrangement.
"Peace in Kora" is sort of like that of a critically-injured patient, the prognosis being pretty bad. Think blood and guts spirting out all over the table.
Bush is proposing sending in a whole trauma team of doctors... to apply a band-aid. Whereas Kerry is proposing to send in one doctor to do major emergency surgery.
That, in a nutshell, is the "difference of opinion" between Bush and Kerry over North Korea.
Both policies have their down-sides, but I think Kerry's is obviously more likely to work.
FOX News: We Distort, Embellish, Make things up, You Decide
By Byron LaMasters
I don't attack FOX News that much anymore, because it's just not really worth it. In all honesty, they did a phenomenal job by finding a gap (lack of a consistently conservative leaning network) in the cable news market, and filling it successfully (and profitably). But, today, FOX didn't just embellish, or distort the news. They just completely made up this story about John Kerry, and posted it on their website as a news story. They've now taken it down, but Josh Marshall caught it while it was there:
Rallying supporters in Tampa Friday, Kerry played up his performance in Thursday night's debate, in which many observers agreed the Massachusetts senator outperformed the president. "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry said Friday.
With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going.
Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women and abortion rights.
"It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry said.
Kerry still trails in actual horse-race polls, but aides say his performance was strong enough to rally his base and further appeal to voters ready for a change.
"I'm metrosexual he's a cowboy," the Democratic candidate said of himself and his opponent.
A "metrosexual" is defined as an urbane male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle.
It's one thing if the report was intended as satire, but that seems quite unlikely in the context of a news column. A new low for FOX News.
Speaking of media bias, the CNN undecided voter was actually a college Republican. They ought to be doing a better vetting job, but I won't be too hard on them.
Over the next few days, at the office, at your children's football or soccer games, and in your homes, people will be talking about last night's debate. Here are some important facts to keep in mind as you're talking with friends and neighbors about the exchange.
President Bush spoke clearly and from the heart last night about the path forward - toward victory and security - in the War on Terror. The President spoke candidly about the difficulties facing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as these countries prepare for their first free elections. The terrorists will continue to fight these steps toward freedom because they fear the optimism and hope of democracy. They fear the prospects for their ideology of hate in a free and democratic Middle East.
President Bush detailed a path forward in the War on Terror - a plan that will ensure that America fights the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan - not in America's cities.
John Kerry failed the one test he had to pass last night: he failed to close the credibility gap he has with the American people as his record of troubling contradiction and vacillation spiraled down to incoherence.
People have a clear choice between President Bush's clarity and strength to fight and win the War on Terror and John Kerry's attacks and reversals - born out of political calculation, not a vision for winning the War on Terror. People saw for themselves last night where John Kerry would lead our military, our allies and the world in the War on Terror down a bumpy road paved with indecision, vacillation and cynicism. John Kerry has a record of wavering in the face of real challenges.
Truth and optimism are not competing ideals. The War on Terror is difficult - there will be good days and bad days, but the war is essential to our safety at home and victory is the only option.
Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Better yet, lefty bloggers hijacked the Team Leader conference call with Mehlman.
Taking a break from my all-nighter study session for Latin American Colonial Civilization, I thought I'd share my thoughts on the debate and some input I got from others.
First off, Kerry kicked ass in the expectations game. I seriously cannot think of one person I know who didn't think that Kerry would just totally screw the pooch on this one. The media seemed to think that Kerry would get caught up in his patrician, standoffish, nuanced indicisiveness on this one. For the first time the SCLM pointed out that Bush has never lost a debate (before tonight) and so his expectations were rather high. As a result, Kerry had to simply appear presidential, appear as someone voters could relate to to win and Bush had to offer up the performance of a lifetime. Kerry succeeded and Bush didn't.
Secondly, I think that this is likely to turn the tide for Kerry in a big way. Any polls you see on the issues show that a solid majority of Americans dislike Bush as President. They think that the country is going in the wrong direction, that Bush screwed up the economy, that the War wasn't worth it blah blah blah. But a plurality, and sometimes a majority, supported his reelection- largely because (IMHO) they thought Kerry was a spineless New England ultraliberal and as a result, they thought he would be worse than Bush. Kerry tonight demonstrated that (a) he is tough as nails, (b) he isn't some hard left anti-military, anti-America radical (c) he can relate to people in an understandable, if not terribly warm, way. All of this, I suspect, will encourage the people who didn't like Bush but liked Kerry less to reevaluate JFK and to eventually switch sides.
Thirdly, I think that Kerry ought to stop worrying about the "aloof" factor so much. The types of people who are going to throw their civic duty to the wind and vote for a President based on how nice he seems are going to vote for Bush, no matter what. Love him or hate him, Bush seems like a far more personible and fun guy than Kerry- Kerry can't win that vote. Kerry ought to be lively enough and personible enough to keep people from falling asleep and to keep people's spirits up, but he should focus on credibility and toughness more- fights he can win.
Fourthly, that bicycle fall must have given Bush amnesia. He won the race in 2000 in large part because he managed to beat Gore in the first debate. Gore lost that debate not by not making sense or looking good, but by looking like an insufferable prick. Bush sighed and rolled his eyes and in general looked like he was about to lunge at Kerry and try and claw his eyes out. I think that this will be a big item over the next few days.
Fifthly, I've been talking to Republican friends and reading GOP reaction to this debate. My friend Matt felt that Kerry still seemed very unapproachable, but had improved. He made the very prescient comment that it appears that someone worked with Kerry on his gestures and use of hands, as he didn't look like a robot. He also feels that Kerry might have lost some support on the left due to his strong stances against Iran and North Korea, but I argue that he made up those votes in the middle. The guys over at the National Review Online are mostly arguing that because Kerry didn't obliterate Bush somehow, Bush won. See argument number one above, guys. Fox News, as Byron noted, was pretty harsh as well.
Finally, check out these flash poll numbers. ABC News found that 45% say Kerry won, 36% say Bush won and 17% say that it was a tie. Most telling- 89% of Kerry supporters felt he won, only 70% of Bush supporters felt their man did the job. Finally, Independents came down on Kerry's side 48% to 28% (and 24% said tie). No minds were changed, but it usually takes about a week or so for any event (Reagan's death, the Swift Boat ads, etc.) to move the polls. CBS News polled only undecided voters, and Kerry kicked ass. 43% said Kerry, 28% said Bush and 29% said it was a tie. A majority said that the debate improved their opinion of Kerry, 14% said that it diminished their opinion and a third said it didn't affect them at all. Bush, on the other hand, saw 22% improve their opinions, but the same number said it caused them to like him less. The numbers are dramatic across the board, read the article for the full impact.
Essentially, Kerry exceeded his expectations, he did everything he needed to do (except perhaps deliver a knockout punch), the spin is on his side, the voters are on his side finally and even the GOP is on the defensive. If Kerry can parlay this into some good momentum, it could carry him through November 2 and is likely to go down as among the most important events in the history of US political campaigns.
TONIGHT'S WINNER [Andrew Stuttaford]
John, that's dead on. Over at Joe Scarborough is saying Kerry wins on points. I think that's right.
[...]
"TONIGHT HE SEEMED TO FIND HIS VOICE" [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Russert on Kerry.
[...]
DEBATE BOTTOM LINES [John Derbyshire]
John Kerry plus: He does not come across as arrogant and obnoxious as we believe him to be.
[...]
George W. Bush minus: The President is a dismally poor public speaker.
From Daniel Drezner:
After an awful start, I thought Kerry and Bush got stronger as the evening wore on. But Kerry got much stronger -- his criticisms of Bush got sharper over time.
Instapundit:
WRAPUP: Both closing statements were pretty good. Overall, while neither of these guys is an especially good orator (or maybe because neither is an especially good orator) it was a more substantive debate than I had expected.
Kerry was tougher than I had expected [...]
Bush started off weak, got better as it went on, and finished well ("the transformative power of liberty").
I think it's apparent now, if it wasn't pre-debate, that Kerry's trump-card on foreign policy is being played: nuclear proliferation.
For the last week there's been a lot of chatter surrounding proliferation issues, revolving mostly around Graham Allison's book Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, which has gotten considerable press despite being mired at #367 in the Amazon sales rankings.
That isn't to say that Kerry is latching on to a newly-salient issue; I think there's probably been some strategy to do this for a while, because it's so obviously effective as political ju-jitsu. The thing speaks for itself.
Moreover, anti-nuclearism should have broad public appeal, especially among the "base" that has needed a little prodding.
I hope we will continue to hear a lot about this, because I think it could be a very effective issue.
The choice is between proven failure and a smarter direction.
Bring it on!
I watched the debates down at the Cougar Place (home sweet home) lobby. Both candidates had their share of knee-slappers and chuckles from the audience (about 20 residents or so), but I think it's clear that Bush was babbling like a little lost child trying to find his way home.
Well, I'm in front of the TV chatting with friends, eating, drinking and blogging. I'm not sure how much I'll be blogging throughout the debate, but I'll use this thread to blog what comes to mind.
Oliver Willis has the debate Rapid Reblogger to debunk and fact check throughout the debate.
Update (7:45): Apparently, instant response has replaced rapid response.
Kerry team set for Instant Response [Official John Kerry Blog]
Get the Facts LIVE During Tonights Debate [Bush-Cheney Website]
Update (7:55): Jesse and Ezra got their debate thread up. They'll have much more to say about it than I will, so read them if you don't already. Washington Monthly also has a good debate thread.
Update (8:10): Damn, I had know idea Bush could pronounce a five-sylable word: vociferously.
Update (8:12): I wish Kerry would have hit back with how Cheney said a Kerry election would have caused another terrorist attack, but the outsourcing comment about Afghanistan was good.
Update (8:16): Thank you Ezra!
"Alright, Bush is WAY more orange than Kerry is here."
If you're watching C-SPAN (split screen), it's remarkably obvious. Take that all you googlers of Kerry + orange that find your way here.
Update (8:22): It's like, yeah man, a huge like tax gap, like yeah. Did Bush go blonde?
Update (8:26): Bush is razzled. Yay! That's nice that he meets with the FBI director every day he's in Washington once a week. That's like once a month, right.
8:28: Where the heck is E-ron? I've never heard of that country, Mr. President.
8:36: "I see on the tv screens how hard it is" - uh, Mr. President, how about going to a funeral. Or having a coherent thought where you don't say "uh" every three seconds.
9:05: I bet Bush's mama is proud. He can say: KIM JONG-IL - Geez. How many times did he repeat that name? At least (I don't think) he mangled it like Abu Gharib.
9:06: Ok, give Bush a minute, and he'll mangle it.
9:09: It shouldn't have taken Kerry to take 69 minutes to say the word "draft", although he gets double credit for saying "outsourcing" several times earlier about Afghanistan, a double attack. One, that Bush failed to pin down Bin Laden when he had a chance, and two, it reminds people of job outsourcing.
9:13: Best Bush lines of the night. Praise Kerry with compliments, then question him for changing his positions.
9:19: Q: What is the most serious threat to the U.S?
Kerry: Nuclear Proliferation.
Bush: What the fuck? (all he had to say was terrorism)
9:22:
2001 - Bush: Outsoursed U.S. national security to Taliban warlords.
2004 - Bush: Outsourced U.S. national security to China
9:32: Did Jenna just turn her back on John Kerry? Didn't her father teach her better?
9:39: Greenfield says Kerry was more presidential, and that the conservative bloggers were mixed on Bush. FOX News is doing the unthinkable - they're talking down Bush. Damn. If FOX News is saying things like "Kerry supporters should be heartened", then its a darn good night. Thank God.
9:48: Vote in the silly network polls. It'll control the spin for the next few days, so give Kerry some love.
One of the biggest mistakes the Kerry campaign made was allowing President Bush to define him as a flip-flopper. If the Kerry campaign had hit back with a strong rapid response that George W. Bush is a flip-flopper, the issue probably would either be dead, or greatly diminished. Instead, they didn't respond, and well, we know what's happened.
For awhile now, lefty bloggers have been making the arguement that the Kerry campaign should have been making two or three months ago, and finally the so called liberal media (SCLM) is begining to pick up on it. I think it would be effective for Kerry to point out some of these Bush flip-flops if he has a chance tonight.
First, on Paula Zahn Now:
ZAHN: Kerry isn't alone when it comes to being vulnerable on the flip-flop issue. The Democrats are now stepping up their efforts to point out that President Bush has also changed course on a number of critical issues. We check the president's record involving the war on terror and Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN (voice-over): Six days after the attacks of 9/11, the president had this to say about terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.
BUSH: I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said wanted dead or alive.
ZAHN: But only six months later, catching bin Laden was no longer a priority.
BUSH: The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
I truly am not that concerned about him.
ZAHN: The Bush administration at first opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: So creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem.
ZAHN: But less than three months later, that all changed.
BUSH: I asked the Congress to join me in creating a single permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission, securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.
ZAHN: In building a case for going to war with Iraq, the president argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
BUSH: Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
ZAHN: But when no weapons were found, his emphasis shifted.
BUSH: Because America and our allies acted, one of the most evil, brutal regimes in history is gone forever.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
BUSH: The dictator of Iraq committed many atrocities and he had many more in mind.
ZAHN: Last month, when the president was asked if the United States could win the war on terror, he was doubtful.
BUSH: I don't think you can win it, but I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world, let's put it that way.
ZAHN: But the very next day, he reversed himself.
BUSH: We are winning this war against these terrorists, and we will win this war against these terrorists.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: The president in his own words on several subjects (ph), almost certain to come up on tomorrow's debate.
Ok, so lets review. George Bush wanted Osama Bin Laden dead or alive before he said he wasn't concerned about him. George Bush was against the Department of Homeland Security before he was for it. Invading Iraq was about WMD's before they weren't found, and the justification was then about toppling an evil, brutal regime. George Bush believed we could win the war on terror, before and after he said it couldn't be won. Did someone say flip-flop?
And there's more. Also yesterday, CBS News reports on Bush's top ten flip-flops (via From the Roots):
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Nation Building and the War in Iraq
Iraq and the Sept. 11 Attacks
The Sept. 11 Commission
Free Trade
Homeland Security
Same-Sex Marriage
Winning the War on Terror
Campaign Finance Reform
Gas Prices
To recap - Bush justified the invasion of Iraq on WMD's, but now admited none were found. Bush was against nation building before he was for it. Bush told the American people that Saddam Hussein was part of the war on terror, before admiting that he was not connected with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. Again, Bush was against the 9/11 commission before he was for it. Bush was for free trade, but then supported tariffs on foreign steel products, before flip-flopping again, and opposing them. Again, Bush opposed the Department of Homeland Security before he was for it. Bush was against federal intervention on same-sex marriage before he was for it. Bush said the war on terror couldn't be won, before changing his mind the next day. Bush was against campaign finance reform before he was for it. Bush was for "jawboning OPEC" to lower gas prices, but as President has seen gas prices rise to $50 a barrel, and done nothing to pressure OPEC to increase production.
Over the weekend, the conservative Beldar Blog posted that "Kerry's no Ike", differenciating how in his opinion Dwight Eisenhower's election in 1952 in the middle of a war is from the 2004 election. As he concludes, Bedlar writes:
When John Kerry says, "Trust me and I'll fix things in Iraq and with the Global War on Terror" what possible basis can you have to give him that trust, other than a faith so blind that it has become genuinely reckless?
I could offer my reply, but why don't I just let Ike's son, John Eisenhower do the talking:
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administrations decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that todays Republican Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word Republican has always been synonymous with the word responsibility, which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Todays whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
[...]
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.
The trust given to John Kerry by a lifetime registered Republican for fifty years, who saw his father's Republican Party take a wild and radical turn to the right in recent years is no small issue. This is not someone putting blind faith or reckless trust in John Kerry, but rather someone who despite a lifetime of supporting Republicans, has seen the Bush administration take a rapid departure away from the leadership role that America has played in the world since World War II.
Will anyone listen? Or will John Eisenhower just get the Ron Reagan Jr. from the right?
The Lone Star Iconoclast, the Crawford weekly paper which endorsed Bush 4 years ago has seen the light and has endorsed Kerry.
"The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda," the newspaper said in its editorial. "Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry."
It urged "Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country."
Update: Byron, here. Karl-Thomas just beat me to this one, as I just spotted it over on mydd. Instead of starting a new thread, here's my two cents on this one. The Crawford paper must be getting a lot of traffic as the site appears to be down.
Crawford is an interesting little town. The mayor of Crawford has endorsed John Kerry.
And don't forget the Crawford Lone Star Iconoclast editorials during the redistricting fiasco last year.
The Iconoclast of the Week is New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who assigned a state trooper to protect the protesting Texas legislators from bounty hunters. The Rightist lunatics who have taken over the state legislature were reportedly planning to hire gun thugs to go to New Mexico and bring back the 11 Texas legislators who fled the state to stop lying Texas Gov. Rick Tricky Ricky Perrys illegal gerrymandering scheme.
The Iconoclast of the Week is Rep. Jim Dunnam, who led the legislative march to Ardmore and protected the voting integrity of McLennan County and surrounding counties.
The Rightist Republican Gerrymander would have pared segments of Waco into the religious radical loony land of southern Fort Worth suburbs and thrown the rest in with Georgetown and Round Rocks white flight wealthy.
We need only to look at the debacle of Bosque County, represented by Burlesons sanctimonious socialite who hardly bothers to campaign down here, let alone represent us.
That sanctimonious socialite would be none other than Arlene Wohlgemuth, who's running against Chet Edwards with Club for Growth support. The interesting thing is that the Crawford Lone Star Iconoclast isn't known to be a left-wing rag. Rather, they supported Bush in 2000, and much of his early agenda:
The Iconoclast, established in 2000, said it editorialized in support of the invasion of Iraq and publisher W. Leon Smith promoted Bush and the invasion in a BBC interview, believing Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
"Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda," the editorial said.
The newspaper praised Kerry for "30 years of experience looking out for the American people" and lauded his background as "a highly decorated Vietnam veteran."
Times change, people change. The "compassionate conservative" governor dedicated to having a "humble" foreign policy has in fact governed entirely without compassion, with more liberal domestic spending than Clinton or Carter, and with a foreign policy defined by preemption and unilateralism. It's no surprise that the Crawford paper has changed their mind on George W. Bush. President Bush has abandoned the people and policies that elected him.
Update: More on the Kerry Blog. Good for them to be on top of things.
Atrios takes the time to actually dig up the voting rights statute that is relevant to the "paper weight" controversy in Ohio:
42 U.S.C. §1971(a)(2):No person acting under the color of law shall... (B) deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election...
The second issue in Ohio relates to the provisional ballot provisions of the 2002 Help America Vote Act. I think it would be fair to say that HAVA is causing chaos all across America (at the very least, it is hard for me to explain accurately to fellow students what it means).
Proposed Kerry Debate Line RE: National Security Credentials
By Andrew Dobbs
I just saw this sickening new ad from the "Progress for America" Fund where a scary narrator spells out all the terrible things terrorists have done against pictures of terrorist attacks and jihadists in scary uniforms and headbands before calling Kerry weak on defense. It then asks "Do you trust John Kerry against the terrorists? President Bush didn't start this war, but he will end it."
Goddamn if I don't hate Bush and Co. even more now for suggesting that if you disagree with him, if you run against him for president or if you question his policies that you are on the side of the terrorists. I personally support the Iraq war now and I also wholeheartedly support the War on Terrorism. But this is over the top. Kerry should wait for an opening in the debate and respond thus:
"President Bush has been suggesting that I would be soft on terrorism, or that the terrorists want me to win. But what the president says is not true- my record tells the truth.
When President Bush was playing tee-ball in West Texas I was growing up on the front lines of the war against communism- in West Berlin, just a stone's throw from the wall.
When President Bush was working on a losing campaign in Alabama, I was coming under fire in the Mekong Delta as a Naval Officer in Vietnam.
When he was being investigated for securities fraud in the 80s, I was shutting down the world's largest sponsor of international terrorism- the Bank of Credit and Commerce International- despite opposition from many powerful politicians in Washington.
When President Bush got a sweetheart deal on a baseball team I was pushing for an investigation of those Republican politicians who sold weapons to a sworn enemy of the United States- the government of Iran.
When President Bush was making Texas the most polluted state in America, I was voting for more than 4 trillion dollars in expanded defense funding.
When this president opposed a 9/11 commission and a Department of Homeland Security I was successfully fighting to get those institutions put into place. And now that we have virtually no protection of our chemical plants, when 98% of the containers shipping into our ports- including those from Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Sudan- are completely uninspected, when 1100 soldiers have died in a war that has served as the greatest recruiting tool al Qaida ever had, when the Taliban has started making gains in Afghanistan, when an anti-American government in Sudan has slaughtered 2 million Christians as our government looks on, when North Korea is testing nukes while the inspectors told us BEFORE the War in Iraq that there were no weapons there- President Bush is "resolutely" leading us down the same failed path while I am offering hope for the future.
You can listen to soundbites or you can read between the lines- no terrorist would ever want this old sailor in the Oval Office."
I hope something similar comes up, it'd be a great way to kick the slats out from underneath GWB.
The Republican Ohio Sectretary of State wants to make it difficult for people to register to vote. Read mydd and give 'em hell (write, email, call, etc.).
At first I thought it was a hacker. At second glance I thought it might be a cover for a new Peter Gabriel album (maybe I'm crazy, but I think Bush and Gabriel have some similar facial features, or at least in their younger years...).
And then I found out that the two-faced Bush graphic was part of a new DNC guerilla campaign.
I know I'm spending way too much time with this, but the "bible banning/gay marriage loving liberals" mail-out really irks me.
The strain of allegedly-Christian paranoia openly embraced and espoused by the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE has reached a tipping point here.
Now the Lord says, as to His true prophets and followers, that ye shall know them by their fruit. Just look at the plain facts. The Romans crucified Jesus and threw St. Peter to the lions, and did they complain? Heck no! Nowadays, liberals reject the idea that religionists can use the power of the state to cram their religion down everybody's throats, and a small group of wingers screams "anti-Christian oppression!" That's some awful bitter fruit, guys.
It's clear the only alternative that's acceptable to the RNC, which is supposedly the GOVERNING PARTY, is out-and-out theocracy. Either that or self-serving hypocrisy.
Words cannot contain my deep, deep, righteous indignation.
Perhaps the smartest thing Bush has ever said is that he is the "master of low expectations." Bush comes across as the likeable but not terribly competent frat guy- someone you like to get trashed with but you wouldn't let him date your sister. As a result when he comes up against the hot shot academic/political professional and manages not to shit his pants, he wins. People expected him to look like a vegetable against Gore and when he looked like he was a sentient being he was christened the winner. He was expected to be tied up in knots by Ann Richards and when he wasn't, he won. This isn't a criticism of Bush, but more of the observers of the political world. Bush thrives off of their contempt.
But now the tables have turned it appears. Political Wire reports that a soon-to-be- published Time Magazine poll shows 44% expect Bush to win the upcoming debates while only 32% expect Kerry to win. For the first time in his life Bush is going into a debate expected to thrash his opponent. Now if Kerry can just keep up with him voters will be likely to name him the winner.
Still, if Bush performs at his usual folksy level and Kerry comes in there with a head of nuance and longwindedness Bush will throroughly thrash Kerry- he already was expected to win and he confirmed those suspicions, thus striking a deathblow to Kerry.
Kerry needs to be on his A game and needs to strike some blows on Bush. He is in a great position right now and K-E needs to keep lowering Kerry's expectations. If he comes out and gets Bush mixed up a couple of times, he'll win the debates and he'll have a very good shot at winning 270+ in November.
My suggested line- when Bush calls Kerry a flip flopper or lauds his own resoluteness, Kerry needs to say- "I understand where the President is coming from. He appears very resolute on TV. But let me be very clear and decisive about one thing right now- if 3 years into my presidency I am where he is right now and 1.6 million jobs have been lost and people who do have jobs are making less than before I became president, if 5 million fewer people have healh care and 4 million more people are in poverty, if college is more expensive and 1100 more soldiers are dead in a war no one can explain why we are fighting, if the deficit is at a record level and if a majority of people think that things are going to be worse for their children than it is for them, I'll 'flip flop' and try something new."
If you haven't heard of the Free State Project it is this loveably hairbrained scheme to move a whole bunch of Libertarians to New Hampshire and take over the political process there. Their theory is that it will give them an opportunity to prove to the rest of us that a party run primarily by conspiracy theorists, militia movementers and slot machine addicts can in fact run a state well. Anyway, looks like they might have a bit of a hiccup.
Michael Badnarik's campaign failed to make the ballot in "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire. How hard can it be for the Libertarians to make the ballot in New Hampshire when they managed to gather more 77,389 signatures in California, 128,120 signatures in Louisiana and 112,557 in Minnesota? The Libertarians have made it onto 49 ballots, missing out on only New Hampshire and Oklahoma.
So Badnarik's dreams of a laissez faire utopia in the Granite State seem to be a little bit off track, but the question now becomes why should Nader (who most observers will be on something to the effect of 35 ballots) get included in poll questions but not Badnarik who will be on virtually every state ballot? If we are smart we might just be able to pump up the Libs' numbers and cost Bush some close states. If only they'd nominated Russo...
Is Prime Minister Allawi actually part of the Bush campaign? Or is he registered as a 527?
Funny thing, because I had the same reaction watching the clips last night. John Stewart dissected the Bush and Allawi speeches on the Daily Show (Real Player Video) last night. You'd think they have the same speechwriter. Maybe they do...
Update: And the reaction over in Iraq? Read Riverbend.
I think the whole Rathergate episode has taken some of the sting out of questioning George W. Bush's National Guard record, but Texans for Truth has a new ad out, asking President Bush to authorize the release of all of his National Guard records before the presidential debates. It's better than the last ad. You can donate here.
Still no word from "Bill"- guess it's easier to scratch your ass and attack the loved ones of those serving overseas online than to stand up like a man and put your money where your mouth is. But on another note, George W. Bush is going to raise the taxes on American families:
"It's time to return to the idea that made this country great," said Edwards. "Instead of helping wealthy people protect their wealth, we should reward the work of America's middle class."
The president has spent the past four years working to shift the tax burden onto people who work, while eliminating taxes on unearned income. The Bush administration's new "tax reform" plan, as revealed in a memo released by his former Treasury Secretary, is a reckless continuation of the President's history of serving special interests on the backs of working Americans.
The President's plan will raise taxes on typical families and take away deductions for home mortgages, charity and health care, hurting middle class families even more than before and rewarding special interests.
Alright, it is a K-E Press Release but I have yet to hear anything in response from Bush-Cheney. If this plan goes through, American families will have tens of thousands of dollars in extra tax exposure every year. Kerry will lower taxes on American families while maintaining write-offs for those whose paychecks go a lot less further thanks to George W. Bush and Bush will raise your taxes.
Let's push this new Middle Class Tax on the American Dream as a top reason to vote against Bush.
In the big picture, the current small Bush lead doesn't mean that much. Basically, it has one real consequence. There are less states in play. Red states that Democrats were hoping would be competetive such as Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Missouri and Arizona are less likely to be as seriously contested. The playing field has shrunk, and both Bush and Kerry are diverting resources to the other states. So - advantage Bush, but the same basic electoral axiom applies that existed several months ago. It's pretty much a certainty that whoever wins two of the three of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania wins this election. Both Bush and Kerrry can win by only winning one of those three states, but in order to do so, they must each be able to cobble together a combination of the vast majority of remaining swing states.
The three state trifecta in 2000 was Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania. But in 2004 - even as Kerry has sunk in some polls, he's remained relatively strong in Michigan. Now, it's begining to look as if Michigan is joining several of the above red states in its removal from the electoral playing field. In fact, ACT is pulling out of Michigan:
Americans Coming Together (ACT), the political fund-raising group behind high-profile rock concerts meant to increase turnout for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, is closing all 10 of its offices in Michigan and reassigning most of its 100 staff members to other battleground states.
The shift comes as polls show Kerry still holding a lead ranging from 4 to 6 percentage points over President George W. Bush in Michigan, but with Kerry trailing in other states considered must-wins for the Democrat.
[...]
ACT staffers are being deployed to other states, such as Florida, because Michigan's labor unions are experienced in massive get-out-the-vote efforts to back Democratic candidates.
Not only is labor strongly getting out the vote for John Kerry, but the Muslim vote probably makes a big difference in one state - Michigan. And they're polling heavily for Kerry:
American Muslim voters are overwhelmingly supporting Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush, according to a new American Muslim Poll conducted by Zogby International for Georgetown Universitys Muslims in the American Public Square (Project MAPS). By a margin of 76% to 7%, Muslims back the Kerry/Edwards ticket over the incumbent Bush/Cheney ticket. This is a stark reversal of fortunes from the 2000 election for Mr. Bush. The poll consisted of a telephone survey of 1,700 Muslims, and an over sample of 146 face-to-face interviews of African-American Muslims. The margin of error is +/-2.3 percentage points.
This contrasts sharply with the 2000 election, when Mr. Bush garnered 42% of the Muslim vote versus 31% for Democrat Al Gore, said Dr. Zahid Bukhari, director of Project MAPS.
Nader received a substantial portion of the Muslim vote in 2000 as well. But these numbers suggest a phenomenal shift of +45% for Democrats and -35% for Republicans. In Michigan, that's enough to skew the entire voting population several points towards Kerry.
So for Democrats wanting some good news in the presidential race, here you have it. Michigan is looking pretty solid for Kerry.
One thing that I think tends to be forgotten that, "72 hour projects" and GOP bragging aside, we're still better at GOTV than the Republicans are.
My rule has been, "if we're down by three in Ohio on the eve of the election, it'll end up being a tie because of GOTV."
Mark Shields, fwiw, now says that Republicans are admitting that it's more like five points.
I tend to doubt that GOTV is quite that outcome determinative (and one of the rules of engagement must be, don't trust GOP operatives when quoted anonymously in the press). But I do think that we'll prevail if the polls are tied or thereabouts.
I am pretty confident that this is conventional wisdom, by the way, and I'm hoping your heads are nodding in unison, dear readers.
And that sort of inspires me to hitch a bus to Arkansas in November, if I can get away from school (damn attendance requirements).
Not the grassroots army of veterans who John Kerry supposedly sold out, but major Bush family donor Bob Perry:
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has launched another flurry of television advertisements attacking Democrat John Kerry, and Houston homebuilder Bob Perry is providing most of the money.
In a report available to the public on Monday, the organization disclosed that it spent $326,210 on ads aired earlier this month in New Mexico and Nevada states considered key to winning the White House this year.
Of that amount, $250,000 was donated by Perry, a longtime support of President Bush and other Republican candidates.
Mark Schmitt wonders if Bush is a closet commie, on the basis that his second term agenda is almost certain to lead to a complete breakdown in the private health care system. In addition to the complete breakdown in the pension system, the tax system, and everything else, I might add. This is almost sort of a "let's have an experiment and see if Karl Marx was right!" sort of agenda.
On another note, I can't find my keys, so I am stuck at home. I can't drive without keys, so I can't get to the HCDP voter registration drive at Sharpstown Mall (being organized by Old Man Wythe). Nor can I go up to the school to study. I think the commies snuck into my apartment last night and stole my keys. On the other hand, my bible is still where I left it...
UPDATE: The aforementioned Decembrist post is actually a few months old, but it's relevant to this DailyKos diary, which asks, "why isn't Kerry slapping the President silly with this?" Indeed! And why is it that Bush is the one on the offensive about health care ("Kerry's for socialized medicine and blah blah blah...")
UPDATE 2: I found them! Take that, collectivists!
(If you ever get the impression I'm having too much fun with this, you'd be correct).
Atrios continues the attack on Gallup and NYT/CBS, noting that the 2000 choice of the NYT sample is something like 36-28 Bush over Gore. That would be a really big problem, if the respondents were being honest.
However, I'd add on a healthy +/- 5 to whatever the margin of error is, because it's a proven fact that people lie to pollsters, especially as it regards who they voted for in the last election.
So, looking at these Bush-Gore stats, the CBS/NYT poll may be unrepresentative, but then again, it may not.
I'm bullish on Kerry, but I think it would be a bad idea not to think that we are potentially down 14 points right now.
Coming of age in Texas at the turn of the century, my general advice has to be, "be prepared to lose.... but go down fighting."
Before Everyone Flips Out over the Gallup Poll Today
By Byron LaMasters
It was an outlier in 2000:
NN/USA TODAY/GALLUP # 10/26/2000:
Bush 52%
Gore 39%
Nader 4%
Buchanan 1%
Bush +13
They were wrong by about 14% in 2000, and I'll bet they're wrong by about that in 2004. Once again, Gallup is the outlier poll in 2004. Chris Bowers of MyDD reports on their pro-Bush bias:
Gallup, even without their new poll, is without question the top outlying polling organization in this election. Since they began doing state polls on the 2004 campaign, one twelve occasions Gallup has had a poll in the field for at least one day when at least one other non-partisan polling firm has had a poll in the field. On eleven of those twelve occasions, Gallup's results were the most pro-Bush of the other non-partisan operations.
So yeah, the Gallup poll will show Bush up by 13% today. I don't buy it. Especially when polls yesterday by Pew and Harris show the race dead even. Bush may be up by a few points, but as Atrios notes, ya gotta be on crack to believe Gallup on this one.
Or at least it's begining to look like it. Two new polls out today:
The Pew Poll:
The GOP convention gave President Bush a double-digit lead, but the race has settled into a virtual tie with voters still worried about the economy and Iraq, according to polling by the Pew Research Center.
The first of two national polls by Pew, done Sept. 8-10, reflected the president's post-convention bounce. Bush was ahead of Democrat John Kerry 52-40 among registered voters and by an even wider margin, 54-39, among likely voters, a narrower group.
By the second poll, done Sept. 11-14, the Bush lead had evaporated. In that poll, Bush and Kerry were knotted at 46 percent among registered voters. Among likely voters, Bush was at 47 percent and Kerry at 46 percent.
And the Harris Poll:
The latest Harris Poll finds that Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush are now enjoying almost equal levels of support. Immediately after the Republican convention in New York, several polls showed President Bush jumping ahead of Senator Kerry with a clear lead of between six and 11 percentage points. This "convention bounce" has now disappeared.
These are some of the results of a nationwide poll of 1,018 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive(R) between September 9 and 13, 2004. It seems that the short-term effects of the Republican convention have worn off. The poll shows Senator Kerry leading 48 percent to 47 percent among likely voters.
[...]
One reason that President Bush is no longer ahead is that a slender 51 percent to 45 percent majority does not believe that he deserves to be re-elected.
Hopefully, this trend will continue, but it'll be a few days before we have a good idea of whether Bush still has a small lead or if the race is dead even. Of course, I've heard from a few sources that tomorrow's Gallup poll will show Bush with a significant lead, so things might just be all over the place.
DMN: Documents May Be Forged, but The Content is Still Valid
By Andrew Dobbs
Alright, I'll admit that I've denied myself the insatiable joy of delving into the history of American typewriters over the last week as many of my blogosphere colleagues seem to have done. I have a hard time believing that CBS News would walk on air with completely fake documents and unless the accusers have seen the actual documents up close and personal there is no way for them to analyze them. Still, where there is smoke there tends to be fire- something shady is going on for sure.
So let's assume for the sake of argument that the documents are indeed faked and that someone managed to fool one of the nation's preeminent journalists- Dan Rather- into believing something absolutely false. Does it make a difference? According to the Dallas Morning News, the answer is no:
The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard officer who supposedly wrote memos critical of President Bush's Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake but that they reflect documents that once existed.
Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1957 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said that she prided herself on meticulous typing and that the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.
"These are not real," she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. "They're not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him."
Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said, "I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it."
She added that she does not support Mr. Bush as president, deeming him "unfit for office" and "selected, not elected." (...)
She said that although she did not recall typing the memos reported by CBS News, they accurately reflect the viewpoints of Col. Killian and documents that would have been in the personal file. Also, she said she didn't know whether the CBS documents corresponded memo for memo with that file.
"The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones," she said. "I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another."
Mrs. Knox said that she didn't recall typing a Killian memo alleging that a commander, Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt, was pressuring officers to "sugar coat" Mr. Bush's record. But, she said, such a portrayal of Col. Staudt was consistent with his character and Col. Killian's opinion of his superior officer. (...)
Other evidence in the documents seem to point to a forgery and the source seems pretty unimpeachable here- a sound of mind woman who did all of the typing for the superior officer in question who has no interest in fronting for Bush. Still, she says that forgery or no forgery Bush was a shmuck during his time in the Guard.
So the story is still quite disturbing. CBS appears to have perhaps been duped by someone but the dupe still caught the right information. They clearly had a familiarity with the situation on base- being able to identify the correct commanders and capturing Killian's general tone and attitude. Perhaps these documents were recreated from someone's memory of the originals or perhaps they are real after all. Still, the point is- fake or not fake Bush shirked his obligations to his country while serving in the Guard.
A couple of student organizations here at UH (American Women in Law and the American Constitution Society) hosted a spiffy little lecture by possible 2006 Senate candidate Barbara Radnofsky just now. I was really impressed by Radnofsky, who, as a pre-candidate, has not yet been beamed-up to the political mother-ship. She came across to me as strikingly sincere and down-to-earth, as well as sporting an impressive resume.
Cam Kerry, who is in town for a fundraiser (I think) dropped in for a few minutes to stump for his brother, Big John. A little less approachable than Radnofsky (understandably), but still aware of his audience. Cracked law professor jokes ("I promise I won't call on anybody sitting in the back row..." nyuck nyuck).
OK, enough for now. Got to start paying attention to my Procedure professor (we're tackling the removal statute right now...).
Cam Kerry, better known as John Kerry's brother was in town today for some fundraisers, and he happened to have an hour free in his schedule around 11 AM. Fortunately, Cam's people thought last night to call the Travis County Democratic coordinated campaign to ask what he could do for an hour. They decided that students could put together a mini-rally in twelve hours, so we hurried out some emails and managed to give Cam a nice setting to chat with the local media, so if you're in Austin, watch the news tonight. Cam made some brief remarks to the group of 30-40 students that had gathered about the importance of voting and this election, then spoke for a bit with the local media, then took time to chat with many students, sign t-shirts and pose for pictures. It ought to get us some good publicity.
Cam Kerry speaking to students on the west mall of the UT campus. Behind Cam are the tables of the University Democrats and Students for John Kerry. Together the organizations registered over 75 students to vote today, and have registered over 1000 students to vote since the semester began.
Every time the press photographers take one of these dramatic Kerry pictures, I can't help but think about another lefty (er, as in left-handed; and yes, I know, Kerry is actually right-handed, but I'm trying to make a point, OK?).
Kerry sat down with TIME magazine and had some really great stuff to say, a refinement of his campaign message.
I've been in worse situations in my life. The attacks don't attack me as much as they attack Americans and America. They're trying to distract people from the real issues that matter.
America is not as safe as we ought to be after 9/11. We can do a better job at homeland security. I can fight a more effective war on terror. The standard of living for the average American has gone down. People's incomes have dropped. Five million Americans have lost their health insurance. The deficit is the largest it's been in the history of this country. They're taking money from Social Security and transferring it to the wealthiest people in America to drive us into debt. They're shredding alliances around the world with people we have traditionally been able to rely on.
That's what bothers me.
It bothers me, too, John. So what you going to do about it?
Draw the contrast; be crystal clear about it. That's what I've been doing every day. George Bush has made the wrong choices for America. He's leading the country in the wrong direction. John Edwards and I have better choices. We have a health-care plan for all Americans. We're going to stop subsidizing jobs that go overseas and create jobs here in America. We're going to fund education and not leave millions of children behind every day. The trail of broken promises and reversed decisions of this Administration is unlike any I have ever seen at any time that I have been in public life, and I'm going to draw that picture as clear as a bell.
And that foreign policy stuff?
I believe very deeply that it takes a new President, a new credibility, a fresh start, to change the whole equation in Iraq. I will get countries involved in ways that the President doesn't have them involved today, and I will get our troops home.
TIME
How? Diplomats say that it is not in our allies' political interest...
KERRY
George Bush has made it not in their interest today. There are all sorts of options with respect to Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds in the region that this Administration is not exploring. They have failed in their diplomacy utterly. In fact, they have made it easy for countries to say no, because of their arrogance, because of the way the President chose to go to war.
What's at stake?
All over the country we've got an enormous amount of energy, people are organizing, and I just think the choice is very clear. The Supreme Court of the United States is at stake. After-school programs are at stake. Health care is at stake. Social Security is at stake. Jobs are at stake.
The character of our country is at stakewhether we're going to have people who traffic in fear instead of real solutions.
Read the full article, it's one of the best interviews I've seen.
"This is American fascism. We're going to appeal it all." That was Ralph Nader's response to two Sept. 1 decisions rejecting the Nader presidential campaign's applications for ballot access in Oregon and Texas.
[...]
And in Texas, U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel ruled against Nader in his lawsuit to have the Texas regulations governing independent candidates ruled unconstitutional. Yeakel ruled that although independents are required to submit more signatures gathered in a shorter time than are minor-party candidates, the differing requirements are "reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and constitutional." (Nader's campaign had submitted enough signatures by the deadline to meet minor-party requirements, but not the higher standard required of independents.)
More important, though, than the fact that Ralph Nader is calling anyone who disagrees with him "fascist", is that a court in Florida ruled Nader off the ballot in that state:
In a tactical victory for John Kerry, a Leon County circuit judge issued an emergency order Wednesday night knocking Ralph Nader off Florida's ballot.
[...]
The ruling stands for now, but could be reversed later.
Nader drew about 92,000 votes in Florida four years ago. Democratic Party leaders, who unsuccessfully beseeched him not to run this year, have said that many of those voters would have supported Al Gore if Nader wasn't on the ballot. Supporters of President Bush, who won Florida by a disputed 537-vote margin, have helped Nader qualify for ballot position in some states this year.
Nader said he would appeal Davey's ruling and move the case to federal court, if necessary.
Less than 11 hours before Secretary of State Glenda Hood is supposed to certify the ballots for 67 counties - which signals elections supervisors to mail thousands of ballots to Floridians overseas, including troops in Iraq - Davey ruled that the Reform Party is no longer a real political party. Therefore, he held that Nader's certification as the Reform candidate did not meet Florida laws, which require a presidential candidate to get nearly 100,000 voter signatures or be nominated by a national convention.
If anyone forgot, the Reform Party's "national convention" was a conference call. And I'd be neglegent if I didn't remind everyone that if one percent of Nader's voters in Florida in 2000 would have voted for Al Gore, Gore would be president today.
Is it just me, or did Yglesias just suggest that President Bush is some kind of stereotypical Ivory-Tower intellectual?
The president we've got, though, doesn't see it that way. He won't win the war on terrorism or even make it less likely that terrorists will kill you. He'll just make terrorism less acceptable, winning the war in the Platonic realm of Forms while losing it here on earth.
It's a strange attitude, but it explains a lot.
I've often suspected the man must be getting lessons from Dr. Pangloss! Imagine:
BUSH: But what if I am not re-elected?
PANGLOSS: Then everyone will be killed by terrorists. But this is the best outcome in the best of all possible worlds, so it must be for the best!
It's tonight on 60 Minutes, Ben Barnes will tell us how he got George W. Bush into the National Guard so that a some underprivledged kid could go die in his place (it's at 8 PM Eastern, so I'll assume 7 PM Central on CBS):
Former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Governor Ben Barnes tells Correspondent Dan Rather that he regrets what he calls the "life or death" decision he made to help President Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard.
Rather's report, which will include new information about Bush's military service, will be broadcast on 60 Minutes, tonight at 8 p.m. ET/PT.
Following are quotes from Rather's interview with Barnes:
Barnes on his decision to help George W. Bush and others get into the National Guard:
"I've thought about it an awful lot and you walk through the Vietnam memorial, particularly at night like I did a few months ago and, I tell you, you'll think about it a long time. ...I don't think that I had any right to have the power that I had to choose who was going to Vietnam and who was not going to Vietnam. That's power. In some instances, when I looked at those names, I was maybe determining life or death and that's not a power that I want to have. ..."
Barnes on his feelings of regret:
"It would be very easy for me to sit here and tell you, Dan, that I had wrestled with this and lost a lot of sleep at night, but I wouldn't be telling you the truth. I...not eagerly, but readily, was willing to call and get those young men into the National Guard that were friends of mine and supporters of mine. ...Reflecting back, I'm very sorry about it, but you know, it happened and it was because of my ambition, my youth and my lack of understanding. But it happened and it's not...something I'm necessarily proud of."
Check out Texans for Truth. One of the men that George W. Bush reportedly served with doesn't remember serving with Bush. They want to put up an advertisement questioning George W. Bush's service, and considering the lies by people connected to the Bush campaign about John Kerry's record, I'm all for it.
Put the ad on the air.
Update: Here's some details about the ad:
In this case, smearing John Kerry about his service in Vietnam has brought focus back on Bush's embarrassing evasion of service. Today, a group in Texas, Texans for Truth, is launching an ad campaign that highlights Bush's absence from duty in 1972. The first ad, featuring a National Guardsman at the base where Bush was supposedly posted, will air as soon as Texans for Truth can raise their $200,000 budget for the ad.
[...]
The ad features Robert Mintz, who served in Alabama's 187th Air National Guard when Bush claims to have been there. In the ad, Robert Mintz says simply and powerfully that
"I heard George Bush get up and say 'I served in the 187th Air National Guard in Montgomery Alabama.' Really? That was my unit. And I don't remember seeing you there. So I called friends. 'Did you know that George served in our unit?' 'Naw. I never saw him there.' It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size."
Spurred by Bush's cynical and ugly attacks on Kerry, people who have never spoken out before have now begun to come forward to talk about this period in Bush's career. And journalists are now also ready to cover the story of Bush's evasion of service. Many are embarrassed that their outlets reported the false charges against John Kerry without checking the facts. And it's well known that the Bush campaign has been stonewalling on details of the President's service.
On Sunday, the Associated Press reported on their continuing fight to get records of Bush's service released. I've attached an excerpt of the story below. The AP, which is a cooperative of almost every newspaper in the nation, has sued the Bush administration for records of Bush's service, which are still being withheld even though President Bush agreed on national television to release everything about his service.
Alright, now everyone's got their panties in a wad over the Time and Newsweek polls which say that Bush is going to win in a landslide. Well, I have this from the incomparable Electoral-Vote.com:
Rasmussen has started publishing a 3-day rolling average every day. For Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, (all post-speech), Bush's lead nationally has shrunk to 1.2%. Rasmussen looked at the Time and Newsweek polls we had yesterday and said the samples had too many Republicans in them. When he corrected for this effect, he concluded that the Time and Newsweek data might support the conclusion of a 3% Bush lead, not more. This observation is noteworthy because it is relatively rare when one pollster says that his colleagues blew it.
He also goes on to say that Rasmussen polled people on their opinions of Zell Miller, Karl Rove, Bill Frist, Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert. Distressingly enough, the only one that more than half of America has any opinion of is Zell Miller, easily the least powerful of the 5. I mean, Tom DeLay is probably the second most powerful man in America and a majority of people don't know who he is? Jesus people- wake up! Anyways, the good news is of the people intelligent enough to y'know read and stuff and who know who the other four are tend to dislike all of them. Of the 5 the only one who didn't have more negatives than positives was Hastert who has the same number of dislikes as likes. So the good new is that the "political class"- the people who read and tend to educate their peers about politics are telling them that the GOP is f**ked up.
Anyways, stop freaking out, Bush picked up a little bit of ground but Time and Newsweek were counting way too many Republicans. Kerry works best when he's down so I wouldn't start stocking up water in the bomb shelter or planning a 4 year trip to Canada quite yet.
Ok. I'll admit. I'm a little worried. Both Time and Newsweek polls have Bush up by 11 points (although American Research Group and Zogby have mid-convention polls showing one and two point Bush leads respectively).
My guess is that the race is somewhere in between with Bush leading by four to seven points, and that most of that lead will erode within the next few weeks. I'll be worried, I suppose if more polls show Bush with a ten point lead in a week, but it's certainly not time to panic. After all, Al Gore trailed Bush most of the fall in 2000, only to win the popular vote.
Still, looking at the internals of the Newsweek poll suggests a strong pro-Bush bias. Take a look at the partisan sample size:
374 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
303 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
300 Independents (plus or minus 6)
Thus, of the 977 people polled, 38% were Republican and 31% Democratic. And not surprisingly, Bush has a 94-4% lead among Republicans. In an evenly divided nation, where Democrats and Republicans are nearly equal in size, Newsweek rigged this poll to give Bush a significant bounce. While, I'm not a statistics expert, knocking off 71 Republicans from the sample, thus making the number of Republicans equal to the number of Democrats in the sample, you'd have a much closer result.
From 977 voters, here's the number polled supporting each candidate:
54% of 977 voters = 527 Bush voters.
43% of 977 voters = 420 Kerry voters.
3% of 977 = 30 Undecided voters.
Thus knocking off the 71 Republicans needed to equalize the sample would remove:
94% of 71 voters = 67 Bush voters.
4% of 71 voters = 3 Kerry voters.
2% of 71 voters = 1 Undecided voter.
460 Bush voters of 906 total voters = 51%
417 Kerry voters of 906 total voters = 46%
29 Undecided voters of 906 total voters = 3%
Ok, I feel better. If my math / logic seemed flawed, feel free to add a correction (I'm not a math major). Bush has a bounce, but it's not a double digit one. Kerry just need to keep hammering hard at Bush. I love the "unfit to command / lead, etc." lines of Kerry's recent speeches.
Republicans went on the attack when Trent Lott and others were booed at the Paul Wellstone memorial service in 2002. I would expect the media to give those who booed President Bush's call for ''best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery" for Bill Clinton the same treatment:
President Bush on Friday wished Bill Clinton ''best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery.''
''He's is in our thoughts and prayers,'' Bush said at a campaign rally.
Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.
Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath.
Bush recently praised Clinton when the former president went to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait. He lauded Clinton for his knowledge, compassion and ''the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president.''
And it's not just people at a rally, U.S. Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY) had this to say about Clinton:
"Who knows? It could be the result of a successful Republican convention"
Now, that's respectful.
In case you want to send Bill Clinton a card, here's the address:
The William J. Clinton Foundation
55 West 125th St.
New York, NY 10027
Although, as Trapper John (Kos) points out, the best thing that people can do for Bill Clinton is to donate to the Democrat of your choice, or to the Clinton Presidential Center to support President Clinton's work on HIV/AIDS and many other issues.
Update: This is quite bizarre, but the story on the Boston Globe site has been retracted and the AP article on the AZ Central site entitled "Some at rally boo after Bush mentions Clinton" on Google is renamed "Bush offers best wishes to Clinton" on the AZ Central site. Very odd. Either no one was booing, but the reporter said there was. Or there were only a few boos and editors didn't think the article was appropriate. Or there were a lot of boos, and Karl Rove made a threatening call. I don't know. It would be interesting to hear from someone who was actually there.
I think I'll have to make some donations tonight. It's the best way to deal with watching George W. Bush try to put a sunny face on the past four years, wrap himself around exploiting 9/11, and laying out no real vision for the next four years.
Here's some good folks to donate to here in Texas, if you feel the same way that I do:
State House:
Katy Hubener for State Rep.
Mark Strama for State Rep.
Kelly White for State Rep.
Hubert Vo for State Rep.
U.S. House
Chet Edwards (Club for Growth is about to dump $700,000 into this race).
Martin Frost (Pete Sessions is a crook and an idiot. He needs to go).
And the gloves are off. The Republicans took them off at their convention, so it's fair game if you ask me. Kos has excerpts:
For three days in New York, instead of talking about jobs and the economy, we heard anger and insults from the Republicans. And I'll tell you why. It's because they can't talk about the real issues facing Americans. They can't talk about their record because it's a record of failure.
We all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican convention. For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief. Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.
The vice president even called me unfit for office last night. I guess I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty.
Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit. That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it's not going to change. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America.
And if I hear anyone ever impugn Kerry's defense voting record again, I will challenge you to a duel (from Fred Kaplan in Slate):
Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry's committees.
This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.
What makes this dishonesty not merely a lie, but a damned lie, is that back when Kerry cast these votes, Dick Cheneywho was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush's fatherwas truly slashing the military budget. Here was Secretary Cheney, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 31, 1992:
Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. And now we're adding to that another $50 billion of so-called peace dividend.
Cheney then lit into the Democratic-controlled Congress for not cutting weapons systems enough:
Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. You've directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16sall great systems but we have enough of them.
This guy is supposed to beat the incomparable Nick Lampson?
Slate:
Ted Poe, a congressional candidate from Texas, goes even further. He compares Upper West Side liberals, at least implicitly, to the nation's enemies in the war on terror. The country is currently fighting for freedom abroad in Iraq, Poe says. But it's also fighting for "basic American principles" at home. "This threat is real," he continues. Don't "complain and criticize as the French did in the war in Iraq." No, this dangerous "threat" must be stopped with a fierce barrage of smaller government and lower taxes. "Sitting on the sidelines is not an option," says Poe, sticking with his hilariously inappropriate analogy. "Now is not the time to be a French Republican" (or, as the official transcript of his piece has it, an all-caps "FRENCH REPUBLICAN").
Who screened Poe's speech? Sure, it's not prime time, but certainly someone pointed out (or someone should have pointed out) that it wasn't a good idea to compare Democrats, by far the majority in New York, to Baathists.
Red-baiting my fellow Americans is not something I will abide.
Seriously, Zell Miller's speech was nothing more than pure hate, just like Pat Buchanan in 1992. Except there's one big difference. Pat Buchanan may be a bigot, but at least he's consistent. Zell Miller started his career working for segregationist Lester Maddox, became a progressive southern Democrat, then completed his return to his hate-filled roots tonight. He's zigged and zagged his entire career, and tonight he exposed himself as the disingenuous hypocrite that he is.
When Zell Miller ran for congress forty years ago, he was a segregationist:
As a congressional candidate 40 years ago, Miller argued President Johnson was "a Southerner who sold his birthright for a mess of dark pottage" because of his support for the Civil Rights Act.
Then, Zell Miller disavowed those remarks:
Miller later disavowed those remarks, even leading an unsuccessful charge to take the Confederate emblem off the Georgia state flag.
Civil rights pioneer John Lewis, the dean of Georgia's congressional delegation, recently called Miller's decision to speak for Bush "a shame and a disgrace." Lewis quipped that, this time, Miller was the one selling his soul for pottage.
Then in 1992, Zell Miller stood up for draft dodger Bill Clinton:
"George Bush is a timid man who hears only the voices of caution and the status quo," Miller said back then. "Let's face facts: George Bush just doesn't get it, he doesn't see it, he doesn't feel it, and he's done nothing about it. That's why we cannot afford four more years."
At least Zigzag Zell is consistent in supporting draft-dodgers. He supported Clinton, and he supports Dubya.
Tonight Zigzag Zell denounced John Kerry's twenty year senate record:
And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.
Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.
The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.
The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.
The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.
I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.
So, Zell Miller is attacking the twenty year senate record of John Kerry - a record that he admired three years ago:
As for John Kerry, Miller has found kind words for Democratic presidential nominee, calling him "one of this nation's authentic heroes" during the Georgia Democratic Party's Jefferson Jackson Dinner three years ago. Kerry made a return trip to the gathering in April, cracking, "Back then, Zell Miller was a Democrat."
So, for 17 years in the U.S. Senate, John Kerry was an authentic American hero, then for the past three years John Kerry's record has been an entirely different creature. Why did Zell Miller not speak out against John Kerry in 1992 or 2001? Why did Zell Miller praise John Kerry in 2001, before speaking out against him? Republicans have attacked John Kerry as a flip-flopper again and again, but there is no greater flip-flopper in America today than Zell Miller. He started politics as a segregationist. He became a Clinton-supporting, progressive, southern governor. He praised John Kerry in 2001, and in 2004 he lashes into Kerry with a hate-filled speech. Zell Miller has no values. Zell Miller has no convictions. Zell Miller stands for nothing. Good riddance.
Cheney's giving us a laundry list speech. Will we then "shock" us by giving Lynne a big smacker?
Monotone... blah/blah/blah....
Damn, apparently I missed Zell Miller's "commit me now!" (or at least, I hear it was pretty nutty) speech. I finally get around to tuning into the GOP convention, and I get... this?
Something tells me that the GOP docs intended to slip some valium to Zig-Zag but accidentally put it in Cheney's cup.
UPDATE: WTF? Cheney said something about Iraq's nukes being stored away in Tennessee?!?
UPDATE 2: Here we go with the "bash-Kerry" routine. Now Cheney's getting enthusiastic. Lies, nonsense, hypocrisy.
UPDATE 3: I still remember Cheney's 2000 speech (riffing on Gore's "it's time for them to go" speech). This just plain sucked, and I say that objectively, not as a partisan.
Oh, boy, Brooks and Dunn is on. If we could get rid of all the Republicans, the Republican Convention would be awesome!
(I believe I made a few errors herein which have now been corrected.)
UPDATE 4: Corpus Christi Diocese bishop emeritus Rev. Rene Gracida is up giving the benediction. Thoughts??
First off, I agree with Brooks for about the first two pages: there is a tectonic shift in party ideology going on right now (I would argue that the Republicans are getting to be extremely statist, whereas Democrats are becoming more libertarian). And I agree that there is a "reformer" or "national union" wing of the Republican Party, (as opposed to the plutocrat-Dixiecrat axis that forms the GOP's current establishment), which could become powerful.
But then Brooks start arguing that Bush is an enlightened Hamiltonian in compared to the GOP's unprincipled Congressional wing. And that all of Bush's "ownership society" rhetoric is really a meaningful resuscitation of Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal. Because giving billions of dollars of handouts to insurance companies and Big Pharma is really about "empowering people."
It's true that Karl Rove famously looked to the past in order to find inspiration for Bush's policies - but it wasn't Roosevelt that was Rove's model. It was William McKinley, who was not exactly a "reformer" by the standards of any age.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but point is this: Brooks article is excessively illogical, ahistorical and wrong, even by Brooksian norms.
I can't really attest to Barbara Bush, but really, their speech was totally idiotic. The LA Times adds their two cents:
The strategy Tuesday, apparently, was to have sisters Jenna and Barbara humanize and soften the grim-faced Politburo image that dogs the Bush-Cheney campaign, which hasn't made much of an effort to court those young Americans who call it a good day if they've remembered to TiVo "The Simple Life."
So here they were, girlie and giggly and glammed-up (Jenna in some kind of Juicy couture-looking track suit top over white pants, Barbara in a black cocktail dress).
They told slightly off-color jokes, apparently to drive home the point that, supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage aside, their parents weren't totally freaked out about S-E-X. Her grandmother, Jenna said, "thinks 'Sex in the City' is something married people do but never talk about," getting the show's name wrong. Barbara said, "Jenna and I are really not very political." She's the one who graduated from Yale.
The Republicans, you were reminded, are really good at chest-thumping and flag-hugging, but they ought to stay away from showcasing their privileged, Prada-wearing first daughters until the campaign is over.
After the speeches were over, even CNN's talking heads seemed to be struggling to make sense of the sisters' sister act. Judy Woodruff stammered, "I'm not sure what that was about," while an incensed Jeff Greenfield called the appearance a "frankly discordant moment."
I just wonder how many of the Republican delegates really have a clue what Sex and the City is really all about.
Republicans Welcome Vicious Bigot to Pray at Convention
By Andrew Dobbs
I've been referring to the GOP Convention this year as the largest simultaneous crossdressing event ever held in American history. I think it is funny that the only true conservatives speaking in prime time slots (besides Bush and Cheney) are a Democrat- Zell Miller- and a very vocal critic of Bush- John McCain. Still, looks like they shoehorned in a fanatic, just to keep the mouthbreathers happy- Sheri Dew.
Who is Sheri Dew, you ask? Well she's giving the invocation to begin the convention and she is a Mormon activist and speaker. Dew, who is unmarried and has no children, had this to say about homosexuality in a recent speech:
Lining Up With Hitler or Against Him
This escalating situation reminds me of a statement of a World War II journalist by the name of Dorothy Thompson who wrote for the Saturday Evening Post in Europe during the pre-World War II years when Hitler was building up his armies and starting to take ground. In an address she delivered in Toronto in 1941 she said this: Before this epic is over, every living human being will have chosen. Every living human being will have lined up with Hitler or against him. Every living human being either will have opposed this onslaught or supported it, for if he tries to make no choice that in itself will be a choice. If he takes no side, he is on Hitlers side. If he does not act, that is an actfor Hitler.
May I take the liberty of reading this statement again and changing just a few words, applying it to what I fear we face today? Before this era is over, every living human being will have chosen. Every living human being will have lined up in support of the family or against it. Every living human being will have either opposed the onslaught against the family or supported it, for if he tries to make no choice that in itself will be a choice. If we do not act in behalf of the family, that is itself an act of opposition to the family.
At first it may seem a bit extreme to imply a comparison between the atrocities of Hitler and what is happening in terms of contemporary threats against the familybut maybe not.
That's right- gay people (who, by the way, were killed by the thousands by Hitler for being an affront to public morals) are like Nazis. If you support the rights of gays and lesbians you are just as bad as those fuzzy-headed Germans who supported Hitler in the 30s. How fucking sick is that? Choosing to spend the rest of your life in a loving, monogamous relationship with a person who happens to be of the same sex versus killing 12 million people, ending anything resembling human freedom and trying to conquer the world for fascism. Seems about the same to me.
Her logic is that homosexuality presents a threat to the family that will undermine our civilization and Hitler also threatened our civilization so we're talking po-tay-to po-tah-to here. But haven't we straight people undermined the family too? I mean, here we have a society with no gay marriage to speak of and our divorce rate hovers in the upper 50% range. We have child abuse and child neglect and kids keeping bombs in their rooms and their parents never know about it. Our society is in trouble already and the idea that letting an entire group that for decades was forced to live secret, often deceptive and dishonest lives finally move into a life where they can be committed and loving in a public way is somehow going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back is lunacy. Sheri Dew is not only mistaken, she is a bigot, and I am sickened to know that a major party in this country would even seat her as a delegate, much less let her petition God for His grace. Shame on the GOP for letting her stand on their stage.
Byron wrote a great post on Ralph Nader's recent dalliance with none other than the KKK. I know its fun to think of a guy who is supported by not only unbathed, wooly faced anthropology majors in hemp pants and Che Guevara T-shirts but also white supremacists with a surprising lack of teeth so good job, Byron. But one line in the post kinda irked me, the last one:
He did too much good for America prior to 2000 than to have his entire career be defined by his recalcitrance in hopeless crusades for president in 2000, and 2004 that only serve to dampen his otherwise exceptional career.
This is a frequent, and mistaken assumption- that Ralph Nader was cool but turned bad in 2000. Jonathan Chait wrote a powerful article for the New Republic in February of this year (article only available with paid subscription or on Lexis-Nexis) detailing the myth of a "good Nader." Here are some choice excerpts:
The good-man-who-went-wrong assessment of Nader is virtually unchallenged among liberals. But, if you think about it for a moment, it's awfully strange. Heroes of history do not normally reverse themselves out of the blue. George Washington did not end his days pining for a return of the British monarchy to U.S. shores. George Orwell did not suddenly warm to the virtues of totalitarianism. Nor, for that matter, did Ralph Nader go wrong after decades of doing good. The qualities that liberals have observed in him of late--the monomania, the vindictiveness, the rage against pragmatic liberalism--have been present all along. Indeed, an un-blinkered look at Nader's public life shows that his presidential campaigns represent not a betrayal of his earlier career but its apotheosis.
Nader made his name with the 1965 publication of Unsafe at Any Speed, an expose of the Chevy Corvair... Few realize that Nader's campaign against the Corvair was only the most visible edge of an uncompromising, conspiratorial worldview. Nader believed not only that the Corvair was dangerous but that General Motors (GM) knew it was... Nader hounded liberal Connecticut Senator Abraham Ribicoff into investigating whether GM had lied about what it knew in testimony before Congress.... Nader insisted he had an array of inside sources and documents that would reveal this conspiracy. Ribicoff dutifully assigned a pair of staffers to the case, and they spent two years chasing down Nader's leads. None of them panned out. The investigators found no evidence that GM knew of the Corvair's safety flaws. The failure to confirm Nader's suspicions enraged him. "He could not let go of the Corvair issue," one of the staffers told Martin. "He was fixated. And, if you didn't accept or believe the same things he did, you were either stupid or venal." (...)
In fact, even then his work was driven by ideologically motivated fanaticism. In 1971, Nader pressured one of his associates, Lowell Dodge, to sex up his study "Small on Safety: The Designed-in Dangers of the Volkswagen."... Nader insisted that Dodge rewrite the conclusion of the study so that it began, "The Volkswagen is the most hazardous car in use in significant numbers in the U.S. today." Objecting that "the conclusion is not reflected in the data," Dodge left the project, allowing others to take credit as principal authors. "I have always carried around considerable guilt about what I regard as the extreme intellectual dishonesty of that conclusion," he told Sanford. (...)
Nader's friends recalled that often he would act furtively, speaking in code, always convinced he was being monitored or phone-tapped. When he insisted in 1966 that he was being followed, one of his friends replied, according to Martin, "Ralph, your paranoia has grown to new extremes." Of course, it turned out that in that instance Nader was being followed. But this merely proved the old adage that sometimes even the paranoid have enemies plotting against them.
Nader sued GM and won $425,000, which he used to found activist organizations that helped push through a staggering series of consumer and environmental reforms, most of them in the late '60s and early '70s. Nader rightly wins credit for spurring progress during the era. And yet, even during his heyday, Nader habitually denounced liberals and their work, sabotaging the very causes he claimed to believe in... In 1970, Nader championed a report by his staff savaging Ed Muskie, the liberal senator from Maine. Muskie, who helped engineer the Air Quality Act of 1967, had a reputation as an environmental ally, but Nader's report called the act "disastrous," adding, "That fact alone would warrant his being stripped of his title as `Mr. Pollution Control.'"
That same year, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill to create a Consumer Protection Agency (CPA), what Nader called his highest legislative goal. But, just days after praising the bill, Nader turned against it, saying that "intolerable erosions" had rendered the bill "unacceptable."... Without Nader's backing, the bill lost momentum... and died in committee. The pattern repeated itself, as the CPA passed either the House or the Senate five more times over the next six years, but Nader rejected every bill as too compromised. "Ralph could have had a consumer agency bill in any of three Congresses," liberal consumer activist and former Nader associate Mike Pertschuk told Martin. "But he held out" (...)
The final defeat came in 1978... He maligned Washington Representative Tom Foley as "a broker for agribusiness"-- despite the fact that Foley had bucked agribusiness to pass a bill regulating meatpackers. He attacked... Pat Schroeder, who had supported earlier versions of the CPA but had minor reservations this time, as a "mushy liberal" selling her vote to corporate contributors. He so alienated Democrats that, as the measure went down to defeat, one reportedly said as he voted no, "This one's for you, Ralph." House Speaker Tip O'Neill told The Washington Post, "I know of about eight guys who would have voted for us if it were not for Nader."
For Nader, it was almost axiomatic that anybody who disagreed with him was a corporate lackey. "Nader sees critics as enemies," wrote Sanford, a former ally. "Those who do not serve him serve the evil elements of corporations." This Manichaean worldview came through in everything Nader did. In the 1970s, he worked to establish automatic funding for Public Interest Research Groups (pirg) on campus--proto-Naderite outfits to train the next generation of like-minded activists. Nader's preferred funding mechanism was for every student to automatically contribute $1; those who objected could go to the college administration for a refund. But the administration at Penn State University in 1975 opted instead for a positive checkoff, whereby each student would check a box if he wanted to pitch in $2 for the pirg. Nader attacked Penn State as "a citadel of fascism" and threatened one Penn State board member (...)
In the summer of 1980, Jonathan Alter (now a Newsweek columnist) worked on Nader's voting guide for the presidential election. Alter came away amazed by Nader's fury at Carter. "He didn't seem overly distressed at the idea of Ronald Reagan becoming president," Alter later told Martin. As Nader addressed a gathering of supporters in 1981, according to The Washington Post, "Reagan is going to breed the biggest resurgence in nonpartisan citizen activism in history." (...)
In his 2002 memoir, Crashing the Party, Nader alleges that Bill Clinton leaked the Gennifer Flowers adultery revelations himself to avoid having to address Nader's agenda. "I'm almost certain that [Clinton] and his supporters knew [the Flowers scandal] was coming," he posits. "Clinton knew how to stay on message, and nothing was going to get him to take a stand on President Bush's nafta proposal before Congress, or on nuclear power, or on the failing banks in New Hampshire." This assertion neatly encapsulates Nader's style of thinking--the fevered conspiracy-mongering, the moral righteousness, and the laughably outsized role he assigns himself in world events. (...)
As Nader embarks upon his fourth protest run against the Democrats in as many elections, there is something slightly ridiculous about the shock of his liberal critics. They still don't know who they're dealing with. Nader is not a heroic figure tragically overcome by his own flaws; he is a selfish, destructive maniac who, for a brief historical period, happened upon a useful role. (...)
Like other liberals, the people behind the website seem to think, if they could only persuade Nader that his candidacy might help reelect Bush, it would dissuade him from running. More likely, it would have the opposite effect. The real mystery is not why Nader would do something so destructive to liberalism. It's why anybody ever thought he wouldn't.
Sorry for the long excerpt but the article has a lot of good information. Essentially, Ralph Nader is a megalomaniacal egocentric psycho who sees his own reputation as far more important than the progressive reforms he claims to support. Yeah, he has passed some important bills, but even Mussolini made the trains run on time. Ralph Nader is nothing more than a very sad man with a very paranoid and cynical vision of the world who is sees himself as something far more important than he really is.
Ralph Nader claims he is building a progressive movement for the future. But where's the beef? Very few progressives are lining up behind him this year and it is the far Right that is doing more to promote his candidacy than anybody. He claims that the two parties are morally bankrupt, but is a movement built on cynicism writ so large that help from even the KKK is acceptable any more morally solvent? I would argue no- his movement is about him and not his ideals.
Independent and third party movements are not all bad- in fact they can be very good for our Democracy when the movement is about ideas and not any single individual. But for better or for worse because of the party system these movements typically form around an individual and die off when that person leaves the political arena- George Wallace, John B. Anderson and Ross Perot are a few examples. Ralph Nader goes a step lower than them even by now completely jettisoning his (deceptively) good reputation in order to up his honoraria in the next four years. Shame on Ralph Nader and let us not forget that this recent destructiveness isn't in spite of his previous work, it is the character of it.
Right now MoveOn.org is fundraising to run their set of 5 real people ads in states during the Republican National Convention. Deborah Wood from Wimberly Texas is one of the five and I have to admit, I really like these ads. They remind me of a blend between the infamous Dean White Screen ads that were so bad in Iowa and the grassroots Switch to Dean ads that were in Wisconsin. Of course, these are much better.
My favorite line, which sounds great when you listen to it, is Rhonda Nix's "I'm still a Baptist but no longer Republican" in southern drawl.
Further proof that Ralph Nader will do anything to screw Democrats in 2004, just as he did in 2000:
Texas Democrats, led by two prominent black senators, called on Ralph Nader on Saturday to step down as the Reform Party's presidential candidate after it was disclosed that the party's leader once defended a murderer from the Ku Klux Klan.
The Democrats, still angry about losing votes to Nader in the 2000 presidential election, issued the call as he formally accepted the party's nomination in a small conference room at a hotel in Irving.
Nader was introduced by Shawn O'Hara, national chairman of the Reform Party of the United States of America. O'Hara is also an outspoken defender of Samuel Bowers, former Imperial Wizard of the KKK in Mississippi.
Bowers was convicted in 1998 in the fire-bombing death of Vernon Dahmer, a black civil-rights activist from Hattiesburg, Miss. Prosecutors said Klansmen shot up and bombed Dahmer's home in 1966 because he helped blacks register to vote by letting them pay their poll tax at his grocery store.
On Saturday, O'Hara sat next to the podium, nodding approvingly as Nader gave his customary stump speech, accusing Democrats and Republicans of being in the clutches of corrupt corporations. He also said he planned to sue the Democratic Party for working to keep him off the Nov. 2 ballot in most states, including Texas.
So what did Ralph Nader have to say after learning that the leader of the party that has given him ballot lines in seven states is a Ku Klux Klan apologist?
After his speech, Nader appeared stunned when asked about O'Hara's relationship to Bowers and the KKK.
"That's false. I think that's propaganda," he said as supporters quickly ushered him onto an elevator.
But O'Hara, also of Hattiesburg, acknowledged that he actively worked on Bowers' defense team. The political activist, who is not a lawyer, said he began defending the Klan leader after failing to find hard evidence of his guilt.
Ralph Nader doesn't care. He'd probably take the Nazi Party line if it gave him ballot access in more states. He doesn't care about winning this election, or doing anything for democracy in America. Ralph Nader is a pathetic disillusioned activist who needs to hang up his boots, and call it a career. He did too much good for America prior to 2000 than to have his entire career be defined by his recalcitrance in hopeless crusades for president in 2000, and 2004 that only serve to dampen his otherwise exceptional career.
The RNCC is bragging about the number of veterans and active military personell serving as delegates at their convention this week (emphasis mine):
Americans who served in the military will be well represented at the upcoming Republican convention, more so than at last month's Democratic convention or in the U.S. population overall, according to the GOP.
About 15 percent of the 4,800-plus delegates and alternates to the convention in New York are veterans, organizers said Monday. An additional 3 percent are active military personnel.
Census Bureau estimates show that roughly 12 percent of U.S. residents in 2002 were military veterans. About 11.5 percent of delegates at the Democratic convention in Boston were veterans, a record high, according to the Democratic National Committee.
That's great that active military personnel are supporting President Bush. There's just a slight problem with that. As Eric Alterman points out, it violates the military code of conduct for active military personnel to participate in a political campaign or convention:
Is the Republican Party in violation of the US militarys rules on the participation in party politics by active duty military?
It sure looks that way. The RNC convention week is boasting that it has 144 active duty military delegates at the convention or three percent of the total. That information can be found here.
Meanwhile, according to DOD Directive 1344.10, which can be found here this is a violation of the code of military conduct. It explicitly says:
A member on active duty shall not...
Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform).
But the Republican Party itself is claiming that the active duty personnel are not spectators but delegates. Whats going on here? Why are the Republicans encouraging our soldiers to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and its stated rules of political engagement? And why for goodness sakes, arent these rules being enforced? Hey MSNBC.com, can we put a reporter or two on this story please?
Why do Republicans support violating the code of military conduct on political participation, but not on "Don't Ask, don't Tell"? I'll wait patiently for their response.
No, I'm not talking about Bob Jensen, who (regardless of your politics) is a pretty nice guy.
Rather, I'm talking about another UT Journalism prof who Josh Marshall has caught acting like (a) a grade-A hack and (b) an anti-Catholic.
True, said prof has (so I've heard) been a wonderful educator, although I've never taken any of his courses. But I'm waiting for Faulkner to, you know, treat other goofy faculty members the way he's treated Bob.
Then, Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes speak out in this video that he helped pull strings to get Bush in the National Guard. The video is at: Austin4Kerry.org. It's up on kos diaries and Drive Democracy right now. We'll see if this gets any traction.
Update: Well, Jim beat me to it by three minutes (see below). I guess I'll have to be quicker next time.
Two days ago, I posted that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed a Freedom of Information Act Request in order to find out if Karl Rove is lying when he said that he hasn't spoken with major Bush and Swift Boat Vets for Truth donor Bob Perry. Not surprisingly, the White House claims that they are exempt from the FIOA request:
Earlier today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) received a letter from the Executive Office of the President denying CREW's Aug. 24 request for records detailing White House contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT). As grounds for the denial, the White House claimed that it was exempt from having to disclose the information.
CREW had asked the White House to release information regarding contacts between the Executive Office of the President and members of SBVT and others associated with the group, including public relations, advertising, detective and fundraising organizations.
CREW decided to file the FOIA after learning that President Bush's political advisor Karl Rove had claimed not to have spoken with his longtime friend and primary SVBT donor Bob J. Perry, in over a year. Yesterday, Rove had changed his tune, telling FOX news: "I don't want to leave any misimpression. But he's (Perry) not somebody that I've had, you know, any extended conversation with in years . . ." Rove denied, however, speaking with Perry about SBVT.
Rove's comments were made the same day CREW discovered that a Republican party Committee website in Collier County Florida was soliciting donations for SBVT and showing the group's ads, something clearly not allowed under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Upon receiving the denial of the FOIA request, CREW's Executive Director Melanie Sloan stated "If the White House really had nothing to do with SBVT or its ads, then there was no reason for it to deny CREW's request. The White House could have released the records and silenced its critics. Its refusal to respond suggests that there is information the White House would prefer not become public."
Karl Rove says that he hasn't spoken with major Bush fundraiser and major Swift Boat Vets for Truth financier in a year. Is Karl Rove telling the truth?
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed a Freedom of Information Act Request in order to find out:
Earlier today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT).
CREW asked the White House to release information regarding contacts between the Executive Office of the President and: any member of SBVT; SBVT donors Harlan Crow, Bob J. Perry [...]
The White House has claimed no involvement with SBVT or the groups anti-Kerry campaign ads, a claim undermined by recent revelations that Mr. Cordier, who appears in one of SBVTs advertisements was on the Bush campaigns veterans steering committee at the time he made the ad, and by the fact that a Kerry campaign volunteer picked up a flier for SBVT at the Bush-Cheney 04 campaign offices in Gainesville, Florida.
CREWs executive director Melanie Sloan stated Despite evidence to the contrary, the Bush Administration has repeatedly claimed that it has nothing to do with SBVT or its ads. If this is true, then the White House should have no qualms about releasing information regarding any contacts between White House officials and those connected with SBVT.
According to Survey USA (PDF file), Bush leads Kerry by a 21 point margin in Texas (58-37%). Via Political Wire and Off the Kuff.
The poll is about what I would expect out of Texas. Interestingly, 21 points is exactly the margin that Bush beat Gore by in Texas in 2000. I expect Kerry to improve slightly on Gore's showing for a few reasons:
First, Nader pulled two percent in 2000, and will not be on the Texas ballot. Unlike previous years, there is significantly less fire directed at the Democrats from various lefist / Green groups. They sufficiantly hate Bush that even if they think John Kerry is a douche bag, they're voting for him anyway.
Second, the homestate bounce that a candidate typically gets will be significantly less for Bush in 2004 than it was in 2000. In 2000, George W. Bush was our relatively uncontroversial, popular compassionate conservative governor. Now, Bush is the most divisive president since Nixon as he has spent four years pursuing the most radical right-wing agenda of any president in modern times. While the above poll does not the Bush approval rating in Texas, there's no reason to believe that it is significantly lower than it was in 2000.
Third, Democrats in Texas are much more united than in 2000. Our state house was still in Democratic hands, and Speaker Pete Laney (D-Hale Center) led with a bipartisan coalition. Few Democrats could have imagined the systematic power grab by Tom Delay and his cronies in the legislature. Thus, I believe that Democrats and some Independents who sat out of the 2000 election are more likely to vote in 2004 just to send a message that they're pissed off with the way Republicans do business in this state.
What does it all mean, though? Not a heck of a lot. Gore plus Nader in 2000 was 40% of the vote. My bet is that Kerry will get in the low forties - 41 to 43% if I had to guess at the moment. I think it's possible for Kerry to approach 45% in Texas, but anything higher than that seems extremely unlikely.
Update: I'm perplexed about how they divided the state up regionally. Bush leads the panhandle by a two-to-one margin - no surprise there. Then it shows Kerry with a 58-36% lead in "West Texas". I'm with Kuff in that I assume that just means El Paso (city or county), because if rural west Texas, Odessa and Midland were included, the Kerry lead would evaporate quickly. The next category is Houston, showing Bush with a 50-47% lead. Again, does that mean the city of Houston, Harris County, or Houston metro. It's a very significant difference. If it's just the city, I would expect Kerry to have a sizable lead. If it were Harris County, I would expect a modest Bush lead (so that seems to be the most likely scenario), and if it were greater Houston metro, I would expect a Bush lead in the 60-40% range. The state is also divided along urban, suburban and rural lines, which are somewhat more predictable.
Sen. John Kerry, Democratic nominee for president, will be a guest on tonight's edition of The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.
"It's a big get, a huge get," Comedy Central spokesman Steve Albani said Monday. "We're very excited."
Asked if any subject would be off the table for tonight's one-on-one, Albani said: "Not that I am aware of, no."
Look for the show to break from its traditional three-segment, three-topic format. Kerry will likely stay for two segments, just as The Daily Show devoted two segments to the recent appearance of former President Bill Clinton.
Question of the day: Has President Bush been issued a Daily Show invitation?
"Should the president ever desire to make an appearance on The Daily Show, he'll be welcomed with open arms," Albani said.
[...]
But it's not likely Bush will appear, primarily because sitting presidents traditionally don't make appearances on late-night shows. This is true even though programs like The Daily Show appeal to younger audiences, a group candidates desire to reach.
This will be a great opportunity for John Kerry to reach out to younger voters. Recent polls show younger voters strongly for Kerry, and if Kerry / Edwards can energize young people in this election, it could easily be the difference in a close race.
Bush was for the 527's, Before he was against them...
By Byron LaMasters
This is making its rounds among the lefty blogs, so here we go...
Bush in 2000:
The recount fund created by the Bush-Cheney 2000 presidential campaign evaded a soft money campaign finance disclosure law for 18 months and did not file required forms until the last day of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) "amnesty" program for out-of-compliance groups, Public Citizen has discovered.
The Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc-Recount Fund, a 527 political group created shortly after the November 2000 election to pay for the legal and political activities in Florida and other contested areas, apparently did not file at least four and perhaps as many as six required disclosure forms until 3:25 p.m. on July 15, 2002 meeting the deadline to avoid millions of dollars in potential fines by less than nine hours.
[...]
Republican National Committee (RNC) official Jim Dyke confirmed to Public Citizen that the recount fund is a 527 group that first filed its statement of organization and contribution and expenditure reports with the IRS just before the amnesty program ended. However, the information has not yet appeared on the IRS Web site, and the IRS has not confirmed to Public Citizen that that the Bush-Cheney recount funds contribution and expenditure forms have been filed. IRS spokesman Tim Harms told Public Citizen that if the group submitted its forms by July 15, as the recount fund claims, it would be "in compliance" and would not be subject to fines.
Bush in 2004:
President Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas on Monday, denounced all ads run by 527 groups, including the ads run by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attack Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's military record, saying "this kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process."
"I'm denouncing ... all the stuff being on TV, all the 527s. That's what I said," Bush said. He also called on Kerry to join him in "getting rid of all that soft money, not only on TV, but used for other purposes as well."
Via Atrios we get this great piece from David Sirota and Jonathon Baskin on Kerry's role in taking down the Bank of Credit and Commerce International:
Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.
All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.
By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge. (...)
legislation is only one facet of a senator's record. As the BCCI investigation shows, Kerry developed a very different record of accomplishment--one often as vital, if not more so, than passage of bills. Kerry's probe didn't create any popular new governmental programs, reform the tax code, or eliminate bureaucratic waste and fraud. Instead, he shrewdly used the Senate's oversight powers to address the threat of terrorism well before it was in vogue, and dismantled a key terrorist weapon. In the process, observers saw a senator with tremendous fortitude, and a willingness to put the public good ahead of his own career. (...)
BCCI, meanwhile, had its own connections. Prominent figures with ties to the bank included former president Jimmy Carter's budget director, Bert Lance, and a bevy of powerful Washington lobbyists with close ties to President George H.W. Bush, a web of influence that may have helped the bank evade previous investigations. In 1985 and 1986, for instance, the Reagan administration launched no investigation even after the CIA had sent reports to the Treasury, Commerce, and State Departments bluntly describing the bank's role in drug-money laundering and other illegal activities. (...)
Kerry pounced, demanding (and winning) authorization from the Foreign Relations Committee to open a broad investigation into the bank in May 1991. Almost immediately, the senator faced a new round of pressure to relent. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Democratic doyenne Pamela Harriman personally called Kerry to object, as did his fellow senators. "What are you doing to my friend Clark Clifford?," staffers recalled them asking, according to The Washington Post. BCCI itself hired an army of lawyers, PR specialists, and lobbyists, including former members of Congress, to thwart the investigation.
But Kerry refused to back off, and his hearings began to expose the ways in which international terrorism was financed. As Kerry's subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda.
And BCCI went beyond merely offering financial assistance to dictators and terrorists: According to Time, the operation itself was an elaborate fraud, replete with a "global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad."
By July 1991, Kerry's work paid off. That month, British and U.S. regulators finally responded to the evidence provided by Kerry, Morgenthau, and a concurrent investigation by the Federal Reserve. BCCI was shut down in seven countries, restricted in dozens more, and served indictments for grand larceny, bribery, and money laundering. The actions effectively put it out of business what Morgenthau called, "one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history." (...)
A decade after Kerry helped shut the bank down, the CIA discovered Osama bin Laden was among those with accounts at the bank. A French intelligence report obtained by The Washington Post in 2002 identified dozens of companies and individuals who were involved with BCCI and were found to be dealing with bin Laden after the bank collapsed, and that the financial network operated by bin Laden today "is similar to the network put in place in the 1980s by BCCI." As one senior U.S. investigator said in 2002, "BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations."
This just touches on the basic facts of the case, please read the entire article. It makes the valuable point that there are two kinds of Senators- legislators and investigators. Massachusetts is blessed to have among the best examples of each in the Senate- Ted Kennedy is one of the Senate's most prolific and tireless legislators, bringing sweeping new bills before the chamber and sheparding them to passage while John Kerry has used his position to tear open Iran-Contra, BCCI and other scandals. Both serve a valuable purpose and even though Kerry's name isn't on the top of a lot of legislation, his impact has clearly been felt.
And this also answers the charge that Kerry will do anything to get elected and that he's been running for President since he was in diapers. Yes, he had a lot of ambition and I'm sure that he thought about the White House from an early age on, but it is not easy to run for president when you are pissing off your party's elder statespeople by investigating some of their most prominent figures. For whatever you can say about him now at least at one point Kerry put his ambitions aside and prosecuted a golden calf of DC's establishment in the name of protecting American lives. This alone makes him well qualified to be president.
Matthew Gross sees something in the new Pew Research Center Poll...
"Nowhere is the partisan divide more evident than in views of America's global standing. Fully 80% of Democrats and 74% of independents say the U.S. is less respected by other countries than in the past. Only about half of Republicans (47%) believe the U.S. has lost respect."
Kerry's message? Stonger at Home. Respected in the world. These people are on the ball. The message is targeted to lock in the base, swing the undecideds, and eat at the Republicans base.
More evidence? MyDD picks up how Zogby is adding 4 more states to the 'swing' category, making that 20 total. Those four are Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and Virginia.
And don't forget, Nebraska (and Maine) allow their electoral votes to be split. 2 for the statewide winner, and then 1 for whoever wins each Congressional district. Kos talks about how Nebraska-1st District might be battleground territory as it's outgoing Republican Congressman says the war in Iraq in retrospect was indeed unjustified.
Luckily, GIMP 2.0.3 has been released for Windoze (it crashes a little bit less).
"Dick, we're 106 electoral votes behind Kerry, we have a full tank of gas, a half pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses."
UPDATE: Responding to comments - BC04 bumbling might be funny if it were in the movies, instead of in real life. I guess that's what I'm trying to get at.
Kerrry finds more people to fight back agains the latest Bush attack ads, specifially the Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry group which isn't appearing to be so swift after all...
From the Kerry Blog.
Ten senior military officials released the following statement in response to the Vice Presidents attacks on John Kerry on Thursday:
We are deeply disappointed by the tone and tenor of President Bush and Vice President Cheneys personal attacks on John Kerry, a decorated combat veteran who served his country with courage and honor. John Kerry is talking about his plan to address the most pressing issues facing our nation jobs, the economy, health care, the war on terror, the war in Iraq. George Bush and Dick Cheney have chosen take their campaign to the gutter. We call on President Bush and Vice President Cheney to stop the irresponsible personal attacks and tell us where they want to take the country. Tell us how they plan to win the peace in Iraq. Tell us how they plan to get us back on track with the war on terror. Tell us where they plan to lead the country. The American people and our troops deserve better.
Signed by:
Admiral William J. Crowe (United States Navy, Retired) Admiral Stansfield Turner (United States Navy, Retired) General Wesley K. Clark (United States Army, Retired) General Merrill Tony A. McPeak (United States Air Force, Retired) General Joseph Hoar (United States Marine Corps, Retired) General Johnnie E. Wilson (United States Army, Retired) Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn (United States Navy, Retired) Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy (United States Army, Retired) Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick (United States Army, Retired) Lieutenant General Edward D. Baca
Even though they had already run a fact check yesterday on the Kerry-smearing Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad, the Dallas Morning News ran a large front-page "investigative research" story today. Does it tell us anything that we didn't already know? Not at all. The story is simple. The men that John Kerry commanded on his swift boats - the people that served under John Kerry day and night, say one thing about John Kerry's service. They consider him a hero and stand by him today. The people that didn't serve with him, who had limited contact with, and who are only speaking out after thirty years, and are being funded by right-wing hack Bob Perry say another.
I know who I trust. I'd be surprised if the Swift Vets ad doesn't backfire. It's vicious and hateful in tone, and lacks evidence and creditability to back up the claims it makes. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out here.
I know that the other BOR guys are all on top of this, but I just want to say that I am excited about Alan Keyes facing Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate Race.
Now, normally, I would go and fully endorse Obama, who is an eloquent progressive, a shining star in the Democratic Party, and a likely presidential candidate someday.
But first of all, I think there needs to be a mercy rule in politics, just like in tee-ball. And every reasonable person is already backing Obama.
Also, in regards to (sortof) Ambassador Keyes:
In 2000, Michael Moore's The Awful Truth television show took a portable mosh pit across the country and challenged presidential candidates to dive in. The premise was that the show would endorse any Presidential hopeful crazy enough to do it. At one debate the mosh pit was called "the defining moment of the 2000 election."
At a town hall event being staged by Ronald Reagan's former ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council, Alan Keyes, aides went outside to see what all the commotion was about. When informed that Keyes could get the endorsement of "The Awful Truth with Michael Moore," Keyes' national field director dove into the pit, hoping that would suffice for the endorsement. He then brought out "Uncle Sam," a Keyes supporter who also jumped in.
Alan Keyes, after being convinced for several minutes by his daughter to dive in also, did exactly that. He dove backwards into the screaming crowd of youths to the sound of Rage Against The Machine and surfed the crowd. After a couple of body slams with a spiked-hair youth from Ames high school, he left the pit with the official endorsement of the show.
Michael Moore said of the incident: "We knew Alan Keyes was insane. We just didn't know how insane until that moment."
So, frankly, Mr. Obama, you're a swell guy, but you don't mosh, and my key endorsement isn't actually gonna do anything but run up the score.
I was just chatting with some friends on AOL Instant Messenger (AIM), when I saw a friend's away message linked to this site entitled "Still undecided in the election? Just So You Know". (Although to be honest, some of the claims made on the website are arguable, since the documentation is not cited for the claims made).
It's a good link to fill you in on George W. Bush's record as president, since he's spent nearly $100 Million attacking John Kerry rather than defending his pathetic first term accomplishments. Anyway, it heartened me to see the link as this friend was a Republican when I first met him six years ago. Not anymore.
After a tip from a reader, I watched the reairing of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart at midnight last night. U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) was the guest, and Jon Stewart basically just ripped him a new one. Seriously. Henry Bonilla was trying to make the point that he just wished that all politicians would be honest about where they stand. Bonilla labeled himself a conservative, and spoke of another congressman who called himself a liberal, and asked why John Kerry wouldn't just be honest and say that he was a liberal, too.
So, Jon Stewart asked Bonilla if Kerry was a liberal, and Bonilla hit his stride. Here's basically what was said:
Bonilla: Yes!! Those groups. These groups. Ya know, the conservative and liberal groups, they say John Kerry is really liberal.
Stewart: What groups? I mean who says Kerry is really liberal.
Bonilla: You know those groups. Like the trial lawyers and labor and doctors--
Stewart: Congressman. I don't think your following me. You say 'these groups'. Who are 'these groups'?
Bonilla: All of them. You know the groups. They rank ALL of us. You know. Liberal groups. Conservative groups. There's lots of them.
Stewart: But which group says John Kerry is the most liberal and John Edwards is the fourth most liberal senator.
Bonilla: That's right! John Kerry and John Edwards are liberals! More liberal than Ted Kennedy! Why aren't they honest about it then?
Stewart: That wasn't the question. The group is the National Journal. And they rated Kerry and Edwards as the first and fourth most liberal senators for last year. For their careers, John Kerry is more conservative than Ted Kennedy, and John Edwards is more conservative than the median Democrat.
Bonilla: Oh. That's interesting.
Apparently, Henry Bonilla didn't get the full July GOP Talking Points Memo. They all got it:
July 2004 GOP Memo:
John Kerry is the most liberal senator. The National Journal says so, and they're nonpartisan. John Edwards is the fourth most liberal senator. The National Journal says so, and they're nonpartisan. That makes John Kerry the liberal senator from Massachusetts! More liberal than Ted Kennedy! Repeat that as much as you can! He's voted to raise taxes hundreds of times, and that's only when he shows up to vote. He's missed two-thirds of his votes this year, so he's not doing his job! Think what he'd do as president! Hide the children!
It looks like Bonilla forgot about the whole National Journal thing. Next time he ought to review the GOP talking points memo before he makes a fool of himself.
Now, for something totally different (and for reference, I'm not linking directly to the site), a site which purports to trade sex for votes.
Personally, I just want to make it clear that I dig Republican women for totally non-electoral reasons.
UPDATE: Ironically, Greg Wythe informs us that things are different in Iran. Instead of sex leading to changed votes, votes are leading to sex changes. What a strange world this is. Greg also touches on the tax reform trial balloon.
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell DRUDGE.
Continuing...
"People ask me if Im really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I say I think thats a great thing to do for future generations of Americans," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new book, to be released on Wednesday.
"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult. Change of any sort seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our economic security abroad," Hastert declares in SPEAKER: LESSONS FROM FORTY YEARS IN COACHING AND POLITICS.
"If you own property, stock, or, say, one hundred acres of farmland and tax time is approaching, you dont want to make a mistake, so youre almost obliged to go to a certified public accountant, tax preparer, or tax attorney to help you file a correct return. That costs a lot of money. Now multiply the amount you have to pay by the total number of people who are in the same boat. You cant. No one can because precise numbers dont exist. But we can stipulate that were talking about a huge amount. Now consider that a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT would not only eliminate the need to do this, it could also eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) itself and make the process of paying taxes much easier."
"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could begin to change productivity. If you can do that, you can change gross national product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy over the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what future generations owe in Social Security and Medicare wont be so daunting anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to doing that is making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital and builds incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to other nations."
Although such a goal would be noble (and major tax reform is an issue that ought to be raised, as I have noted, Atrios pretty much sums up the reality of the situation:
The thing about those who advocate replacing all federal taxes with a VAT taxes, they almost inevitably lie about just about everything when they're advocating it. Any changing tax system needs to start with what it would take for a revenue neutral change. They always set the tax rate too low, often obscuring it by calculating percentages rather weirdly (say, if the total price including tax is $1.30, and the price without tax is $1.00, they call the associated tax rate as ((1.30-1)/1.30)= .23 instead of the .3 that we normally think of it). They claim you can include progressivity by exempting the first $X worth of purchases, ignoring how this would require a massive increase in the underlying tax rate. They pretend compliance and enforcement costs simply don't exist (abolish the IRS!). And, they exaggerate the overly impact on the economy which serious studies find to be at best a tiny bump.
The core to what Atrios is getting at is, I think, that the Republicans do not have the credibility to make these sort of changes (for about the same reason that Social Security privatization is DOA).
Should this develop as a major campaign theme, I hope that the Kerry/DNC response is more nuanced than "tax cuts for the rich!" Chicken Little-isms. Rather, I'd like to see them advance an alternative tax reform plan and then question the honesty of the GOP.
And let's face it, is it not abundantly clear that Hastert, at least, has not totally drunk the "abolish the IRS" kool-aid? And knowing Bush, is there any doubt that he would not whole-heartedly support a war on the IRS, even if all the evidence justifying said war was bogus?
Part of me also suspects that this is a trial balloon being floated. But if this does come to fruition, this is a sign of desperation on the part of the GOP (a sort of Hail Mary pass to shore up support among fiscal conservatives).
When the "bounce poll" doesnt really measure the bounce
By Byron LaMasters
How can the Newsweek Poll out today that claims to measure the bounce Kerry received out of the convention actually measure the bounce when half of the poll was taken before the acceptance speech. A fair bounce poll would poll from Friday through Sunday after the Thursday acceptance speech, but this poll was done on Thursday (before the speech) and Friday. Not surprisingly, the results for Thursday and Friday are vastly different:
In interviews on Thursday, July 29-before the Kerry nomination acceptance speech-Kerry/Edwards received the support of 47 percent of registered voters, Bush/Cheney 45 percent and Nader/Camejo 2 percent, according to the Newsweek Poll. In Friday interviews after the speech, Kerry/Edwards received 50 percent, Bush/Cheney 40 percent and Nader/Camejo 3 percent. In the two-way race, in interviews on July 29, Kerry/Edwards received 49 percent and Bush/Cheney 47 percent. On July 30, Kerry/Edwards got 54 percent and Bush/Cheney 41 percent, the poll shows.
Newsweek comes to the conclusion that Kerry had a two-to-four point bounce, based on the poll (two point bounce against Bush, four point bounce with Nader included). Before the convention, Newsweek had Kerry leading Bush by six points head-to-head, and Kerry led Bush by three points with Nader included. Thus, this poll giving Kerry an eight point lead over Bush head-to-head and a seven point lead with Nader included shows a two-to-four point bounce. But does a poll partially taken before the acceptance speech was given really qualify as part of a poll measuring the bounce? I think not.
The only relevant information from this poll regarding a convention bounce is that of the poll data from Friday. And that data confirms my belief that Kerrys speech was a home run. The polling for Friday (presumably with a larger margin of error, Ill admit) shows Kerry with a ten point lead with Nader included and a thirteen point lead head-to-head. Thus, the early polling data here shows a Kerry post-convention bounce of about seven points (both head-to-head and with Nader included). If that holds up, the Kerry folks ought to be very pleased . In a polarized electorate where less than twenty percent of the voters are truly up for grabs, a seven point bounce would be quite a feat.
Knowing the right-wing, it'll only be a matter of time before Republicans will attack Kerry for waffling on the critical issue of which sport is the toughest. From Kerry's ESPN interview:
3. A little while ago at ESPN.com, we did a package on the toughest sports to play. Since you have participated in so many, what do you think is the toughest sport?
I think there are different kinds of toughness. There are one-on-one, physical combat, body-violence tough sports. But there are tough sports mentally and otherwise physically, too.
Rugby is a tough sport. Professional football is a very tough sport, it's gladiator combat out there. Something like the Tour de France, when Lance Armstrong or Greg LeMond wins. Particularly, I think Greg LeMond's first win as an American was really a breakthrough, and that took a kind of talent and discipline, mental and otherwise -- it's pretty extraordinary. Triathlons. I'm always amazed by marathon runners. I've run a marathon and the concept of doing an under-five-minute mile 26 times in a row is pretty mind-boggling.
I think climbing Mount Everest is tough, without oxygen. To be the best in any sport is tough. The mental discipline of the U.S. Open, getting through ... there are just different kinds of toughness. Basketball is tough. These guys are throwing elbows -- it's combat out there. I think hockey, obviously, is very, very tough.
There you go. John Kerry can't even give a straight answer on what sport is the toughest. He's obviously not qualified to be president.
Ok, this is my last post from Austin Texas before I end up in the Northeast. I'll catch up with you from there by reporting on the National Convention as well as Democracy Fest (Dean Fest) this weekend. So begins the tag team coverage here at BOR. And of course, I am crossposting everything here and at Musselman for America.
I also just got finished compiling my schedule of events (which I'll try to get posted and linked over the weekend before it gets firmed up Sunday) and the Media list that has been contacting me over the past couple weeks. In no particular order and with the knowledge that things are still fluid and the fact that these are not links to anything other than main website pages...
1. Public Radio Exchange: Boston for KUT Campus Radio 3 minute "Delegate Diaries"
2. Youth Radio
3. MediaNation: Boston Globe Special!
4. Houston Chronicle: Full Profile (with photoshoot)
5. Dallas Morning News: Profile (One of five, possible pic)
6. Waco Tribune-Herald
7. Associated Press: General
8. Associated Press: Blogging Story
9. ABC News Nightline: Pending
10. CNN (cable): Possible Delegate Profile in Boston
11. NOS (Dutch Radio and Television): May Follow at Convention
12. BBC News Online
13. OFD-Blog
14. USDems.org Book: Education Chapter Intro
15. Young Author Scott Goldstein's new book: Entry/Chapter
And don't forget...
16. Fredericksburg Standard Radio Post has run a home-town article
I saw this earlier today over on dKos about Margaret Cho getting 'disinvited' from the Huge Ass Unity Party for the near dozen GLBT groups sponsoring it. I agree that the Dems in charge of this one totally wussed out. If the Democratic Higher-ups are going to put up with Dick F***ing Cheney and "Democrats are Girlie Men" Arnold, and then wilt away when when the Republicans attack outspoken Whoopi or Cho, I will not stand by.
Granted there is not much I can do about it, but as a symbolic act I for one will not be attending the "Unity" party and encourage others not to go as well (meaning you Byron). By taking the Cho out of the event, it's not much more than a glorified, headliner-less, overly expensive, drinking, hook-up event with a bunch of older delegates. There is no need to go to Boston to do that. I'd rather enjoy the rest that Boston has to offer and help the local economy elsewhere.
Dr. Wang at Princeton says Kerry's chance of winning is 98 percent.
I have in mind a few ideas on how to improve this analysis (of course, I'm not a doctor). What Dr. Wang is doing here is pretty reasonable - use the standard error of the mean to estimate the likelihood of a Kerry victory in a state using recent polling, and then multiply.
Also, I'm not sure I would consider state poll "wins" to be independent events, although it's probably easier to just assume that they are. One reason I think that is this: if you have a set of pollsters, they're going to have some kind of bias, and that bias may (in the aggregate) favor one candidate over the other consistently. Wang makes no adjustments for this, which is for the best given the paucity of data to start from. But it makes me wonder.
It seems to me that it might be better also to simply pool samples instead of averaging sample means (that is, instead of averaging results of different polls, add up the Rs). Of course, in practice, this is harder because some polls quote Registered Voters and some polls quote Likely Voters. And some polls simply don't quote N at all.
Also, instead of using "the last six polls" I'd just use polls from the last four weeks, and if there aren't (m)any recent polls, well, sorry. The problem with using x number of polls is that in some states, you'll get 6 polls a week, and in others there've only been 6 polls in the last year. So it's really scattershot.
Oh well, perhaps I want too much. But if I have some free time tonight or tomorrow, I'll try to apply my ideas (also, a dailykos poster suggested doing monte carlo simulations instead of running all permutations, which is probably more MS Excel friendly (117,000 permutations = bad mojo). Of course, if anyone wants to buy me a copy of MatLab...).
Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew.
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall;
And did it my way.
The DNC is having their homemade video competition online here called the American Made Convention. There are 10 selected and you can watch them to choose your favorite to show at the Convention.
There are some really creative ideas and my favorite two are "America's Party" and "New Direction". So go see them and vote for the best.
Martin Frost, Chet Edwards, Nick Lampson, and Max Sandlin will not be present in Boston, according to the AP. They'll be campaigning in their re-mapped districts.
Perhaps more strangely, Lloyd Doggett and Solomon Ortiz will also not be going. Apparently Doggett will be working the district, just to be safe, and Ortiz will be smoozing with businessmen (ahem).
The DNC has released the latest and what hopes to be (more or less) final line-up of speakers for the Democratic National Convention. Inlcuded are all 10 candidates from the Democratic Primay who will appear on the following days...
Tuesday
Howard Dean
Dick Gephardt
Carol Moseley-Braun
Wednesday
John Edwards (as VP)
Bob Graham
Dennis Kucinich
Al Sharpton
Thursday
Wesley Clark
John Kerry (as Pres.)
Joe Lieberman
In addition, I have to say that the week's speakers excite me because of the following people (who I have **). I'm glad that our star power is our base this year, and not the charade the Republicans are having at their National Convention.
Monday, July 26 The Kerry-Edwards Plan for America's Future
David Alston, Vietnam Swift Boat Crewmate of John Kerry
Tammy Baldwin, U.S. Representative from Wisconsin
****Jimmy Carter, Former President of the United States
****Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States
****Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York
****Al Gore, Former Vice-President of the United States
Steny Hoyer, U.S. Representative from Maryland, Democratic Whip
Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democratic Party
Kendrick Meek, U.S. Representative from Florida
Robert Menendez, U.S. Representative from New Jersey
Thomas Menino, Mayor of Boston
*Barbara Mikulski, U.S. Senator from Maryland (joined by all Women Senators)
Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, U.S. Representative from Ohio
*Jim Turner, U.S. Representative from Texas (we got someone!)
Tuesday, July 27 A Lifetime of Strength & Service
*Tom Daschle, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, Democratic Leader
*****Howard Dean, Former Governor of Vermont, 2004 Presidential Candidate
Richard Durbin, U.S. Senator from Illinois
James Forbes, Senior Minister at Riverside Church, New York City
*Richard Gephardt, U.S. Representative from Missouri, 2004 Presidential Candidate
Chris Heinz, Stepson of John Kerry
*Teresa Heinz Kerry, Wife of John Kerry
Mike Honda, U.S. Representative from California
*Ted Kennedy, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts
Jim Langevin, U.S. Representative from Rhode Island
**Carol Moseley-Braun, Former U.S. Senator from Illinois, 2004 Presidential Candidate
**Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona
****Barack Obama, State Senator from Illinois, U.S. Senate Candidate
*Ron Reagan, Son of former President Ronald Reagan
Christie Vilsack, First Lady of Iowa
*Ilana Wexler, 13-Year-Old Founder of Kids for Kerry
Wednesday, July 28 A Stronger More Secure America
Steve Brozak, Ret. Lt. Col., USMC, Candidate for U.S. Representative from New Jersey
Elijah Cummings, U.S. Representative from Maryland
Cate Edwards, Daughter of John Edwards
Elizabeth Edwards, Wife of John Edwards
***John Edwards, Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee
Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from Florida, 2004 Presidential Candidate
*Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan
Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Representative from Ohio, 2004 Presidential Candidate
Greg Meeks, U.S. Representative from New York
Martin OMalley, Mayor of Baltimore, Maryland
Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from Nevada
*Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania
**Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico
Al Sharpton, 2004 Presidential Candidate
Thursday, July 29 Stronger at Home, Respected in the World
***Madeline Albright, Former Secretary of State
*Joe Biden, U.S. Senator from Delaware
*Wesley Clark, Four Star General, 2004 Presidential Candidate
*Max Cleland, Former U.S. Senator from Georgia
James Clyburn, U.S. Representative from South Carolina
Alexandra Kerry, Daughter of John Kerry
***John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee
Vanessa Kerry, Daughter of John Kerry
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator from Connecticut, 2004 Presidential Candidate
Ed Markey, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative from California
Eleanor Holmes Norton, U.S. Representative from the District of Columbia
*Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Representative from California, Democratic Leader
Jim Rassman, Green Beret rescued by John Kerry in Vietnam
Louise Slaughter, U.S. Representative from New York (joined by Congressional Women)
John Sweeney, President of AFL-CIO
Mark Warner, Governor of Virginia
People call him Swifty. To the Democrats, hes the official donkey delegate of their 2004 national convention. Most of the year, he lives in the foothills of Lookout Mountain in the northwest corner of rural Georgia. But the purebred donkey is packing it up for the 942-mile haul to New England to help win over undecided voters for his partys man, John Kerry.
Today in my inbox, I got an e-mail from our National Delegate Contact person for Texas asking for our intention of who we are going to cast our nominating vote for.
The official delegate roll call at the Democratic National Convention will begin at 4:30 pm on Wednesday, July 28. As a delegate, this will be your opportunity to put your name on the official roll call to nominate John Kerry as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.
Please take a moment to email me with your intended vote:
Delegation State:
Delegate Name:
Name of the Democratic nominee for President who I plan to vote for:
I know it's not the final momment yet where it is sealed in stone, but I responded.
This is who the Libertarian Party nominated for President this year:
The nomination process was over. LP delegates had chosen as their standard-bearer a man who had willfully refused to file his federal tax return for years, refused to get a driver's license but continued to drive his car despite having been ticketed so many times that he couldn't recall the exact number, proposed to blow up the United Nations building, wanted to force criminals in prisons to stay in bed until their muscles atrophied, and planned to force Congress to take a "special version" of his class on the Constitution. And the overwhelming majority of delegates didn't know any of this about their nominee.
Say what you want about Republicans or Democrats, but unless third parties nominate serious candidates (Nader and Michael Badnarik - 2004 LP nominee don't count), then no one will take them seriously.
I just had it forwarded to me, so I haven't had much chance to read it yet, but this is the working platform approved on July 10th in Hollywood. Florida. I watched some of it on C-SPAN. From the looks of it, I'd be surprised to see any major challenges, but you never know.
George W. Bush will win. Here's why. 1) John Kerry just can't win. Duh! 2) Edwards charm won't do it! 3) John Kerry just can't beat Bush... just beause he's John Kerry! 4) Dick Cheney's use of the F-word still makes him a better VP than Edwards. 5) Even with the dumb, stupid neocon influence in the Bush White House -- Bush will beat Kerry. 6) Even though Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot, he's better than what Kerry would offer. 7) Kerry's 'Nam talk is boring, so Bush will win. 8) Even though Bush thinks he's God, and is obsessed with gay people and abortion, he'll still win. 9) Republicans have worked hard, so they will win! Of course! 10) The left hasn't done anything relevent since JFK, so it won't ever again. 11) Kerry is too boring to lead any political movement, and he's tired. 12) Democrats can't win because we're not tough enough.
Finally.... the point. Only George W. Bush can beat George W. Bush. True, re-elections are about incumbents, but still, this Houston Chronicle column by C.P. Houston has to be among the dumbest columns I've ever read.
Some great info for those headed to Boston next week...
Pack your suitcase inside a bigger suitcase so that you'll have an extra piece of luggage to bring home all your stuff. Every day you'll get all kinds of stuff from books, to bags, to jewelry, to just some plain junk LOL.. You'll also leave the convention hall every night with a armload of signs and other stuff you'll want to give to friends or auction off at some fundraiser back home at a Party Fundraiser... On Friday, you'll actually have collected a suitcase full of stuff so prepare to get it home.
You'll get more invitations that ask for RSVP's for free parties and lunches.. Send them back even if you think you might not be able to go. It might turn out to be the luncheon where Kerry or some other rock star is going to be that you want to see, and if you didn't RSVP, it'll be full. Also, it may be a free lunch between two things you want to do in nearby hotels. (Save the actual invites... they are often the "ticket" to get in.)
And for those who asked, Howard Dean has accepted our invitation to be at one of our delegation breakfasts!
A few weeks back, in the last round of John Kerry House Parties, I was invited to, but could not make it to a Kerry House Party in Bandera Country.
Bandera County is one of those counties that votes Republican. A lot. As in... In this spring's primaries, there were 279 Democrats that showed up and 3,360 Republicans. (8%-92%) In the 2002 general election, Marty Akins got a whopping 15% against Strayhorn for Comptroller.
But I just got a report back from one of the organizers with the following, which reminded me of our 40 person, $1,000 house party for Howard Dean in Fredericksburg that my family held last December...
The location was miles and miles from anywhere. We hoped we might get 20 to 30 people, planned for twice that many to be on the safe side, and wound up with 80 or more. Because of Leon Cahan's generosity, I told the Kerry Core people that we would raise $3,000, which is much above the average house party yield. Including a couple phone contributions, we collected over $7,000, which astound us. We had folks there from 13 communities in 5 different counties. It shows me that voters are primed for a regime change in the White House. Good luck to you in Boston.
Part of the deal that I made in order to have my friend's laptop for my current trip to Vancouver, and for next week's trip to cover the Democratic Convention in Boston is that I write up an article for the Students 4 Kerry @ The University of Texas at Austin on why Kerry / Edwards is the best choice for young people in America. I'm the treasurer of the organization, so if you'd like to donate to the organization, you can via paypal using this address: treasurer@ut4kerry.com
Here's what I wrote for the webpage. It's my first draft, so it'll probably be changed a little bit, but check it out and tell me what you think....
Students for John Kerry / John Edwards
We are students at the University of Texas - Austin supporting John Kerry and John Edwards for President and Vice President. The reason is clear. It is absolutely critical that we elect John Kerry and John Edwards in order to have a safer, stronger and more prosperous America for young people.
Kerry / Edwards will make America stronger for young people of today. That means having a strong military, but without the polarizing, jingoistic rhetoric and actions of the Bush administration. A Kerry / Edwards administration will keep us safe from terrorism by using our military wisely, and by not sending our troops to war without a clear defined mission and an exit strategy -- something that the Bush administration failed to do in Iraq. In addition to keeping our military strong, Kerry / Edwards will work to repair the image of America in the world. Instead of working against our allies, Kerry / Edwards will work with our allies on key issues. First, Kerry / Edwards will go back to our allies to ensure that the American burden in Iraq is shared by the world community. This can be done by giving other nations a financial stake in a peaceful Iraq, as opposed to awarding all of the major contracts to American corporations such as Halliburton. Second, Kerry / Edwards will join the world as a partner in important treaties, such as the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. John Kerry believes that an America that is respected in the world, is a stronger America. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has made America less respected in the world by shunning internationalism early in his presidency, then lying to the world community about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As president, John Kerry will only send our troops into harms way after exhausting all peaceful options, and only if American national security is at risk.
Kerry / Edwards have a plan to make a college education affordable for all qualified students. Kerry / Edwards want to repeal the Bush tax cuts for those who make over $200,000 in order to fund initiatives such as the College Opportunity Tax Credit. This program would give $4000 per year credits to students from mostly middle income families. Kerry / Edwards also have a "Service for College" plan that would pay for four years of college for students willing to spend two years in service to America after college. Students in this plan would have a wide range of service opportunities after college including teaching in troubled schools, teaching young children to read, helping older students go back to school to earn their degrees, assisting in Homeland Security and helping seniors live independently. Finally, many colleges like the University of Texas have witnessed outrageous tuition increases under the Bush administration. With huge tax cuts and huge deficits, the Bush administration has no money to offer states dealing budget crisis's. Unfortunately, leaders in Texas chose to increase the tuition rates for students as means to balance the budget in Texas. However, John Kerry has a better plan. With the money saved by canceling tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, John Kerry has proposed the State Tax Relief and Education Fund -- a program that would give states $25 Billion to stop cutting higher education funds, and raising tuition rates.
Under the Bush administration, more jobs have been lost than under any administration since Herbert Hoover. Many of us are worried about not having a job after we graduate, or that we will be forced to settle for a job for which we are overqualified. John Kerry has a plan to change that. John Kerry has a plan to create ten million job. First, he'll end all tax breaks that have encouraged American companies to move jobs overseas, and give incentives for companies that have outsourced jobs to bring them back to America. Second, John Kerry will use the money from the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans on job-creating, high-tech initiatives that will help America become energy independent, and safer as we become less dependent upon Mid-East oil. This plan will invest in jobs to find new sources of energy, increase fuel efficiency, and develop clean energy like hydrogen based power for our economy. Instead of relying on the failed trickle-down economics theory, Kerry / Edwards have plans that will directly help real people, especially young people just graduating from college find well-paying jobs for which they are qualified.
Four years ago, George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" and promised to be "a uniter, not a divider". On both promises, George W. Bush has failed. Instead, Bush has governed as a divisive conservative on issue after issue. George W. Bush has divided America from the rest of the world. Bush has divided Americans on the basis of race as the only president in recent history to snub the NAACP, and not speak at their annul convention. George W. Bush has divided Americans by sexual orientation, by proposing a constitutional amendment to the United States constitution to ban gay marriage. George W. Bush has divided Americans by income, giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, but no real help for those without a job or without health insurance. George W. Bush has divided Americans on the one critical issue in which we must be united -- the war on terror. Bush has lied about the premise for the war in Iraq. And unlike Tony Blair, he has refused to take responsibility for his mistakes. He has refused to take out the portions of the Patriot Act that violate our Civil Rights and Civil liberties. Bush has diverted resources from the war against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to go on a misguided adventure in Iraq. He declared victory in Iraq only to see U.S. troops continue to die everyday even as "major combat operations" were complete. The truth is simple. America has a critical choice in 2004. We continue to be led by one of the most arrogant and reckless presidents in American history, or we can chose a new leader who will heal the wounds of the past four years. John Kerry and John Edwards are fully prepared to accept this task.
John Kerry and John Edwards offer America a new team for our future. Both men are ably qualified to serve as president, and their life experiences bring a wealth of promise to America. John Kerry was born in an Army hospital in Colorado, went to school at Yale, then earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three purple hearts as a war hero in Vietnam. He returned home determined to end that war that he saw take so many American lives first hand. In his anti-war activities, John Kerry felt a calling to run for public service, and ran two unsuccessful campaigns for Congress in 1970 and 1972 before being elected to serve Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts in 1982. In 1984, Kerry was elected to serve in the United States Senate where he has served to date. Kerry quickly became a leader on the Senate Foreign relations committee, and has immense experience on matters of foreign policy. Kerry has also been a leader in the U.S. Senate in education issues, health care, children's issues and veterans issues.
John Edwards brings extraordinary life experiences to the ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate. Edwards was born in a small town in South Carolina and grew up in a North Carolina mill town. Edwards worked his way through college and law school and became a successful lawyer fighting for working families wronged by big companies, the insurance industry and corporate negligence. After losing his sixteen year old son in 1996 in a freak car accident, Edwards felt called to public service after seeing first hand the shortness and mortality of life. Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican supported by the race-baiting Jesse Helms political machine in 1998 to win election to the United States Senate. In the U.S. Senate Edwards has served on the Select Committee on Intelligence -- giving Edwards much more foreign policy experience than George W. Bush had when he took office in 2001. John Edwards has fought for ordinary, hard working Americans all his life, and he will bring that approach to the Vice Presidency.
I saw this on Political Wire and now Pandagon, but this is a bit scary:
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldnt do my job."
-- President Bush, quoted in the Lancaster New Era, during a private meeting with an Amish group.
The belief that one is doing the work of God is one of the signs of someone who believes in the infallibitily of their own work, and of their own decisions. Remember the press conference several months ago where George W. Bush could not recall a single mistake that he had made as president?
In no way do I compare the works of George W. Bush to the following, but the language and rhetoric of justification of one's works by faith in God is strikingly similar:
"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." - Adolf Hitler
"I place my trust in God and not in some illegal political tribunal. God
has already told me that this period in history is a part of the
inevitable human process. My sacrifice will be recognized in many years.
That is my hope and my faith." - Slobodan Milosevic
For more insightful reading, check out the Falwell-Robertson-Bid Laden Quiz.
I could certainly find many more examples given the time. However, this ought to do for now. I know this will bring about certain outrage from some on the right. And in no way am I comparing Hitler and Milosevic to Bush (and allow me to point out that Bush resorted to using images of Adolf Hitler alongside images of Howard Dean and Al Gore while attacking his opponents in a campaign sponsored web ad). George W. Bush's campaign compared the words of Democratic leaders to those of Adolf Hitler. Therefore, if the Bush campaign feels it appropriate to compare the words of Dean and Gore to Hitler, then comparing the words of Bush to those of Hitler and Milosevic must certainly be considered fair political discourse by the Bush campaign. Unless, they're hypocrites, or something like that.
Having said that, I'm not comparing bush to Hitler or Milosevic. Hitler and Milosevic were evil doers.. eh, I mean murderous dictators. Bush, rather, is just a poor president who squandered a huge surplus, and took us to war under false pretenses. Saying that, the rhetoric of leaders who maintain that God speaks through them, or that they are carrying out the work of God is highly similar. And whether it comes from a dictator or a bad president, it is rhetoric that ought to have no place in politics. Let priests, reverends, rabbi's, preachers and clerics tell people how to go about doing God's work. The president of the United States should steer clear of such rhetoric.
Just saw this article that says the backers of a Dean for VP floor fight at the Convention next week is now not in the plans. I agree. While I was only somewhat interesting in it pre-Edwards, I'm glad it's dead now that he has been chosen. It's time to come together and even this Deaniac is there. Just have Dean speak at the convention, and I think the deal will be finally sealed.
A group of political activists has given up its bid to draft former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as the Democrats' vice presidential candidate. Leaders of a committee of Dean's backers, who had vowed to mount a floor fight to draft Dean at the Democratic National Convention, has decided "to close ranks" behind the party's ticket, said Michael Meurer, committee co-chairman.
"(Dean) definitely is urging all of us to campaign, volunteer, donate and campaign hard for the Kerry-Edwards ticket," Meurer said Tuesday. "And we're going to do that."
The announcement last week by presumptive nominee John Kerry that he had tapped North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as his running mate took a lot of the momentum out of the draft Dean movement.
"I think he's the most appealing choice that Kerry could have made for Dean supporters," Meurer said.
...
"We're going to drop the floor fight and we're going to sponsor a resolution on the floor of the convention to pay tribute to Gov. Dean for his contributions to the party this year and to show support of Dean Democrats for the Kerry-Edwards ticket," Meurer said.
No surprise here, but as long as we have an Attorney General named John Ashcroft, not too many Arab-Americans will be voting for Bush. Here's the latest polling:
Concern about civil liberties and the war in Iraq (news - web sites) have pushed President Bush (news - web sites)'s already low support among Arab-American voters in key battleground states even lower, a survey showed on Thursday.
In a poll of Arab-American voters in the key states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida only 24 percent said they would vote for Bush, a dip from 30 percent in April, while 51 percent supported Democratic nominee John Kerry (news - web sites).
In the poll, conducted between July 9 and 11, 13 percent supported independent candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites), who is of Lebanese descent.
[...]
Bush narrowly won the Arab-American vote in 2000, but 69 percent in the latest poll said Bush did not deserve to be re-elected, including 30 percent of those who identified themselves as Republicans.
Although they comprise only about one percent of the national electorate, the 500,000 Arab-Americans expected to vote in these four swing states could make the difference in a close race, especially in Michigan where they make up 5 percent of the overall electorate.
The Arab-American vote in Michigan, in my opinion almost puts the state out of reach for the Bush campaign. As for the other battlegrounds mentioned, a strong Arab-American turnout certainly could tip the scales.
They can't be at every vote, and this vote wasn't even close, but John Kerry and John Edwards should have come back to the U.S. Senate today to vote to end debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment. I understand that they're campaigning, and basically every gay and lesbian in America that doesn't hate themselve will be voting for them, but as a symbolic gesture, Kerry / Edwards should have cast their votes today to send a message that they won't stand for hate in the United States Senate.
Here's the Roll Call for the Hate Amendment. It lost 48-50, falling twelve votes short of continuing debate and 19 votes short of receiving the needed two-thirds vote to pass. So, basically - a crushing defeat for the right-wing hate machine.
These Republicans voted against hate. Write them. Commend them. They stood up against their President:
Campbell
Chaffee
Collins
McCain
Snowe
Sununu
These Democrats voted for hate, and not Democratic values. Write them an angry email:
Byrd
Miller
Nelson
I wanted to post on the Santorum that was spread on the Senate floor yesterday, whoops here's the link:
If you look at the socialist countries that have gone in the direction of destruction of the family, you only need to look at the imposition and heavy weight of government. Why? Because there is no one there to pick up the pieces. You can say, if I had known, if I had only known. Every day we get up and tell ourselves lies, so we can live. The problem is this lie hurts the future lives of millions of children in America. And they are going to have to live with the consequences of the lie you tell.
That's it. Gay marriage is the first step towards socialism. If I could have a penny for every time a Republican equated some public policy or another to socialism, I'd be a rich man.
I do not see how anyone can possibly imagine a whole nation without whole families. Yet we will choose tomorrow to risk everything. Think about this. We will choose tomorrow to risk everything. Why? What is worth this risk? What is worth this experiment in sociology heretofore unseen? What is worth that much?
Nothing like a little hyperbole to top it all off. FMA is defeated. The end is near. Armageddon is upon us. Red alert. Judgement day. Save the children. Hide the babies and vote Bush / Cheney in November.
John Kerry is getting a boost from his selection of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as his running mate, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows.
The Democratic ticket now leads President Bush and Vice President Cheney 50% to 45% among likely voters, according to the survey taken Thursday through Sunday, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2%. The Kerry-Edwards lead widens to 8 points, 50%-42%, among registered voters.
The choice of Edwards helped Kerry consolidate support among Democrats and those who lean Democratic. Three weeks ago, 85% supported Kerry. Now 92% do.
Kerry / Edwards leads Bush / Cheney by eight points and Democrats are fully united behind our ticket. I'm happy.
Democrats have found our Zell Miller for our convention. Ron Reagan Jr. will address the Democratic Convention this month:
In a move sure to embarrass Republicans, Ron Reagan will address the Democratic National Convention this month.
Reagan, son of former President Ronald Reagan and an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, will be at the podium on the second night of the four-day event in Boston, July 27, in support of stem-cell research, he said Sunday in an interview here.
David Wade, a spokesman for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, confirmed Reagan's appearance, but sources said the date had not been determined. Scott Stanzel, press secretary for President Bush's campaign, declined to comment.
Reagan, a Seattle resident with his wife, clinical psychologist Doria, said he was contacted about two weeks ago by the Democratic National Committee. He said he "had a nice chat" on the phone with Kerry, "but he wasn't pushing me. I had already decided."
A registered independent who has long been an outspoken political liberal, Reagan said he would not campaign for Kerry or any other candidate. He said he would vote for Kerry, however, "as a way to defeat Bush."
Love him or hate him, admit that Ron Reagan Jr. can at least form a coherent thought and express it articulately (I guess he was paying attention to his old man).
Yet the GOP asserts boldly (as if this were playground one-ups-manship) that Zell Miller's speech at the Republican convention will resonate more with Independents than Reagan's speech at the Democratic convention.
I guess Zig Zag Zell will woo undecided voters by calling Kerry a gay-loving, baby-killing liberal commie from Taxachusetts? Is that the plan? Perhaps Zell will wear a sequin jump suit, like Elvis?
[plug]Also, dear readers, there's another internet gubment sim getting together.[/plug]
Ralph Nader continues to allow himself be used as a pawn for the right-wing. Here's the latest two examples. The San Francisco Chronicle did a study of people who have donated to Ralph Nader, and they found some interesting results:
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party, an analysis of federal records show.
Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.
[...]
The financial records show that $23,000 in checks of $1,000 or more have come from loyal Republicans. Among those who have given recently to Nader are Houston businessman Nijad Fares, who donated $200,000 to President Bush's 2000 inaugural committee; Richard J. Egan, the former ambassador to Ireland, and his wife, Pamela, who have raised more than $300,000 for Bush; Michigan developer Ghassan Saab, who has given $30,000 to the RNC since 2001; and frozen food magnate Jeno Paulucci, and his wife, Lois, who have donated $150, 000 to GOP causes since 2000 alone.
All have donated the maximum $2,000 to Nader's campaign since April, records show.
[...]
Among Ralph Nader's top Republican donors:
-- Billionaire corporate executive John Egan of Massachusetts, who has raised at least$200,000 for the president's re-election campaign, donated $2,000 to Nader.
-- Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.
-- David Reed, president of Washington-based Foundation Petroleum Inc., who donated$1,000 to Nader and $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
-- Jack and Laura Dangermond, both executives in Redlands-based Environmental SystemsResearch Institute, who each donated $2,000 to Nader's campaign and the Bush- Cheneycampaign and $25,000 to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.
Meanwhile, the AP has a story on how Republicans are helping Nader acheive ballot access in Michigan:
Michigan Republicans are helping gather signatures to place independent Ralph Nader on the presidential ballot in the battleground state, irritating Democrats who accuse the GOP of trying to pull votes away from candidate John Kerry.
"It's another example of state Republicans willing to try every unethical trick in the book to hold power," Democratic Executive Chairman Mark Brewer said Thursday. "This clearly shows that a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote to re-elect George Bush. The Republicans know that, and that's why they are desperate to have Nader on the Michigan ballot."
Greg McNeilly of the state Republican Party said the GOP is doing nothing wrong and hopes Nader will draw votes from the Democratic candidate. Republicans will make sure Nader has more than the 30,000 valid signatures he needs by July 15 to qualify for the Michigan ballot, McNeilly said.
Ralph Nader can whine all he wants about Democrats fighting his attemps towards ballot access, but when he accepts help from Republicans, he loses all creditability. Democrats ought to use every mechanism available to deny Ralph Nader ballot access in every state as long as Nader allows himself to be used as a tool of the Republican Party. It's good to see that Michigan Democrats intend to use the same tactics used by Democrats in Texas, Arizona and Oregon:
Brewer sent a letter to Nader on Thursday asking that he refuse the GOP's assistance and any petition signatures collected by the Republican Party, its staff or volunteers.
"We're not out there focusing on getting Libertarians on the ballot," Brewer said. "If the Republicans refuse to stop their efforts and Nader accepts their help, we will have no choice but to oppose his petition effort, review every signature and challenge his petitions if they are insufficient in any way."
Good for the Michigan Dems. Ralph Nader's progressive legacy is unfortunately fading as his candidacy is in the midst of a slow and painful death.
John Edwards is more qualified to be President of the United States of America in 2004 than George W. Bush was in 2000. We've all said it in the lefty blogosphere, but I'll let a Republican say it best:
Today, President Bush took a shot at John Edwards, suggesting the U.S. senator was ill-prepared to be vice president of the United States. The attack was a cheap shot: John Edwards has served the same amount of time in the Senate as George W. Bush served as governor of Texas when he was elected president. The Texas legislature only meets every other year and the governorship of the Lone Star State has long been considered one of the weakest positions of its kind in America. Add to it that Edwards has sat on the intelligence committee through the days before and after September 11th. You could argue that Edwards has more experience in key areas than George W. Bush did when he ran in 2000.
Other vice presidents, like Harry Truman, were dismissed as political hacks and lightweights, too, because of their relative lack of experience. But when the Senator from Missouri replaced one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Truman exceeded all expectations and ended up being one of our country's strongest leaders.
Thanks, Joe Scarborough. The rest of the column is hogwash. He tries to claim that Bush has led the best economic recovery in twenty years. You have got to be kidding me. George W. Bush has created less jobs as president than any president since Herbert Hoover. Bill Clinton and Al Gore created Millions of jobs as president and vice president. And Scarborough claims that Bush has created the best economic recovery in twenty years? You have got to be kidding me. Anyway, its still good to see a conservative make the point that John Edwards is more qualified to be President than George W. Bush was four years ago.
It's good to see the Dallas Morning News editorial board take an occasional time-out from their GOP chearleading to call the Bush campaign out on the Howard Dean + Al Gore = Adolf Hitler ad:
Stop it. Stop it this instant.
No more Hitler images. No more brown-shirt references.
It doesn't matter who started it. It doesn't matter who perpetuated it.
It doesn't matter how badly either party wants to win this election or how much its partisans dislike the guy on the other side.
For those who've missed all the yelling, the Bush campaign has a Web ad that tars the Kerry forces as "the coalition of the wild-eyed." In addition to film clips of agitated Democrats, the spot offers glimpses of two ads submitted months ago to a contest run by MoveOn.org, which likened the president to the Nazi dictator.
Bush followers say the ads which MoveOn yanked after a few days from among the 1,500 entries on its site fairly represent Democratic fanaticism. Kerry supporters say his campaign had nothing to do with the original ads, while the Bush campaign has everything to do with keeping them in public view. Further, the Kerry-ites say, the Bush spot, by juxtaposing Al Gore, Howard Dean and Adolf Hitler in what looks like a spit-slinging derby, draws a subliminal connection between the Democrats and the Nazis.
Frankly, my dear, when it comes to the nuances of the thing, we don't give a damn.
Every political party, interest group or individual should retract any and every Hitler image or reference, regardless of where it originated. Both sides should apologize if not to each other.
Note to the Dallas Morning News - MoveOn.org has already apologized.... six months ago:
The Republican National Committee and its chairman have falsely accused MoveOn.org of sponsoring ads on its website which compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler. The claim is deliberately and maliciously misleading.
During December the MoveOn.org Voter Fund invited members of the public to submit ads that purported to tell the truth about the President and his policies. More than 1,500 submissions from ordinary Americans came in and were posted on a web site, bushin30seconds.org, for the public to review.
None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries.
We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process. In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system.
Some low level staffer at MoveOn.org probably posted the Hitler ad without thinking about the consequences. On the other hand, the campaign of the President of the United States utters Adolf Hitler in the same breath with patriotic Americans like Howard Dean and Al Gore. It's pretty simple to me who owes who an apology here.
The Hill says that John Kerry is considering opting out of public funding for the general election (also noted on Political Wire). Basically, Kerry will receive $75 Million after he is nominated for the general election campaign after he receives the nomination, but is not allowed to raise or spend any other money. By opting out, Kerry could raise and spend as much as he would like. There's two questions here. Could Kerry / Edwards raise over $75 Million between the convention and election day? Yes. Should Kerry / Edwards then deny public funding to be able to spend more, though? That's a much more difficult question, and my gut instinct says no. Here's why.
Based on John Kerry's fundraising since March, I believe that it is realistic to suggest that in the three (and change) months between the convention and election day, Kerry / Edwards could raise another $100-$150 Million. This would increase the amount that Kerry / Edwards could spend in the general election campaign by 33-100%, which would easily neutralize any Bush advantage generated from the late GOP convention. Still, the idea doesn't make sense. Say that Kerry / Edwards is able to raise $100 Million between the convention and election day. That is effectively $400 Democratic dollars being spent to generate an additional $100 in campaign funds for Kerry. Even if Kerry / Edwards raises $150 Million after the convention - it would be a truly astonishing figure - but it would also mean that every $200 raised would only generate an extra $100 in campaign funds. Wouldn't it make more sense for Kerry to take the $75 Million and then urge his supporters to give money to the DNC? Or to state parties in swing states? Or to Congressional candidates (especially those in swing states)? By opting out of the $75 Million in public funds, Kerry / Edwards would probably be able to raise more hard money for their campaign, but is it really worth another $25-50 Million, when $50-100 could be raised for nearly the same purpose?
Pandagon also advises Kerry / Edwards not to opt out for a different reason. Television ads this year really haven't been all that effective. There's no smoking gun with either Bush or Kerry. There's no Willie Horton, there's no Daisy. $75 Million gives Kerry / Edwards more than enough money to run an effective television campaign through election day, while state parties and the DNC can probably handle most of the GOTV.
My DD takes the other side. He thinks it's a no-brainer, and that Democrats could spin it as an issue of fiscal responsibility. Kerry / Edwards could boast that they're saving taxpayers $75 Million, while Bush / Cheney is just playing the same tired old game of Republican borrow and spend economics.
And that's a problem to some National Review columnists:
The JFK wannabes know the centrality of image to Kennedy's magic. Between Kerry's expensive haircuts and Edwards's hair-sprayed bangs, my guess is that no presidential ticket in the history of the planet has cared so much about personal grooming. When the ticketmates travel together, there will probably be stiff competition for the mirror and hair products. Teresa herself has gotten into the act, recently pronouncing herself "sexy" an odd boast for someone auditioning for a job that usually involves reading to schoolchildren.
Sounds like someone is a little bit insecure there.
Or else the campaign wouldn't have started running ads in North Carolina:
For Friday's launch, Bush's campaign plans to roll out new ads. It started running a commercial Wednesday on national cable networks featuring GOP Sen. John McCain praising Bush. That ad also could run in local media markets in the 19 states where Bush will go back on the air starting Friday.
On Wednesday, Kerry began airing ads in Edwards' home state, and his campaign unveiled new commercials that say Kerry will "fight for the middle class," while being "tough and smart" on the war on terror. The ads don't mention Bush, but they attempt to subtly contrast his proposals with Kerry's.
Kerry's campaign also boosted its ad spending to $18 million for July by buying more airtime in small media markets where it had been advertising at lower levels. In all, Kerry is on the air in media markets in 19 states.
Bush won North Carolina by 13 points in 2000, but he must go on the air there to keep Kerry from making inroads on traditionally Republican turf. Democrats hope Edwards can help put the state and its 15 electoral votes in play, along with other Southern venues. The new Democratic ticket campaigned in Florida on Wednesday night.
By the way, check out the latest Kerry ads. They touch a bunch of issues, and there's a few bio spots mixed in. The best of the bunch is the "Team for America" ad touting Kerry and Edwards.
Rasmussen Reports has Bush leading by a 55-37% margin.
Thats close to the margin in which Bush defeated Gore in Texas in 2000 - 59-38%. Thus, Kerry is doing marginally better than Gore in Texas, but not close enough to make a difference. However, it will be interesting to see if Edwards helps the ticket in Texas. Texas won't be targetted, but if Kerry / Edwards gets into the mid-forties in Texas (I think a realistic possibility, although low-forties is certainly more probable), then it would bode well for Democrats here in 2006. Regardless, boosting the Kerry/Edwards vote in Texas serves several important purposes. First, it helps our congressional candidates. Second, it helps our state representative and statewide candidates. And third, it can help give Kerry / Edwards more of a mandate when they win in November by increasing their popular vote margin. Either way, I'd be very surprised if Kerry does not improve upon Gore's showing in Texas. In 2000, lots of Democrats and Independents voted for Bush, because he was our popular and relatively moderate governor. However, as we all know, he has radically shifted from a moderate Republican / compassionate conservative to a right-wing ideolouge as President. Also, Ralph Nader will not be on the ballot in Texas. Expect the 2-3% of votes that would go to Nader, to go to Kerry. In 2000, Bush carried both Dallas and Travis (Greater Austin - where Nader won 10% of the vote) Counties. I would be willing to bet that Kerry carries both counties (Travis easily, and Dallas by a small margin) this time.
Slate notes that John Edwards is the first national-ticket candidate to have been too young to get drafted for the Vietnam War; he didn't turn 18 until the war was practically coming to an end.
[parody of what they said about Clinton in '92]Finally, somebody who represents our generation![/[parody]
Note: lest anyone be offended or think I am making light of the great sacrifice many of our elders made in Vietnam, the line for the title comes from the Degenatron! ad in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.
Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.) whom The Post incorrectly reported yesterday would be tapped as Kerry's running mate and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack were among others known to be under consideration.
Remember the "exclusive" New York Post story citing Dick Gephardt as Kerry's choice? Well, follow that link now and guess what? It redirects to this address: http://www.nypost.com/missing/missing.htm
The fact that nobody, most amusingly the New York Post, knew who the VP was shows that the Kerry camp is running one of the tightest ships in political history. Literally no one knew who the nominee would be and according to Kerry himself there were several others that almost made it that were never even mentioned by the media. Democrats have a problem with keeping things secret- witness the perpetual leakiness of the Clinton Administration- and so this is promising. I think that this ticket is doing all of the right things.
Furthermore, can you name one big bad thing that they've done? Can anyone think of any single monumental blunder or strategic misstep? The fact that he has gone 4 months without fucking up is pretty significant. Gore 86ed Clinton, Clinton had the sex stuff, Mondale picked a crappy running mate, etc. So far Kerry hasn't screwed up anything and he's had a lot of time to do it. He's doing a hell of a job and slow and steady is likely to do the trick.
It might not be much fun to be named Carey Edwards right now. But this Kerry Edwards is one lucky guy. His name is Kerry Edwards, and since 2002 has owned the domain name of his name - KerryEdwards.com. And, it's up for sale. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get six figures from either the Kerry campaign, a Democratic 527, or from some wealthy Bush group.
It's official, and I'm pleased. If you haven't yet, watch our next Vice President at the Texas Democratic Party convention last month, here. Check out Edward's homepage as well.
If you aren't one of the million plus people on the John Kerry email list, here's what John Kerry had to say this morning:
Dear Friend,
In just a few minutes, I will announce that Senator John Edwards will join me as my running-mate on the Democratic ticket as a candidate for vice president of the United States. Teresa and I could not be more excited that John and Elizabeth Edwards will be our partners in our journey to make America stronger at home and respected in the world.
You are the heart and soul of our campaign. You've shattered records and expectations every step of the way. Every time someone said you couldn't do it, you proved them wrong. Because of your incredible grassroots energy and commitment, I wanted to make the first official announcement of my decision to you -- more than one million online supporters at johnkerry.com.
I want you to know why I'm excited about running for president with John Edwards by my side. John understands and defends the values of America. He has shown courage and conviction as a champion for middle class Americans and those struggling to reach the middle class. In the Senate, he worked to reform our intelligence, to combat bioterrorism, and keep our military strong. John reaches across party lines and speaks to the heart of America -- hope and optimism. Throughout his own campaign for President, John spoke about the great divide in this country -- the "Two Americas" -- that exist between those who are doing well today and those that are struggling to make it from day to day. And I am so proud that we're going to build one America together.
In the next 120 days and in the administration that follows, John Edwards and I will be fighting for the America we love. We'll be fighting to give the middle class a voice by providing good paying jobs and affordable health care. We'll be fighting to make America energy independent. We'll be fighting to build a strong military and lead strong alliances, so young Americans are never put in harm's way because we insisted on going it alone.
I can't tell you how proud I am to have John Edwards on my team, or how eager I am for the day this fall when he stands up for our vision and goes toe-to-toe with Dick Cheney.
This is the most important election of our lifetime, and a defining moment in our history. With you by our side every day of this campaign, John and I will lead the most spirited presidential campaign America has ever seen and fight to lead our nation in a new and better direction.
Well, one source says he's seen Kerry/Edwards decals painted on the Kerry plane. I have no idea how creditable this is...
And this source.... well the New York Post has apparently learned it somehow... but again, the New York Post is hardly a creditable news source either.
Commenters on several blogs are noting a lot of rumors (example 1; example 2) among flight enthusiasts in the Pittsburgh area that the Kerry campaign jet is getting "Kerry/Edwards" decals put on it tonight in PIT hanger 4.
If you're in da Burgh, you know, go get yerself a picture before dawn.
(Damn I wish I still lived in Pittsburgh, even if the school kids used to make fun of my Tennessee accent. I was cast as the farmer boy in the first grade play.)
Also, readers, subscribe to the Kerry mailing list if you haven't and stay up with your caffeine fix. Scuttlebutt is that the official Kerry Veep Announcement e-mail should be coming down the pipe in the next few hours.
Mr. Kerry, said one associate familiar with the plan, intended to begin calling the major candidates in contention around 7 a.m. Tuesday to give them the news of his choice
The first public word of Mr. Kerry's selection is to be conveyed after the phone calls in an e-mail message to supporters who signed up on the Web site johnkerry.com, aides said. More than 150,000 people have enrolled on the site since Friday, when Mr. Kerry first promised to release his decision this way, his spokesman, David Wade, said.
If all goes according to plan, Mr. Kerry will appear at a big morning rally in Market Square in downtown Pittsburgh and announce his choice at about 9 a.m. Tuesday, aides said, before flying to Indianapolis to address a convention of the A.M.E. Church. He will then return to his wife's farmhouse in Fox Chapel, Pa., in the critical electoral turf of Allegheny County, to await the arrival of his new No. 2 for an overnight visit.
At some point Tuesday afternoon Mr. Kerry and his running mate are to appear for a wave to the cameras, which would provide, in time for the evening news, the first post-selection images of the two men together.
[...]
Mr. Kerry and his running mate will fly together Wednesday morning to Cleveland for an outdoor rally opposite City Hall, and then to a park in Dayton for another rally with, it is hoped, thousands of supporters. Both Mr. Kerry and President Bush view Ohio as one of a handful of must-win states this fall.
And it's either Edwards, Vilsack or Gephardt:
Senior Democrats identified the top three contenders for the position as Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa. Mr. Kerry's aides reported that placards had been printed with at least three versions of the Democratic ticket: Kerry-Edwards, Kerry-Gephardt and Kerry-Vilsack, though they acknowledged that Mr. Kerry could still surprise even them with a different selection.
I guess I'll be getting up early in the morning....
Dick Cheney threw the first pitch at a minor league baseball game in Altoona, PA yesterday. Shortly after throwing the first pitch, he had a bit of trouble. The Altoona Mirror reports:
Was it a bad omen for the Bush-Cheney team, which is striving mightily to reverse last election's squeaker loss to the Democrats in Pennsylvania?
In front of thousands of Altoona Curve fans Sunday night at Blair County Ballpark, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped the ball, literally, during a campaign appearance.
A ball off the bat of Curve player Ronnie Paulino, just after Cheney sat down after throwing the ceremonial first pitch, went right through the vice president's hands.
Oops. Meanwhile, John Kerry went one-for-three while pitching over at the "Field of Dreams" in Iowa. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports:
Kerry had just come off the field, sporting a Boston Red Sox cap and a new black Rawlings ball glove, after 20 minutes fooling around in the field, basking in the lens clicks of the traveling national press corps.
Accompanied by a dozen little kids, he waded into the chest-high corn beyond left field and disappeared, mimicking the movie. He played second base. He gently pitched to several pint-sized batters, calling all of them "slugger." He took three turns at the plate, hitting a weak squibber and popping a foul behind the plate that nearly beaned one of his volunteers before he slammed a towering shot into deep left field that required him to circle the bases. "Phew -- I'm out of breath," he gasped as he came off the field.
No surprise here, but the National Education Association has endorsed John Kerry with a 86.5% vote:
The National Education Association, the nation's largest union, endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president Monday, the final touch in its campaign to drive up school spending and reshape the biggest education law in decades.
[...]
Kerry, who is scheduled to speak to the 9,000 delegates at the NEA convention on Tuesday, was endorsed by 86.5 percent of them. The Massachusetts senator offers many teacher-friendly promises the union likes, but he also advances ideas the NEA has long opposed, such as paying bonuses to teachers based on student test scores
Of course, this comes as no surprise considering that the Bush administration holds our teachers in the same regard that they have for terrorists:
Although a quarter of NEA members identify themselves with the Republican Party, the union has never endorsed a Republican for president and typically spends $9 out of every $10 it raises on Democrats. Its relationship with the Bush administration has been particularly prickly since his education secretary, Rod Paige, jokingly referred to the union as a "terrorist organization" and annoyed members with how he apologized for the remark.
According to several Democratic sources, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina interrupted his family vacation at Walt Disney World last Thursday to come to Washington for a private meeting with Kerry, without even telling many members of his own staff.
Sources said the meeting went extremely well and that Edwards' stock is rising with Kerry. Edwards was Kerry's strongest rival in the Democratic primaries, but has since become a vocal and visible supporter of Kerry's candidacy.
Edwards traveled to Boston, Massachusetts, to appear at two Kerry fund raisers Monday night, after which he is scheduled to return to Washington.
Charles just doesn't want to say anything more until things are official. I really can't blame him. Regardless, I'll be getting up early tomorrow to check if there's any announcement.
Update: The AP has this story out in the past hour also hinting at Edwards.
F 9/11 made it past the $50 Million mark on Saturday night. It's managed to have a good weekend (the numbers for the long weekend ought to be out tomorrow) despite all of the Spiderman mania. F 9/11 has also maintained a distant, yet solid second rating all weekend.
Speaking of Fahrenheit 9/11... one of the projects I was working on this week was voter registration outside showings of the movie. We registered 30-40 voters and handed out many more voter registration cards to people outside the Dallas County Young Democrats and Dallas for Kerry.
Update: Greg finally saw the film, and as he expected, didn't like it. Most of Greg's objections to the film are understandable. I don't think that anyone will deny that the film is basically made as anti-Bush propaganda. But, I'd also argue with anyone who suggests that F 9/11 is bad for Kerry. Both Greg and Richard Cohen suggest that the movie is more likely to turn off potential swing voters than it is to get people to question their vote for George W. Bush, because the film is so overwhelmingly biased against Bush. I disagree. Most Democrats who see the movie come out of it even more motivated to help elect John Kerry. Did I buy into every charge and attack that Moore made in the film? No, of course not. But overall, it's entertaining in a way that softens the hard-hitting rants that might turn some people away. John Kerry is not mentioned once in the film. In fact, the film attacks Senate Democrats for not allowing debate on the certification of the 2000 election. It attacks Tom Dashle and Dick Gephardt (the potential Vice Presidential nominee) for their support of the war in Iraq. As long as Kerry distances himself from F 9/11, he ought to be fine. His only problem is if he embraces Michael Moore (a la Wes Clark).
The Veepstakes Rumors are all over the place. Gephardt's not my first choice, but Kos has some good insight for anyone who might be a little depressed with a Gephardt pick:
There are a lot worse choices than Gephardt. And a defense of the guy will be forthcoming sometime Monday, whether he is our veep nominee or not.
But a sneak preview -- Gephardt might not the most exciting choice, but he gives the Republicans zero ammunition. And that fits in nicely within Kerry's strategy.
Kerry may be boring, and he may not be inspiring, but he's given Rove absolutely no new material to work with. That's why the GOoPers have had to trot out 10-year-old b.s. to try and smear Kerry. Our guy has said just about nothing that can be turned around and used against him by Bush/Cheney 2004.
Kerry's team is operating under the C.W. assumption (correctly, IMHO) that a reelection battle is a referendum on the incumbent. Hence, they are fully expecting Bush to do himself in, leaving Kerry as the only alternative by the time November runs around. It may not be an exciting strategy, but a sound one nevertheless.
Gephardt as veep would be a natural extension of that strategy.
Well, the good folks over at the Galveston Premier Cinema decided to pick up Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend, which spared me the headache of driving all the way to Houston to see this year's winner of the Palme d'Or (why else do you think I'd go see two-hours of Bush-bashing? wink nod.)
I'll just go ahead and join the throngs of reviewers who felt (a) moved by Mrs. Libscomb, (b) concerned about the "My Pet Goat" footage, (c) somewhat confused about the Saudi stuff and (d) highly disturbed by our singing Attorney General (the guy that lost an election to a dead man).
But at anyrate, if by-gummit this is supposed to been a scathing indictment of the tragedy of the last four years, it seems to me to have lost itself, drowning in the sea of mendacity that is the Bush White House. Is it not simple enough to remind people that, nearly three years after 9/11, we don't have bin Laden in custody? George W. Bush has always had a slight problem in producing results. Getting bin Laden was, is, and always be the bottom line here in the cosmic balance-book.
With the second quarter results just coming in, it appears that more fundraising records have been smashed by the Kerry campaign. According to the campaign, the YTD total will be in excess of $150 million (at least 50 percent higher than President Bush's total), from over a million donors (and at least two-thirds of the money is coming in from the Internet, direct mail, and phone solicitations).
This is just great. Go over to the Republican National Convention site and look at their 4 delegate profiles.
We have 2 Hispanics, 2 Woman, and 1 African American. Talk about sugar coating the delegation, where are all the straight white guys in their 50s? They seem to be severly under-represented. This is clearly a case of reverse discrimination!!!
I mean, if this was the Democratic Convention Site, I would be just fine, since we seem to be a bit lacking in that whole white guy department anyways...
And reading their profiles, all four would want to watch a Broadway musical rather than see a Yankee's game. WHAT? Don't they know that their Party's nominee is manly and isn't one to be whistling showtunes??? And remember from that article who the delegates aren't seeing any shows with gay characters in them? Even so, what is with Mr. Cortez wanting to see Mamma Mia (ABBA songs, can't get much gay camp)? The others are going for the Lion King, but don't they know it's not the wholesome movie, but the offspring of the ever so gay Elton John?
Not matter how hard the National Republicans try to moderate their image, the fact is they are still controlled and beholden to their right wing base. Give me a break.
The Massachusetts State House overwhelmingly passed a bill similar to that of the State Senate which would strip Republican Governor Mitt Romney of being able to appoint a succesor to Kerry (when he wins the Presidency :) Romney, a Republican, probably could not have resisted the urge to appoint a Republican, even though the seat very obviously would have been held by a Democrat, but remember, politics over logic.
So now the State Senate has to go back and repass the new version, which is will, and send it off to the Gov. who will either veto it, or send it back where it will get repassed by both houses anyways. (It passed with veto-proof majorities in each).
Among the debate topics: Should Ralph run for president? The participants: Howard Dean and a candidate who always has an opinion on the subject independent Ralph Nader.
Dean, the former Democratic presidential hopeful who attracted legions of liberal followers before his bid fizzled out, will debate Nader for 90 minutes on July 9 before a studio audience.
National Public Radio's weekly program "Justice Talking" is sponsoring the debate, and correspondent Margot Adler will moderate.
Dean has been urging his supporters not to back Nader, but to stay within the Democratic fold and vote for John Kerry (news - web sites),
"I am anxious to debate Ralph Nader in order to speak about why he wants to run for president," Dean said in a statement. "This is the most important election in my lifetime and a third party candidate could make a difference this November and for years to come."
I hate to see Dean reduced to running interference against Nader, but then again, if there is anyone credible to do it, it's him. For a man like Nader, who is on not one state ballot, has been rejected by his old Green party, and may not even be able to use the Reform Party's endorsement (because their conference call didn't meet the FEC's rules for a Party Convention), it may take Dean to finally put the smack down to make him realize that he can serve much better purposes for Democracy without running.
Because right now, Nader the person, is running nowhere.
Now, I hate to be the one fanning the flames of paranoia but soon I'm going to be joining the tin foil hat wearers if I have to keep reading shit like this:
The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.
Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel.
Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns...
"Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications," said Soaries, a Republican and former secretary of state of New Jersey.
"Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?" he said. "I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country."
Soaries said his bipartisan, four-member commission might make a recommendation to Congress about setting up guidelies.
"I'm hopeful that there are some proposals already being floated. If there are, we're not aware of them. If there are not, we will probably try to put one on the table," he said...
"The states control elections, but on the national scale where every state has its own election laws and its own election chief, who's in charge?" he said.
Soaries also said he wants to know what federal officials are doing to increase security on Election Day. He said security officials must take care not to allow heightened security measures to intimidate minority voters, but that local and state election officials he's talked to have not been told what measures to expect.
"There's got to be communication," he said, "between law enforcement and election officials in preparation for November."
Let's see here, where to begin... The reason we don't have anyone in charge of cancelling elections is because in a democracy you don't cancel elections. Do I think that it is likely that Bush would cancel elections? Probably not. But does a part of me fear a Reichstag fire kind of situation? You bet. I swear to God, every day of this administration has me running for my dogeared copy of 1984. John Kerry in 2004 (or whenever Election Day is...)
This was the message on my parent's answering machine today...
Looking for delegates to convention in Boston to talk to and be interviewed on camera to talk about convention from delegates point of view. Got your name, looking for outgoing, interesting delegates who might be good for this, got your name from the state party.
So yeah, CNN wants to talk to me. I am blown away. This after I was in the Daily Texan the other week for being the youngest National Delegate from Texas. Woot!
At the State Convention, I heard Edwards speak for the very first time. As well as Kucinich.
Edwards blew me away, Kucinich, was blowing steam. But back to Edwards. If Kerry picked him for the Veep, I would even give some money to the campaign (which right now I'm not since local candidates need it more than Kerry in my opinion at this point).
Edwards has passion, and vision, and hope, and optimism and what a hell of a message. Granted, I am still a Deaniac at heart, but Edwards gives me some soul and I would have been for him if Dean wasn't in the race, and since Dean isn't in the race for VP, put me down as an Edwards guy. Gephardt, bless the man, leaves me cold (and Iowans too, aparently with his less than Dean finish).
So Byron, Jim, Andrew...do we have enough votes around here yet for a BOR Edwards for VP endorsement?
Interesting story here. Missouri Democratic Party County chairs support Edwards:
Missouri favorite son Dick Gephardt is not the favorite vice presidential candidate of several rank-and-file state Democratic leaders looking to deliver its 11 electoral votes to John Kerry.
Asked which prospective running mate would help Kerry win the battleground state, eight of 11 county chairmen and chairwomen selected at random by The Associated Press chose Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Gephardt and Edwards are among those Kerry is reported to be considering.
Only two of the county officials chose Gephardt, and one picked Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. President Bush won Missouri by just 3 percentage points in 2000.
"Gephardt just doesn't have the get-up-and-go that Edwards has," said Irma Brannum of Poplar Bluff, the Butler County party chairwoman. "Edwards is the exciting one," said St. Charles County chairman Joe Koester.
If Kerry were having trouble with labor, then Gephardt would make sense, but Kerry's doing fine with labor. If I had to bet on it, I'd bet on Tom Vilsack, but a John Edwards pick wouldn't surprise me.
Escort Agencies, Strip Clubs Prepare for GOP Convention
By Byron LaMasters
Yeah. Yeah, the hypocrites:
With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer, high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old party. Agencies are flying in extra call girls from around the globe to meet the expected demand during the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 gathering at Madison Square Garden.
"We have girls from London, Seattle, California, all coming in for that week," said a madam at a Manhattan escort service. "It's the week everyone wants to work."
"It's going to be big," agreed one operator at a midtown escort service.
[...]
That's the hope among escort services expecting a windfall from randy Republicans.
"We've got everything organized - the hotels, the flights, the advertisements," said another escort service operator. "We'll probably have 60 girls that week, instead of the usual 30."
It's not just the escort agencies that are expected to thrive with thousands of Republicans in town. The strip clubs are gearing up for increased business as well:
Clubs have started booking private parties for delegates anxious to ogle topless beauties after a day of watching fully clothed politicians boast about family values.
You really can't put it much better than that. The delegates engaging in these services will likely sit idly throughout the days as they listen to their party leadership speak of the evils of gay marriage. Then, they'll go out at night and indulge themselves in activities that poise a much greater threat to marriage than two gays or lesbians does. Oh well. Perhaps, Rick Perry is on to something. If this article is any indication of how much Republicans enjoy strip clubs, then perhaps it'll be easier to fund our schools than I thought with Perry's proposed strip club tax. Ya know, it's for the kids after all.
Nothing to important here, but today I was chilling by the pool at my apartment complex reading My Life by Bill Clinton when a young guy who was swimming came over to ask me about it. I told him that it was very interesting and well written but that if he were looking for a sordid tale of Clinton's sex life to look elsewhere. We talked politics for a bit and I found out that he was a very conservative Republican who had interned for GOP legislators at the state capitol.
I didn't mind this- I don't personally dislike most individual Republicans and he had the good sense to judge Clinton a "decent" president. Still, something he said piqued my interest. The guy told me that when Ralph Nader came to Texas earlier this year in his run for the President he was invited to staff the candidate and to help advance his events around the state. That's right- active conservative Republican was asked to work for "progressive" candidate Nader. He was busy so he had to decline, but you have to ask who Nader really wants to represent if he's seeking out the hardest of the hard right to help his efforts.
Nader represents the worst aspects of the left- self-centerdness, a lack of political acumen and is the very symbol of the division among the left in the face of a very united right wing. If the left were to figure out a way to pull their heads out of their asses, actually build a coalition and keep it together maybe they could achieve some of their goals. Instead they'd rather curse the darkness and kiss each other's asses at how "principled" they are than to light a candle.
Are you afraid of making money? (a.k.a. Frodo & Me).
By Jim Dallas
Byron has already touched on Fahrenheit 9/11, but I'd like to reveal a startling statistic that I believe he did not touch on -- the average gross per theater for F9/11 was just a hair over $25,000 ($25,110 to be exact).
On a per-theater basis, F9/11 is more profitable than the following films were on their opening weekends:
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (3,855 theaters, average of $24,302).
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (3,703 theaters, average of $19,613).
Finding Nemo (3,374 theaters, average of $20,821).
On an average basis, Spider-Man (the film with the largest opening-weekend gross ever) pulled in about $30,000 per theater. It's also a tad behind Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, for which whole church congregations were bused in. Other films with almost-identical per-theater averages include The Matrix Reloaded ($25,471) and Star Wars: Episode II ($25,317).
Now a question - if Michael Moore is reelin' them in at a faster clip than J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien, and packin' em in at about the same clip as the Wachowskis and George Lucas - why is F9/11 only on 868 screens? Are America's theater owners afraid of making money or something?
Although we're all 100% Kerry folks now, 75 of the 294 Texas Delegates, Alternates, and Committee folks began this great journey to Boston as Howard Dean supporters. There may be a "Dean" event in conjunction with our time in Boston...
That's right around 25%. I'm working on getting a full listing and seeing what the other breakdowns in various categories are at the momment. Soon I will also post about the new SDEC and the turnover there.
It's estimated to take in over $21 Million this weekend. Go see it (again) tonight. I might. It has a small weekend lead over White Chicks. Here's the charts:
TW LW Title (Click to view daily chart) Studio Weekend Gross % Change Theater Count/Change Average Total Gross Cost* Week # 1 N Fahrenheit 9/11 FAG $21,800,000 - 868 - $25,115 $21,958,000 $6 / $10 1 2 N White Chicks Sony $19,600,000 - 2,726 - $7,190 $27,100,000 $37 / $30 1 3 1 DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story Fox $18,500,000 -38.5% 3,020 +326 $6,125 $67,171,000 $20 / $30 2
The amazing thing is that Fahrenheit is being shown in only 868 theaters - about a third the number of theaters that are showing most of the other top ten movies this weekend. Conservatives tried to intimidate theaters into not showing Fahrenheit. Didn't work. The average theater made $25,000 in ticket sales this weekend on the movie.
Saw it tonight. It was very well done. It's funny, entertaining and depressing all at the same time. Yeah, if you hate Bush, as I do, you'll leave the movie theator hating Bush more (even if that's hard to believe). If you like Bush, you'll probably take it as liberal Michael Moore propoganda. I wore one of my John Kerry t-shirts to the theater and had two people ask me where they could get one. Go to Kerry Gear dot com. It's the official John Kerry for President store. On the way out, I ran into Congressman Martin Frost who was waiting in line for the next showing, and had the opportunity to talk to him for a minute or two. He wasn't sure what to expect from the movie, but wanted to know what everyone was talking about. It was good to see a lot of people line up to shake hands with Martin Frost. It wasn't a campaign event, but he was easily recognized by many of us as we left the theater. I might have more thoughts on the movie tomorrow. It's definitely worth seeing for any Democrat or Independent voter. I was glad to see less of Michael Moore, and more of real people that were effected by the war - like the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. She's a patriotic woman that puts up her flag every morning, only to see her son killed in Iraq.... for what? A lie by the President of the United States. Shame. Shame. Shame.
Anyway back to Martin Frost, if you haven't yet, donate to Martin Frost. He was Tom DeLay's number one target with redistricting, and he's the leader of the Texas Democratic Congressional delegation for years. Help him out.
And of course, get the liar out of the White House, too. Donate to John Kerry.
Great news coming from the Associated Press regarding the Green Party convention in Minneapolis this weekend:
The Green Party nominated Texas attorney David Cobb as its candidate for president Saturday, dealing a blow to independent Ralph Nader's campaign.
Nader, the party's candidate in 1996 and 2000, had hoped for the party's endorsement and access to the ballot Greens have in 22 states and Washington, D.C. (news - web sites) Instead, he will have to find another way to get on the ballot in those states, including Wisconsin and California.
Nader told party officials months ago he would not accept the party's nomination for president, openly courting their formal endorsement instead.
But 408 delegates voted for Cobb on the second ballot to give him the nomination. Maine radio personality Pat LaMarche was the party's nominee for vice president.
Cobb has walked a line between praising Nader and questioning what his candidacy as an independent offered the Greens as they try to expand their status as a third party (...)
Nader already has the backing of the Reform Party, which has ballot access in seven states, but he has yet to be placed on any state ballots.
This is great news for Democrats. Nader has been working for several months now and has yet to secure ballot access in any state. Of those 7 Reform Party states, the most critical of them all- Florida- is likely to leave his name off as their rules stipulate that the party must have a convention to get the candidate's name on the ballot while the Reform Party simply had a conference call (far cry from Perot's almost 20% in 1992). Furthermore, the convention was full of division between Nader backers and Cobb supporters which suggests that the party might be headed towards disintegration. Ralph Nader is quickly becoming a meaningless figure in the race and the Green Party is on the rocks.
In other news, now of the 4 largest political parties in the country 3 of them have Texans on the ballot. GOP nominee George W. Bush, Libertarian nominee (and Buda native) Michael Badnarik and Green Party nominee David Cobb. Let's hope that we have no Texans in the White House in January!
President Bush had made his vow to "change the tone in Washington" a central part of his 2000 campaign, calling bipartisan cooperation "the challenge of our moment."
"Our nation must rise above a house divided," he said in his victory speech in December 2000. "I know America wants reconciliation and unity. I know Americans want progress. And we will seize this moment and deliver."
Cheney in 2004:
Vice President Cheney on Friday vigorously defended his vulgarity directed at a prominent Democratic senator earlier this week in the Senate chamber.
Cheney said he "probably" used an obscenity in an argument Tuesday on the Senate floor with Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and added that he had no regrets. "I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it," Cheney told Neil Cavuto of Fox News. The vice president said those who heard the putdown agreed with him. "I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue."
The forceful defense by Cheney came as much of Washington was discussing his outburst on the Senate floor in which a chance encounter with Leahy during a photo session in the usually decorous Senate chamber ended in colorful profanity. The obscenity was published in yesterday's editions of The Washington Post.
Read KOS. Republicans are phone-banking to get Nader on the Oregon ballot. Ralph Nader isn't a legitimate contender for President. He's an egotistical maniac being used as a pawn by the Republican Party. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
Not long ago, it was revealed that the president of the United States had taken as a souvenir the pistol found on Saddam Hussein when American forces pulled him, blinking and bearded, out of the earth. It was reported further that the president kept the confiscated firearm in the Oval Office. I became concerned.
In the first place, this is a president that has in the past been overpowered by, in order, a pretzel, a Segway scooter, and a bicycle. (Note that I do not include here the fact that he is also regularly overpowered by the facts, by the office of the vice president, and by the rules of English grammar. These are abstract things, and it is as unfair to criticize him for being wrestled to the ground by abstract concepts as it would be dumb to, say, launch a "war" against one.) Anyway, there seemed to be trouble brewing here with tangible, mechanical objects.
Well, he who dishes it out, better know how to take it:
Typically a break from partisan warfare, this year's Senate class photo turned smiles into snarls as Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly used profanity toward one senior Democrat, sources said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who was on the receiving end of Cheney's ire, confirmed that the Vice President used profanity during Tuesday's class photo.
A spokesman for Cheney confirmed there was a "frank exchange of views."
[...]
Cheney, who as president of the Senate was present for the picture day, turned to Leahy and scolded the senator over his recent criticism of the vice president for Halliburton's alleged war profiteering.
[...]
Responding to Cheney's comment, Leahy reminded him of an earlier statement the vice president had made about him. Cheney then replied with profanity.
Leahy would not comment on the specifics of the story Thursday, but did confirm that Cheney used profanity.
"I think he was just having a bad day," said Leahy, "and I was kind of shocked to hear that kind of language on the floor."
Kevin Kellems, a spokesman for the vice president, said, "That doesn't sound like the kind of language that the vice president would use, but I can confirm that there was a frank exchange of views."
Of course, there was a time when John Kerry was launching F-bombs as well. But, then again, Kerry said it in an interview when he was frustrated at the height of Dean's success. Cheney said it at the typically congenial Senate class photo shoot. Wow.
Good news this week on the Ralph Nader front. Nader is way short in getting ballot signatures in Indiana. He needs 30,000 signatures, and has only 9000. The deadline is next Wednesday:
Ralph Nader's Indiana coordinator says the independent presidential candidate probably won't make it on the state ballot this November. Dallas Stoner said Nader's Indiana committee has collected only about nine-thousand of 30-thousand signatures needed to get the candidate's name on general election ballots. The deadline to collect the required number of signatures is noon Wednesday. Nader is not yet on any state ballot. He has been endorsed by the national Reform Party, which has ballot lines in seven states, including the battlegrounds of Florida and Michigan. His campaign has said he expects to appear on the ballot in 45 states. Stoner said the Nader committee will continue to seek signatures until Wednesday's deadline.
In Arizona, the state Democratic party has filed a lawsuit claiming that 15,467 of the 21,512 signatures for Nader's ballot petition in Arizona are invalid. The suit alleges that many of the signatures were by people that were ineligible to vote, or were circulated by convicted felons. The Tucson Citizen has the details:
Arizona Democrats have filed a lawsuit challenging the vast majority of signatures on Ralph Nader's nominating petitions gathered in the state. Party officials expect the challenge to the independent presidential candidate will keep him off the state's November ballot.
The suit, filed by Phoenix lawyer Andy Gordon yesterday in response to scrutiny by Democratic party volunteers, alleges that 15,467 of the 21,512 signatures Nader's campaign collected in Arizona are invalid. That would leave Nader 8,649 shy of what he needs to be listed on the ballot.
"We are very, very confident of the numbers ... and we are very confident that Mr. Nader will not be on the ballot," said Jim Pederson, Arizona's Democratic Party chairman.
Democrats are doing a good job taking care of Nader this cycle. John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe have stayed above the fray. They've gone out of their way to reach out to Ralph Nader, and they've sent surrogates like Howard Dean to reach out to potential Nader supporters. On the other hand, the grassroots activists and state parties have played their part in checking signatures and preventing Nader from gaining ballot access in as many places as possible. I've been attacked by commenters before for gloating at the fact that Nader won't be on the ballot in Texas. Sure, Texas will go for Bush, but the less states that Nader makes the ballot, the less seriously that people will take him. It'll be hard for Nader to launch any creditable attack against Democrats over allowing Nader in the debates if Nader is only on the ballot in 20 states. Finally, it's not a grassroots movement that is seeking to place Nader on the ballot. Republicans want Nader on the ballot to take votes away from Ralph Nader. In Arizona, around 65% of the Nader petition signers were Republicans. I'm sure that the same is true elsewhere.
USA Today has a breakdown of some presidential election predictors, showing that there is no clear favorite among the model-builders.
Interestingly, the only econometric model is Fair's. While Ray Fair's model shows a huge win for Bush, he also predicted a huge win for Poppy in 1992. While Fair has made some tweaks to his model since 1992, I still tend to think that it suffers from the same problem -- a purely econometric model of voter behavior is underspecified. My explorations have pretty much convinced me that economic performance and presidential approval are usually (but not always) pretty well correlated; ultimately though, voters are more apt to make decisions based on presidential approval (a political variable) than on some random econometric variables. The rough correlation is what allows Fair's model to work well enough to be better than a coin-toss -- but what also, I think, insures his prediction will not be very accurate this time around.
I never did get around to building a finished project; I just kinda got too busy to finish it. Sigh.
I'm happy to see that they're getting this out of the way before the convention when people will probably start paying attention:
If John Kerry is elected president, his seat in the U.S. Senate would be filled by the winner of a special election rather than a successor hand-picked by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney under a bill approved Wednesday by the Massachusetts Senate.
The Senate voted largely along party lines, 32-8, after a sometimes testy debate pitting the badly outnumbered Republicans, who opposed the change, against Democrats. One Democrat, Charles Shannon, D-Winchester, sided with Republicans.
Republicans will cry that this is a partisan Democratic game. So what. Republicans in Alaska did the same thing two years ago when they feared that then-Governor Tony Knowles (D-AK) would appoint himself Senator after then-Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK) was elected Governor. Of course, we all know what happened next. Murkowski decided that out of all of the possible choices to fill his seat, his daughter was the best qualified.
Mitt Romney had this coming to him anyway. Massachusetts has a recent history of electing liberal to moderate Republicans such as William Weld and Paul Cellucci. Romney on the other hand, has strayed from the Weld / Cellucci tradition. He's sided with the conservatives on the gay marriage issue, and he's called on John Kerry to resign his Senate seat. Who does Mitt Romney think he is? He's governor of Massachusetts for chrissake.
It looks like Republicans are up to their old tricks. First, they attack John Kerry for missing votes in the Senate. His homestate governor, Mitt Romney even called on Kerry to resign:
Renewing an attack his lieutenant governor launched earlier this week, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday called on US Senator John F. Kerry to resign immediately, saying Kerry's absence from the Senate as he campaigns for president "has cost Massachusetts tens of millions of dollars." "We need to be represented, and him missing votes on critical matters is a real problem for us," Romney said yesterday after signing a statewide smoking ban.
So, Kerry goes back to Washington to cast a key vote in the U.S. Senate, and what do Republicans do? They delay the vote:
Sen. John Kerry jumped off the presidential campaign trail Tuesday so he could vote for a measure funding health care benefits for veterans -- only to watch Republican leaders postpone the vote.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee denounced their move as "politics at its silliest."
For the past month, GOP leaders have engaged in political gamesmanship with Kerry over his dual roles as senator and candidate.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, charged that Tuesday's delay -- on a proposed Democratic amendment to a defense spending bill to fund veterans' health care -- was but the latest example.
Typical GOP hypocrisy. Attack John Kerry for missing votes, then prevent him from voting when he makes a special trip to Washington to vote on an important bill.
If North Carolina elected a president today, President Bush would win -- but not nearly by the margin this Republican-friendly state handed him four years ago, according to a new statewide poll. In the poll, 47 percent of likely voters chose Bush, a Republican, while 42 percent selected Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat.
The divide would narrow further if Kerry selects Sen. John Edwards as his running mate, according to the survey, conducted June 13-16 for a partnership of The News & Observer, WRAL-TV and WUNC radio.
"Kerry doesn't have to win North Carolina to win the presidency. Everybody knows that. Bush knows that," said Del Ali of Research 2000, the Maryland polling firm that conducted the survey. "But by taking Edwards on the ticket, it really does force Bush to spend time in an area that, frankly, he can't afford to spend time in."
Kerry has yet to run a single advertisement in North Carolina. Some advertising and Edwards on the ticket would at the very least force Bush to campaign in the state.
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a Republican and known Bush-toadie, is complaining about how Kerry's presidential aspirations are hurting Massachusetts.
I'd remind Romney that Massachusetts, like all states, has two United States senators, including the very able Edward Kennedy.
Texas, on the other hand, has only one governor, but that didn't keep a certain former Texas governor from harboring presidential ambitions throughout 2000 (and, actually, most of 1998 and 1999 as well).
Indeed, a compelling case could be made that many, if not most, of the budgetary problems Texas has faced over the last five years stem from George W. Bush's 2000 presidential race. Bush, as governor, was not averse to pragmatism - until he decided to run for president, and put sucking up to right-wing ideologues ahead of the best interests of the Lone Star State.
Would Texas have a working school finance system today if Bush hadn't run in 2000? I don't know, but the chances would have been a lot higher.
If Kerry resigned now, of course, Mitt Romney would get to tap a replacement. But he'd better hurry, because the Mass assembly is gearing up to insure that Kerry's successor will be a Democrat.
Every time a senator or governor (or house minority leader -- I'm looking at you, Dick "Let's Invade Iraq Now!" Gephardt") gears up for a presidential run, the long-term interests of their constituents often get set aside in favor of short-term political benefit. Crocodile tears should not impress anyone.
According to The Hill, Rep. Max Sandlin, a former Gep supporter, signed the House memo urging Kerry to pick John Edwards as veep, presumably if it means passing on Gephardt. He's quoted as saying it's a "common sentiment" that an Edwards' pick would help to insure Democratic victories in closely contested races in the South.
Ok, so there was a comment in the previous entry about the scream killing Dean off regardless for what ever he might be considered for (I'm sure it would be brought up as an excuse for Chief Senate Floor Duster if there was one that was appointed).
Over at Daily Kos in a comment, there was an excellent idea which I have posted below...
Hi, I'm Howard Dean. You may remember me as a mild-mannered doctor and former governor of Vermont.
[footage of one of the doctored/well-mixed Deanscreams from the internet]
Yes, we all have a lot to scream about these days, don't we?
[appropriate images onscreen with each of the bullets below]
+ with our sons and daughters dying in a war we didn't have to fight;
+ with tax breaks and wrist slaps for corporate fatcats and scofflaws;
+ with our executive branch thinking that they can ignore the constitution and international law;
I'm Howard Dean, and I approved this message because I'd say the time for remaining silent has long since passed. It's time for your voice to be heard again. Speak up, and elect Kerry/Dean in 2004.
I was curious why Zogby or Fox News would do a poll all of a sudden at the same time about Dean as a VP choice. Especially a Zogby poll of over 7,000 people with state by state break downs. I would suspect it's more than just the chance that Zogby was bored and had nothing better to do.
A June 8-9 national poll taken by Opinion Dynamcs Corp. for Fox News provides food for thought regarding a Kerry-Dean ticket. Overall, a Kerry-Dean ticket garnered support from 45 percent compared with 44 percent for Bush-Cheney (same as Kerry-Edwards). In the so-called battleground states, Kerry-Dean beat Bush-Cheney 48-42. The poll defines battleground states as: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The old conventional wisdom about a vice presidential candidate concludes that the best pick is the one who can deliver the electoral votes of his or her home state on Election Day. That is what keeps names like retiring Missouri congressman Richard Gephardt and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack in the mix. Neither excites, and one is virtually unknown beyond the corn belt. Dean's constituency is bigger than a single state. It's a movement synonymous with change and excitement.
But excitement from the left scares the middle. The middle is where Kerry thinks he wants to be in an election that has come to be defined as Bush versus not Bush. It's too bad a party has to lose its heart and soul to put a body in the White House.
Well, you know, Howard Dean is just unelectable compared to that John Kerry guy...
The White House rejected calls Monday from Ronald Reagan (news - web sites)'s family and others to relax President Bush (news - web sites)'s restrictions on stem-cell research in pursuit of potential cures for illnesses.
Bush signed an executive order in August 2001 that limited federal help to financing stem cell research on 78 embryonic stem cell lines then in existence. Because day-old embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted, the process is opposed by some conservatives who link it to abortion.
Shortly before Reagan's death, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) and 57 other senators asked Bush to relax the restrictions. Nancy Reagan has long argued that using stem cells from embryos could lead to cures for a number of diseases like the Alzheimer's that afflicted her husband. Bush opposes using embryos for stem cell research.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush continues to believe that his policy is the right one.
This is an issue that unites Democrats and many moderate Republicans. Fifty-seven U.S. Senators have asked Bush to relax his restrictions on stem cell research. Instead of listening, however, Bush is again resorting to pandering to his right-wing base. I hope that Nancy Reagan and their family continue to push this issue.
And I'm sure that he meant every word of it. Here's Bush's remarks at a ceremony unveiling Bill Clinton's portrait at the White House:
As you might know, my father and I have decided to call each other by numbers. (Laughter.) He's 41, I'm 43. It's a great honor to -- it's a great pleasure to honor number 42. We're glad you're here, 42. (Applause.) The years have done a lot to clarify the strengths of this man. As a candidate for any office, whether it be the state attorney general or the President, Bill Clinton showed incredible energy and great personal appeal. As chief executive, he showed a deep and far-ranging knowledge of public policy, a great compassion for people in need, and the forward-looking spirit the Americans like in a President. Bill Clinton could always see a better day ahead -- and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer.
Over eight years, it was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy. He's a man of enthusiasm and warmth, who could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service.
People saw those gifts very early in Bill Clinton. He is remembered in Hope, Arkansas, and other places along the way, as an eager, good-hearted boy who seemed destined for big things. I was particularly struck by the story of a nun at St. John's School in Hot Springs who decided that Billy Clinton should get a C in deportment. That was a rare grade for the future Rhodes Scholar and President. (Laughter.) So Bill's mother gave the nun a call to see what was wrong. The sister replied, "Oh, nothing much. But let me tell you, this boy knows the answer to every question and he just leaps to his feet before anyone else can." (Laughter.) She went on, you know, "I know he'll not tolerate this C, but it'll be good for him. And I promise you, if he wants to be, he will be President someday."
People in Bill Clinton's life have always expected him to succeed -- and, more than that, they wanted him to succeed. And meeting those expectations took more than charm and intellect -- it took hard work and drive and determination and optimism. And after all, you've got to be optimistic to give six months of your life running the McGovern campaign in Texas. (Laughter and applause.)
John Edwards won't deliver the South to John Kerry, in fact it's likely that John Edwards might not be able to deliver his homestate to the ticket even if he were the Vice Presidential candidate. However, with five open Democratic Senate seats in the south (and one open GOP seat in the region), Edwards would be an asset to Democratic Senate candidates trying to hold those seats. Thus there's little surprise, especially now with talks of a Kerry / McCain ticket finally put to rest, that Senate Democrats are seriously talking up John Edwards for Vice President:
Democratic senators and Senate candidates are pressing John Kerry to name one of their own, John Edwards of North Carolina, as his running mate, in part because they believe Mr. Edwards would help Democrats in five tossup races in the South and give the party a fighting chance to recapture control of the Senate.
The Democratic senators, from the South as well as from other parts of the country, say the choice of Mr. Edwards would allow candidates in North and South Carolina, Oklahoma and Louisiana to openly associate themselves with a national ticket that they have mainly avoided. Beyond that, they say, Mr. Edwards would be a strong candidate elsewhere in the nation.
Their urgings take on even more weight as Mr. Kerry redoubles his efforts to choose a running mate before the Democratic convention late next month, following Senator John McCain's clear rejection of Mr. Kerry's entreaties to consider joining him on the ticket.
"Edwards is from the South and speaks Southern, and I think would be helpful to the candidates in that regard," Senator John B. Breaux of Louisiana said. "I think he can campaign well in the South, and I think the candidates would be proud to stand with him when he comes down there."
In North Carolina, the Democrat who is running to succeed Mr. Edwards was even more blunt about his desire that Mr. Edwards be named to the ticket.
"I've had lots of people who are close to Kerry ask me, and I've always been very candid: he'd be nuts not to pick him," said the candidate, Erskine Bowles, a Charlotte investment banker and former White House chief of staff.
[...]
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, whom Mr. Kerry considers one of his closest friends in the Senate, said he had talked up Mr. Edwards to James A. Johnson, the veteran Democratic operative who is directing Mr. Kerry's selection process.
[...]
Senator Byron L. Dorgan, also of North Dakota, said he had made the same point to Mr. Kerry. "His appeal goes beyond the South," he said of Mr. Edwards. "He's Southern, but he's also centrist, he's charismatic and I think he'd add a lot of spark to this ticket."
[...]
Mr. John said Mr. Edwards would bring geographic balance, and then some, to a ticket headed by Mr. Kerry, who is from Massachusetts. "It certainly would be helpful in Louisiana, for the mere fact that it's a state where we're looking for some excitement. Edwards would bring some excitement," he said.
Mr. Carson also said he favored a Kerry-Edwards ticket.
Practically all of our Democratic Senate candidates in the south want John Edwards on the ticket. I know he'd be good for the ticket in Texas. While Kerry won't carry Texas, putting Edwards on the ticket would likely cause many Texans to take a second look at John Kerry and the Democratic ticket. He's my first choice.
Well, not officially, but they want Bush out. The AP reports:
Angered by Bush administration policies they contend endanger national security, 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers are urging Americans to vote President Bush out of office in November.
The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, does not explicitly endorse Democrat John Kerry for president in its campaign, which will start officially Wednesday at a Washington news conference.
The Bush-Cheney campaign said Sunday it would have no response until the group formally issues its statement at the news conference.
Among the group are 20 ambassadors, appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, other former State Department officials and military leaders whose careers span three decades.
Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991.
"We agreed that we had just lost confidence in the ability of the Bush administration to advocate for American interests or to provide the kind of leadership that we think is essential," said William C. Harrop, the first President Bush's ambassador to Israel, and earlier to four African countries.
"The group does not endorse Kerry, although it more or less goes without saying in the statement," Harrop said Sunday in a telephone interview.
As many of you know, I cared a lot about the Democratic Primary. Maybe too much. But that's my nature. Once I find an issue, I tend to stick with it until there is nothing more that I can do, or another thing comes along.
So the other day I read an interview with Howard Dean about his thoughts about the past year. (Is it so wrong to cry?)
It just reminded me how much I really respected the guy. Yeah, he went a little nuts. And I'm sure if he was the nominee right now he'd still be getting hammered. But reading that interview and the comments people left reminded me of the good times and why it was all worth it.
And I hope that someday, we will be ready for that again. So for all you Dean fans out there, do yourself a favor and read it all the way through. And a comment from Fran Vincent, Austin organizer and candidate for SDEC from SD14... There's a reason this man has all of our hearts. It's because he speaks from his.
(The best clips are in the extended entry...)
One of Howard Dean's most poignant memories of his presidential campaign is of a woman in a wheelchair who gave him $50 in quarters at a breakfast meeting in Iowa last summer. The money came from her federal supplemental income check.
"Even now I can hardly tell that story," says Dean, his voice choking in a rare display of emotion. "She said she had been saving the quarters for two years, when she could, for something that was really important - and this was really important to her."
Dean is in awe of his rise. He is accepting of his fall. He readily concedes he made mistakes. He has difficulty, though, coming to grips with the sacrifices and trust of his legions of devoted supporters.
"I am pretty overwhelmed," he says and pauses as his eyes brim with tears.
...
As this year opened, the nomination was his to lose, and lose it he did.
Asked why, Dean quickly and almost dispassionately ticks off three reasons:
"I think Kerry pulled himself together to do a good job in Iowa and he should be given credit for it," he said. "Secondly, we peaked too early, and gave everybody an opportunity to go after us. We knew that whoever won Iowa was going to win the whole thing and we just peaked too early, and there was not much we could do about it.
"Third of all, because I started out from so far behind, we never really had the money, and then we didn't have the time, to build the kind of infrastructure you need to sustain you through a campaign the whole way."
...
Much has been written in the past few months speculating on who and what is to blame for his dramatic fall. Dean dismisses it all. "I take full responsibility for not winning the campaign," he said. (*tear)
"The reason I don't like all the kiss and tell stuff is there is no need to fight about whose fault this was. I will take all the blame. I oversaw those decisions and I accepted them and I approved them."
...
He thinks often, though, of the people who worked for him, who supported him, who contributed to his campaign and who saw in him a reason to get involved in politics.
"I was astonished by the response of the public - by their enormous enthusiasm. You have no idea what people did for us. I certainly didn't. People would work 16 hours a day on top of their job, 60 hours a week on top of their jobs. People quit their jobs. Look at the kids. They just drove to Burlington. It was just shocking to me. I never thought anything like that was going to happen," he said.
...
Gone are the chartered planes and the entourage. No press plane. No aides. Just Howard Dean.
"I think if I had dropped out of the race on February 18 and said that was that, that would have been a terrible thing to do," he said, his voice breaking once again.
"Because it would have just been about me - and it never was."
The AP-Ipsos poll of 788 registered voters was conducted Monday to Wednesday. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. For the responses of subgroups, it was slightly larger: 5 percentage points for Democrats, 5.5 percentage points for Republicans.
In hypothetical matchups against the GOP ticket:
_Kerry-Edwards had 47 percent to 44 percent for Bush-Cheney.
_Bush-Cheney had 47 percent to 45 percent for Kerry-Gephardt.
_Bush-Cheney had 47 percent to 43 percent for Kerry-Vilsack and for Kerry-Clark.
It does look like Kerry / McCain is out of the question - something that I think is a good thing. On paper, Kerry / McCain seems to be unbeatable. In practice, as I've mentioned before, bipartisan unity tickets have been absolute disasters. 1840 - The Whigs get William Henry Harrison elected, but he dies after a month in office and John Tyler vetoes most of Whig legislative agenda. 1864 - Andrew Johnson replaced Abraham Lincoln after he is assassinated and refuses to cooperate with Republicans in Congress on Reconstruction until he is impeached and nearly removed from office. Do I think that a Kerry / McCain presidency would be as disasterous? Not at all, but the historical precendent for such a ticket is not promising.
I'm still a fan of Edwards. I voted for John Edwards in the primary, because I wanted to send a message that he ought to be selected as Kerry's running mate.
It's truly amazing how much money is being raised for John Kerry by Democratic bloggers. Atrios is closing in on $200,000 and DailyKOS has over $63,000 contributions. We're not quite up there, yet (I seem to remember Byron quoting me a total of a few hundred dollars). All told, I would expect that the entire blogosphere will raise millions by the end of this election cycle. That's a lot of turkee.
An Atrios Eschaton commenter noted that his contribution was $128 -- which he purports is the cost of a one-way bus fare from Washington DC to Crawford, Texas. I couldn't find such a rate on the Greyhound Web site (although I did see a quote of $149 for Washington to Waco, which is kinda near Crawford). Maybe $128 is some sort of special (hopefully it's one of those "friends come free" deals so we can send Dubya and Dick Cheney away together.)
If you can spare it (and $128, or $149, is a lot of money), consider donating to John Kerry. Help us send President Bush back to Texas.
Over the past months, there has been chatter about whether or not Kerry should pick a "shadow cabinet" of sorts. While it certainly would be interesting and an out of the box idea (meaning Kerry probably wouldn't do it) I really doubt it would happen (kinda like McCain being the VP).
But that hasn't stopped people from having fun seeing who they would like where. (Howard Dean for Sec. of Health and Human Services anyone?)
The following article from boston.com has a great blend of serious and fun. Make your own choices in the comments...
For Defense, usual suspects are Wesley Clark and John McCain; but I like Romeo Crennel, Patriots' Super Bowl-winning defensive coordinator. At State, safe pick is ex-UN ambassador and know-it-all Richard Holbrooke, who helped end war in Bosnia. National security adviser would fit Gary Hart, expert on all things military, but Richard Clarke would be sweet justice.
FBI goes to America's most famous cop, Bill Bratton, formerly of Boston and New York, now LAPD chief. Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (ret.) gets Homeland Security; Army's only female three-star general was deputy chief of staff for intelligence. As attorney general, John Edwards would fight for little guy; solicitor general is natural for Dennis Archer, ex-Detroit Mayor and first African-American head of American Bar Association. CIA chief would come from Yale's secret Skull and Bones society, so director's name could not be spoken.
College president Bob Kerrey would turn Education job into bullhorn for reform. For Agriculture, I'd skip bland South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle in favor of Jim Hightower, colorful Bush-whacker who went from Texas farming commissioner to national liberal wit overnight. Example: "The only difference between a pigeon and the American farmer is that a pigeon can still make a deposit on a John Deere."
Give Health and Human Services to Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, left on steps of orphanage as baby and adopted by an alcoholic, abusive mother (true). Howard Dean would whip us into shape as surgeon general. Housing should have US Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. in the house.
Environmental Protection for Bill Weld, if he promises not to jump into Potomac. At Interior, Fab Five from "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" could do wonders with whole country. (ed. note: Ok, really bad pun.)
Max Cleland for Veterans Affairs; he lost three limbs in Vietnam, then lost his US Senate seat when Republicans attacked his patriotism. (Don't know which is worse, that GOP did it, or that it worked.)
For Energy, smart pick is Daniel Yergin, authority on global energy and economics. Transportation goes to Fred Salvucci, who conceived and won approvals for biggest construction project in US history, Boston's Big Dig. Labor is Richard Gephardt, who seems to have been in Congress since 1894 -- even back then had 100 percent AFL rating. Commerce goes to Donald Trump; at Cabinet meetings he'd make everyone feel better about his hair. Treasurer is Madame Heinz, who'd be comfortable around amounts smaller than her bank account.
Securities and Exchange is Eliot Spitzer, New York's crusading attorney general who'd bring extra muscle against CEO abuses. For UN ambassador, Georgia congressman and civil rights warrior John Lewis would project new US image to world. Who better to unlock huge China market as US Trade Representative than Gary Locke, third-generation Chinese-American and governor of Washington?
To chair Council of Economic Advisers, I'd tap economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. Head of space program is no-brainer: William Shatner, Star Trek captain, would boldly go where no man has gone before; with Priceline, he'd save billions on travel. And who in White House press corps would tangle with American Idol's acerbic Simon Crowell as press secretary?
I keep hearing polls for various states and the nation as a whole. While these have some usefulness in gauging momentum, they really aren't very meaningful at this point. The only people very closely watching the presidential election right now are junkies- people who think that reading about politics is really cool. The vast majority of Americans are in kind of a holding pattern, dealing with life and will start listening to the news a bit closer come Labor Day. As a result, I really don't put much credence in the polls right now.
Still, the number of undecideds is decidedly low this year. The latest Rasmussen poll has their number at about 6%- very tiny considering that the election is still 5 months away. The fact of the matter is that most of those- perhaps as much as 2/3rd or 3/4ths of them- will break for Kerry. If you have had 4 years to watch Bush and you still aren't convinced, chances are you'll cast your vote for someone else. Still, I think that the softest area of support is in Bush's numbers. People who say they support Kerry right now (as he is largely unknown or very little known around the country) are for the most part either rabid Democrats, rabid Bush-haters or just really like the guy. Bush's numbers are, on the other hand, full of a lot of people who just choose him by default. I think that as time goes on, if Kerry can keep things going strong, that number might dip a point or two. All of this, of course, bodes very well for Sen. Kerry.
The other thing that bodes well is the magic 50% line. 5 months out, less than half of all Americans say they want the same guy to be President. It is kind of like if you were to ask your wife "Are we going to be married 5 months from now" and she said "Well, I'm at about 43% on that one..." Kerry is set to take a lot of the vote that way.
But once again- 5 months is an eternity in politics. Absolutely anything could happen- including something we haven't even imagined yet. Sex scandals, terrorist attacks, drug scandals, mental breakdowns, a particularly serious gaffe- anything could happen. Talk to Clayton Williams, the 1990 Republican candidate for Governor of Texas. Ol' Claytie (as his friends called him) had a 20 point lead at Labor Day- that magic date I spoke of earlier. Then he had the good sense to make a very offensive joke on the record about a woman being raped, he refused to shake is opponent's hand (Ann Richards) during a televised debate and was generally mean spirited and rude. He lost bad to Richards only 8 weeks later. Anything can happen, and Kerry will be lucky to be working with an 8 point lead, not 20.
All of this is to say, don't worry about the polls right now. Be glad that Kerry is in the mid to upper 40s in most polls in competitive states and that Bush is lower than that. Call me back in 3 months and we'll see where we stand.
KOS has been keeping track of newly-released Rasmussen data which breaks down their 30 daily polls during the month of May by state. (Note that deconstructing national tracking poll data is a little different methodologically speaking than doing a full-on state poll).
Nonetheless, the breakdowns are showing some interesting results, with the race for president practically tied in Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Oregon, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
Rasmussen also used this technique to guess-timate support for Bush and Kerry in Texas. The results:
May 1 - May 31
(Purported Margin of Error: +/- 3%)
Bush 55%
Kerry 38%
Other 3%
Not Sure 4%
As Rasmussen notes, this is "expected." So really the only thing worth watching is, will Bush underperform or overperform in Texas compared to his showing in 2000? In part the matter is pride; "not losing as badly" would be sort of a moral victory for Texas Democrats. But just as importantly, polling data on this race will serve as a barometer of several things which will decide this election and future elections:
Is Bush's base going to show up for him? If Texas isn't Bush's base -- what is?
Are demographic trends actually helping Democrats, as many commentators have suggested?
Is the mood in the Lone Star State such that Democrats have real opportunities in 2006?
And many, many more.
Considering that Texas broke 59-38 for Bush in 2000, a 55-38 showing suggests that Bush is heading towards a November result which is no better, and potentially worse than, his showing four years ago. While Bush has a decent approval rating here (Rasmussen claims 60 percent; I suspect it is closer to 50), I would bet on Bush getting about 55 percent, Kerry getting about 43, and third parties carrying the rest. In short, I expect Bush to fall about four or five points short of his previous tally.
Why? The enthusiasm at least a few "Bushocrats" had for Gov. Bush has not translated into support for President Bush (ask Paul Burka). The state Republicans are forming a circular firing squad. Demographic shifts will probably give Kerry a one- or two- point boost. Finally, Nader isn't on the ballot here in Texas.
This is only June, and a lot can change (it''s even remotely possible that Kerry could carry Texas). We need more real polls to see where this race is going.
John Kerry has been using the slogan "Let America be America again" lately, and it appears to have gotten under the skin of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land. "I didn't go to any European prep schools, but I was just wondering what exactly he thinks America is," Mr. DeLay said at his weekly session with reporters. "If we're not America now, what are we? Is his campaign somehow against America because it's not American enough? What's his problem with America?" The slogan comes from a 1938 Langston Hughes poem, and Kerry aides say the candidate likes it because it quickly conveys idealism and a call for change. Kerry spokesman Luis Vizcaino dismissed Mr. DeLay's critique, saying the senator is "proud of America and proud to be an American."
I'm one of a growing number of fans of John Kerry's new slogan, or what seems to be emerging as his new slogan, "Let America be America again."
Delay can go off on his shrill European prep school rhetoric, but I really don't think that most people will give a flip. Bill Maher hit it on the button last night on Larry King:
When we were talking a few months ago about Bush being a draft dodger and that whole controversy, and people said, It's not relevant now, it is so relevant. If Bush says he's a war president -- you know what? If we're going to be at war and need a war president, I want a president who's been to war. John Kerry understands war in a way George Bush never will.
You know, this is a perfect storm of a mess in Iraq because we have a president who proudly says he doesn't read the paper, never traveled oversees, never really cared to learn about overseas, and never served oversees, so he doesn't understand what it's like overseas. And that's why he has this two-dimensional view of what goes on over there. He gets frustrated with us because we don't understand -- Saddam Hussein, 9/11, they hate us for our freedom. What don't you marshmallow-heads get about that? That's his whole world view. John Kerry has been to war. He's like a guy who's a vegetarian now because he's been to the slaughterhouse. I think he would have kept us out of war.
America has lost our way under George W. Bush because as Maher puts it, our president has a two-dimensional view of the world. Tom DeLay can shout all he wants about European prep schools, but John Kerry probably has the broadest world view of any presidential nominee in quite some time. Not only did he serve in Vietnam for America, but he's lived and traveled extensively in Europe, and has the ability to work with and communicate with our allies over there that George Bush will never have.
Also, the "Let America be America Again", is the perfect type of slogan that has mass appeal to both the liberal base of the Democratic Party, and the moderate to conservative Independent and swing voters. It appeals to liberals in that it emphasizes that America has lost its way, and we need a dramatic change in leadership and approach. It has the same appeal that Howard Dean's "I want to take back my country", but without the fiery tone that will turn off moderates. To moderates and conservatives, it can come across as a new Democratic patriotism and a renewed commitment to an America that is not only strong, but also respected throughout the world.
The slogan is also Kerry's best by far. The New York Times looks at his old ones, and none of them really caught on. His first, "better set of choices" completely failed to inspire anyone. The next one, making America "safer, stronger, more secure" seemed like empty rhetoric. The next, "the courage to do what's right" sounded good on the surface, but Kerry didn't really articulate what was "right" until he finally got his campaign in gear in December. "The Real Deal" did what it needed to do. It got Democrats in Iowa to think about electing someone that they saw as Presidential, but as a long term slogan, it has little to offer. Same with "Bring it On". It worked during the primaries, but it's too combative to use everyday in a general election. "Change Starts Here" was the next slogan, but it's hardly inspiring. Finally, the last slogan "a lifetime of service and strength" is great as an introductory bio, but only "Let America be America Again" offers an overarching vision that can work for the entirety of the election campaign. Keep it up.
The Dallas Morning News reports that Crawford, TX mayor Robert Campbell will be supporting John Kerry for President this year:
Crawford may be the heart of Bush country, but the town's mayor says John Kerry is the best choice for president.
"I don't see where I'm better off than I was four years ago," Robert Campbell said Tuesday. "I don't see where the city is any better off."
The Kerry campaign recently listed Mr. Campbell as one of 100 black mayors around the country seven of them Texans who support the Massachusetts senator over President Bush. But the campaign has not focused particular attention on the endorsement.
[...]
Mr. Campbell, a Democrat who has been mayor since 1999, said he's met Mr. Bush once but doesn't feel inclined to support the former Texas governor. He voted for Al Gore in 2000.
"I would say the city has a mix of Bush and Kerry supporters," he said. "The Kerry supporters feel like Bush has not delivered on his promises."
[...]
Mr. Campbell says he's not worried about a backlash among constituents.
"I have the right to vote for who I want to be president," he said. "If some people around here don't like it, they can vote for someone else for mayor."
Crawford, TX is an interesting place. They have a strikingly liberal editorial page for their local paper, the Crawford Lone-Star Iconoclast. Crawford also has an African-American mayor, a Democratic State Representative (John Mabry) and Democratic Congressman (Chet Edwards). So, even if it is George W. Bush's home, there's a few good Democrats out there, even if the Houston Chronicle reporters can't find them.
If Kerry would only repeat what he says in his Salon interview everytime the Bush administration accuses him of flip-flopping, he'll be in good shape:
I'll tell you what. What's really so craven about it is that they pick something that they implement badly and screw up, like Iraq or No Child Left Behind or the Patriot Act. And when you point out that they screwed it up, they say that you're "flip-flopping."
But they, on the other hand, break a promise to have no deficit, break a promise not to invade Social Security, break a promise to fund No Child Left Behind, break a promise to introduce the four-pollutant bill and move forward on the environment, break a promise to deal with the real health issues and prescription drugs, break a promise of humility in American foreign policy. I mean, you start running down the list -- I've never seen a grander array of flip-flops. This is the biggest "say one thing, do another" administration in modern history.
That's straight from the mouth of John Kerry. The entire interview is a must read for anyone that's unclear about where John Kerry is coming from in his campaign.
The Libertarians have nominated their candidate for President on the 2004 ballott. The winner is Michael Badnarik. That's good news for Republicans and George Bush's reelection. If the Hollywood producer, Aaron Russo would have won the nomination, he would have likely spent several million dollars on the race, and his somewhat celebrity status could have brought more attention to the race, and the Libertarians could have probably drained more votes from Bush. I doubt that Badnarik will get nearly the attention. Anyway, the AP reports:
Michael Badnarik, a computer programmer from Texas, won the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination today.
Badnarik, 49, of Austin, defeated former Hollywood movie producer Aaron Russo on the convention's third ballot, after former radio host Gary Nolan, who was eliminated on the second ballot, endorsed Badnarik.
"If I can win the nomination, there's no reason I can't win this election," Badnarik told a cheering convention that drew more than 800 delegates.
Badnarik teaches a course in constitutional law.
Libertarians may be more or less irrelevent, but they sure are persistent. So we now know our three choices for U.S. President on the ballot in Texas in 2004: Republican George W. Bush, Democrat John Kerry and Libertarian Michael Badnarik.
MyDD has more thoughts on the Libertarian convention.
The Washington Post catches Kerry being realistic again.
I think there's a lot of people out there who want to hear Kerry talk about exit "strategies" (by which they seem to mean not "strategy" in the broad, true sense of the word, but rather a 400-page to-do-list) and when, to the day, we're gonna get our guys out of Iraq. Quite honestly, I think that's putting the cart before the horse.
Iraq is a huge mess, and at this point "I don't know" maybe the only reasonable answer. It may not inspire confidence, but the truth rarely does.
Candidate Kerry has committed to actually winning the war in Iraq. That may or may not be doable, but I admire the fact that the focus is on results and not on arbitrary deadlines. We really have only one chance to get this right (if we're going to do it at all).
Now, turning to another issue domain, I wish Kerry would apply the same realism to economics. One of the more absurd things Kerry has done is promising the creation of "10 million new jobs."
Admittedly, the "10 million new jobs" claim is not as implausible and hokey as Bush's repeated insistence on enshrining June 30/July 1 as the "handover date" in Iraq.
But still, I'd rather the president dwell on the substance of an issue instead of set overtly-political-yet-otherwise-arbitrary deadlines/quotas.
So basically it was a 53% - 47% victory for right-leaning candidates over left-leaning candidates, even though Gore never seriously contested the state. Perhaps this could be a hint that Kerry is considering Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D) for his Vice Presidential candidate. However, I see that as highly unlikely. The main advantage to putting Warner on the ticket would be his ability to help self-finance the race (he's a multi-millionaire). But Kerry has been so successful fundraising on his own, that he really doesn't need Warner, who wouldn't bring much else to the ticket, other than creditability in a Republican-leaning swing state. Warner's only been in office since 2002 (elected in 2001), so he makes John Edwards look like a veteran. Virginia is also a good state for Kerry to contest regardless. It has a large military and veteran population that ought to be receptive to Kerry's message. It's GOP leaning, but not overwhelmingly so. Check out this AP article for more info.
Anyway, the AP reports the story. It looks like Bush is pulling back on ads while Kerry is expanding. Bush must be realizing that he'll run out of money if he responds to every Kerry ad. Kerry is going to be up on the air unopposed in Louisiana and Virginia next week. Louisiana is also GOP leaning, but with multiple Democratic candidates (Chris John, John Kennedy) in the primary for the open U.S. Senate seat (which is held on the general election day, Nov. 2), a good Democratic turnout in Louisiana based on strong GOTV opperations by the Senate candidates could give Kerry the needed boost to carry the state. It probably won't happen, but it's good to see Kerry seriously contesting the state.
Every time the talk of a Kerry/McCain ticket is squashed, it seems to start back up again. Last month McCain flirted with the temptation before flatly ruling it out on several occations and restating his support for Bush. Even so, the idea of a Kerry/McCain ticket is about all Washington can talk about:
Washington is abuzz with rumors that John McCain, one of the most popular Republicans in Congress, could team up with Democratic contender John Kerry (news - web sites) in the race for the White House. The outlandish notion that a Republican could be a vice presidential partner for Kerry has added new drama to the campaign for the November 2 election, in which Republican president George W. Bush is already looking vulnerable.
McCain has repeatedly denied interest, but top Democrats refuse to let the rumour die. Senator Hillary Clinton (news - web sites) fueled speculation by saying Sunday she would have no problem supporting the maverick Arizona senator.
"I'm a big admirer of John McCain's," Clinton said.
"I've spoken with Senator McCain and he assures me he's not interested -- but you know, we'll see what happens."
On Monday, former Democratic presidential contender Dick Gephardt (news - web sites), another contender for the Kerry ticket, said the Democratic faithful could easily rally around McCain.
"He is a very bipartisan figure," the Missouri representative said. "He would be accepted by the Democratic party."
Comments this week by Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt signing off on John McCain as Veep don't just occur in a vacuum. Obviously, there is a real possibility of a Kerry / McCain ticket. Perhaps the two have talked behind the scenes of the idea and Kerry is gauging the reaction by other party leaders, or perhaps Clinton and Gephardt are trying to put preasure on McCain. There's no denying that Kerry/McCain would be the kind of national unity ticket that would turn this election upside down and immidiately catapult Kerry into a commanding position. Just take a look at this CBS Poll (via Political Wire):
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry holds an eight-point lead over President George W. Bush among registered voters in the latest CBS News poll, 49% to 41%, but one of the names currently bandied about as a running mate for him - Republican Sen. John McCain - gives Kerry an even larger edge when added to the ticket.
McCain has continued to face questions about joining his fellow Vietnam veteran Kerry on a ticket, despite having insisted that he is not interested in doing so. Americas voters, meanwhile, do have interest in such a bi-partisan slate: a hypothetical Kerry/McCain pairing holds a 14-point advantage over President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, nearly double the 8-point lead Kerry has alone over Bush.
The CBS Poll shows Kerry/McCain beating Bush/Cheney 53%-39%. I think John McCain would be a decent Vice President, and he'd be a great Secretary of Defense. My only problem would be if something should happen to John Kerry and McCain would become President. It would be hard not feeling at least somewhat betrayed - putting lots of time and money into electing a Democrat, only to wind up with a Republican. It would be like 1840 all over again when the Whigs put John Tyler on the ticket as Vice President, only to see William Henry Harrison die after a month in office, while Tyler, the former Democrat frustrated the entire Whig legislative program. If not 1840, how about 1864 when Abraham Lincoln put a Democrat Andrew Johnson on his ticket only to be assassinated a year later. Only after being impeached and surviving removal from office by one vote did Johnson make concessions to the Republicans on Reconstruction. Will that happen again in 2005? I sure as hell hope not, but it is a legitimate concern for all those McCain-for-VP backers.
I would have liked to have seen Kerry accept the nomination when Bush does, but at least this won't create any controversy. Kerry still has a lot of options to stay even with Bush in campaign spending. First, I think that Kerry could proabably buy television ads to run after the convention before the convention (I'm not sure what the rules on this are, but I'd be surprised if it were illegal). Second, Kerry can raise money for the DNC and state parties to spend on his behalf, and on generic Democratic GOTV. Third, Kerry can decline matching funding and spending limits if he thinks that it's realistic that he can raise over $75 million after the convention. Considering that Kerry has proven that he can consistently raise over $1 million per day on the internet, this option is not totally out of the question.
Anyway, CNN reports on Kerry's decision. The Kerry campaign has a statement here.
I did something I haven't done in a long time. I listened to a major presidential speech on the radio. I left Austin at about 7 PM to head to Dallas when I remembered that NPR had said earlier in the day they would carry the Bush speech live at 7 PM, so as I drove northbound on I-35 I decided to tune in. I can't remember the last time I listened to a major speech as opposed to watching it on television. I forgot how much I enjoyed it. Television gives you the greater picture - it allows you to see the context of the speech, the audience reaction, what visual prompts the advance folks set up and all, but when you watch a speech on TV it's easy to get caught up in the surroundings and miss the actual message of the speech. Sometimes that's not a problem. Being the C-SPAN junkie that I am, I probably watched at least a dozen speeches of most of the Democratic candidates during the primaries - and by the end of the primary season watching a John Edwards "two Americas" speech was like listening to a broken record. A good broken record, but a broken record nonetheless. So my attention would quickly turn to the crowd reaction, the crowd placement, the introducers, etc. Anyway, radio doesn't allow you to focus on any of that. Which was good for this speech, because I was genuinely interested in what Bush had to say. I also found that Bush is more tolerable when I don't have to watch him on TV - the smirk and the always carefully placed minorities behind him makes me snarl (although you still have to deal with his uncomfortableness using multisyllabic words) - but on to the substance of the speech...
I may surprise some of you, but I don't have any huge objections with Bush's current plan in Iraq. I didn't support going there in the first place, because Iraq was not a serious threat to US security, but if we leave now Iraq could easily become a serious threat to US security and a terrorist haven. Bush laid out a five point plan that looks alright on paper. Basically he wants to 1) "transfer full sovereignty to... Iraqi citizens... on June 30th", 2) continue to keep US troops in Iraq to ensure stability and security, 3) continue to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, 4) "enlist additional international support for Iraq's transition", and 5) have national elections in Iraq by next January. My only major critiicism would be that there's still no exit strategy, and hopefully that's something that John Kerry can propose in the next few weeks since I doubt the Bush administration will come up with one.
The LA Times has the text here. My problem isn't as much with the plan, but on the ability and the creditability that the Bush administration has to execute it. We were told that there would be WMD's in Iraq, but it took over a year to find any trace of anything. Americans were led to believe that Iraq was connected to the Al-Qaeda network and that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11 when they weren't. We were told that all peaceful options would be exhausted before war and that didn't happen either. Now, tonight, George Bush said that "American soldiers and civilians on the ground have come to know and respect the citizens of Iraq", but Iraqis want the US out the country. Why? The prisoner abuse scandal.
We were actually gaining creditability among the Iraqi people before the prisoner abuse scandal. Forty percent of Iraqis saw Americans as liberators before the scandal (now it's seven percent). How can we regain creditability? Well, electing John Kerry in November would be the single best way, but in the short term the administration needs to take some real responsibility over the prisoner abuse. And did Bush do that in his speech? Not at all. Bush skirted the issue. He said that we would help Iraq build a high-security prison, and as a symbolic gesture, Abu Ghraib (which Bush managed to stumble over as he spoke it - you'd think he'd would have been prepped for it), and the soldiers will be punished. Bush basically devoted 30 seconds to the entire issue:
A new Iraq will also need a humane, well-supervised prison system. Under the dictator, prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of death and torture. That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values. America will fund the construction of a modern, maximum security prison. When that prison is completed, detainees at Abu Ghraib will be relocated. Then, with the approval of the Iraqi government, we will demolish the Abu Ghraib prison, as a fitting symbol of Iraq's new beginning.
"Disgraceful conduct by a few American troops"? First, it's more than a few. Second, the conduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. These troops have commanders. These troops weren't trained correctly. The troops ought to be punished severely, but so should the chain of command that failed them, all the way to the top with Rumsfeld and Bush. The only way we regain the trust of the Iraqi people is if they see real accountability. And they don't.
"As concern about the situation in Iraq grows, 65 percent now say the country is on the wrong track matching the highest number ever recorded in CBS News Polls, which began asking this question in the mid-1980's. Only 30 percent currently say things in this country are headed in the right direction."
Foreign Policy
Approve (37)
Disapprove (56)
Economy
Approve (36)
Disapprove (57)
War on Terrorism
Approve (51)
Disapprove (42)
(His only saving grace. Barely. I think this is falling into "Joementum" status.)
Bostonians are in an 'uproar' over the Democratic National Convention because of the major transportation interruptions that they may face.
Boston business owners and area motorists reacted with disbelief and fury on Friday to plans to shut down major highways for security reasons during this summer's Democratic National Convention. Traffic in Boston -- already one of the most confusing U.S. cities to navigate -- is set to enter a new dimension of chaos when Democrats gather here in the last week in July for the first political nominating convention since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"We're road kill," lamented the Boston Herald on its front page as it described the "commuter nightmare" that awaits drivers from July 26-29, when Democrats are expected to nominate Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) as their presidential candidate.
Convention planners had already said one of Boston's two main train stations and some roads would close during the event. But on Thursday, officials unveiled a more draconian set of traffic restrictions involving several miles of highways.
At the same time, they launched a new public relations campaign entitled "Let's Work Around It" which urges residents to adjust travel plans and asks businesses to let employees work from home or take vacation.
In response, Boston's radio airwaves echoed with howls of protest from angry commuters, and some firms acknowledged they would have to shut down during the four-day event, force staff to take days off or stay open with skeleton crews.
My thoughts? Stop kvetching. You are only going to have to put up with this one time for less than a week. Boston has never hosted a National Convention and probably won't be asked to again in the near future. Instead of making the thousands of delegates coming feel like you don't want us or our money, try to "work around it" and showcase your city. I've been there once already, and would be more than happy to return.
14.5% John Edwards 33,256
0.8% Lyndon H. La Rouche JR. 1,815
3.6% Howard Dean 8,221
2.0% Dennis J. Kucinich 4,506
4.8% Joe Lieberman 11,063 Joementum!!!
60.1% John F. Kerry 138,130
2.8% Wesley K. Clark 6,515
2.2 % Al Sharpton 5,013
9.2% "UNCOMMITTED" 21,187
Republicans
George W. Bush 108,027 92.6%
"UNCOMMITTED" 8,588 7.4%
Turnout
Democratic: 229,706
Republican: 116,615
For Arkansas...23% reporting?
5% Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 9,646
67% John F. Kerry 126,049
5% Dennis J. Kucinich 9,860
22 % Uncommitted 41,414
For Orgegon...81% Reporting
81% John Kerry 240,595
16% Dennis Kucinich 47,640
3% Lyndon LaRouche 7,227
I donated another $25 to John Kerry today, because he just has to win. It's that simple. Howard Dean brought out his bat today... for John Kerry. Contribute if you want to send a message as a former Dean supporter to John Kerry:
George Bush cannot be trusted to tell the truth. He misled us about Iraq and his administration's paranoid secrecy cuts the public off from information about our government's actions. He would not testify under oath to the September 11th commission -- and could not even meet it in private without Dick Cheney's supervision.
He cannot be trusted with our safety. George Bush has thrown away 60 years of America's moral leadership in the world and left us in weak isolation. He has stretched our military dangerously thin by rushing into Iraq, and by sending National Guard and Reserve troops to join them, left our homeland unprotected.
And George Bush simply cannot be trusted with our future. The millions of jobs lost have weakened our economy. Tens of millions of uninsured have weakened our health. And his attempts to divide us by race, gender and sexual orientation are weakening the fabric of our society.
The first step to making America strong again is electing John Kerry. We're putting up the bat to get George Bush out of office and help Senator Kerry take his message to the American people.
Donate to John Kerry today. We need to unite to beat George Bush. John Kerry is our nominee, I'm damn proud of him, and he's gonna beat George W. Bush.
A Newsweek poll released Saturday put Bush's overall job approval at 42 percent, the lowest yet in that poll. Other recent survey have rated Bush in the mid-40s.
Kerry only leads Bush by one point in that polls, but others show Kerry moving ahead. Here's the most recent head-to-head:
Newsweek Poll. May 13-14, 2004. MoE ą 4 (for all registered voters):
Kerry 43, Bush 42, Nader 5.
Time/CNN Poll. May 12-13, 2004. Likely voters nationwide. MoE ą 4.1.
Kerry 51, Bush 46.
Rasmussen Reports, Daily Tracking Poll, May 16th, MOE +/- 3.
Kerry 46, Bush 44.
Anyway, it looks as if Kerry might be finally pulling ahead again. A lot of the pollsters wrote in their summaries that Bush support was softening, but voters didn't know enough about Kerry yet to make the final decision. Kerry's bio ads ought to help in that regard.
Update: Zogby weighs in today as well:
May 10-13, MOE +/-3.2.
Bush Approve: 42%, Disapprove 58%
Kerry 47%, Bush 42%.
It's been all over the blogs over the past few days, but it's worth mentioning that the International Brotherhood of Police Officers has endorsed John Kerry for President. They backed Bush in 2000, and Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Read this Washington Monthly article if you want to know why cops are pissed at Bush.
This is great news for Kerry. There's not to much to say that hasn't been said already, but I can already see the ads playing in my head:
Narrator: Lots of cops supported George Bush in 2000, because he promised to be there to keep America's communities safe, but that's another promise George Bush has forgotten.
International Brotherhood of Police Officers person: I supported Bush in 2000, but crime is up, funding for police is down, and President Bush has overextended our police force by using cops for Homeland Security, and not helping cities replace those police to protect our communities. John Kerry will change that...
John Kerry: I'm John Kerry and I approve this message because we must keep our communities safe for our children.
Or something like that. I'd be surprised if this endorsement doesn't make it's way into a Kerry ad at some point.
Bush Cuts Funds for Reading Program his Mom Supports
By Byron LaMasters
I don't know about you, but this isn't any way to treat your mother. The Houston Chronicle reports:
President Bush touted his literacy programs Wednesday as Democrats pointed out he wants to scrap federal funding for a reading project that got matching grants from a foundation started by his mother.
The White House said the project, Even Start, is ineffective and the money belongs in other literacy programs.
In its 2005 budget proposal to Congress, the White House recommends eliminating all $270 million for Even Start, which coaches low-income parents to read to their children.
Last year, the Barbara Bush Reading Foundation for Family Literacy awarded three of its 10 grants, totaling about $570,000, to Even Start programs in Iowa, Louisiana, and Washington.
Bush spokesmen said that the program was ineffective and that the funds were being diverted to other "effective" programs. Kerry campaign officials, however, stated that there would be an overall cut of $108 Million in the reading programs. Barbara Bush had no comment about her son's decision.
You will pry their ballot out of their cold, dead hands.
By Jim Dallas
Via KOS and The Hill, the National Rifle Association is withholding it's endorsement of the President pending action on legislation that would renew assault rifles ban (which Bush nominally supports).
The question is, do they hate Kerry more than they love Bush? We'll see.
Incidentally, I'm kinda hoping the assault rifles ban dies in Congress. But I'm weird that way.
Now, the NRA has questionable influence (they claim to be strong; but lots of their guys have lost). But every little bit helps, or hurts.
And this certainly does not help the President.
One of these days I plan on encouraging economically liberal people like myself to join the NRA en masse, the way the anti-immigration wingers are trying to influence the Sierra Club (boo). Who's with me?!?
So let's rundown the current status of the Veepstakes. The hottest candidate this year is someone who can appeal to both wings of the party, has credibility on defense issues (being a war hero wouldn't hurt), and has experience with economic and budget issues. There's at least one person under consideration (some claim) who was a fighter pilot, built a reputation as a tough budget hawk who regularly bucked the party line in the Senate.
Well, damnit, let me propose another.
I suggest that the Kerry campaign ask - if only for purely ceremonial and honorary purposes - I suggest that they ask Lloyd Bentsen to give an interview.
And why not? He's already been vetted. And he totally owned the Republican vice presidential nominee in the last vice presidential debate he was in. (This seems to be an important criteria these days). And I hear he's still in halfway-decent health.
Check out Bentsen's Medal of Freedom biography:
United States Senator and Chairman of the Finance Committee, Lloyd Bentsen (b.1921) was appointed the 69th Secretary of the Treasury by President Clinton in 1993. A decorated World War H-bomber pilot and business leader, Secretary Bentsen began a long and distinguished career of public service by representing south Texas in the House of Representatives for three terms from 1949 to 1955. Subsequently, Bentsen established a successful financial services company in Houston which he sold in 1970 to campaign and win a seat in the United States Senate. Rising to chair the powerful Finance Committee, Bentsen's Senate record included legislation protecting the pensions of American workers, creating Individual Retirement Account (IRA), and improving access to health care for low income women and children. In 1988 he was his party's choice for vice president. Called ''the most valuable legislative asset Clinton has", Secretary Bentsen was the Administration's chief spokesman and principal architect for an economic program that witnessed a number of major accomplishments in less than two years. He was a staunch advocate of regaining control over federal finances and a major proponent of President Clinton's plan to reduce the deficit by $500 billion, which helped the U.S. regain credibility and leadership with the other industrialized nations. That program helped the economy recover and create over 5 million new jots during his tenure as Secretary.
An advocate of free trade, Bentsen's leadership helped ensure the passage of the North American Free Tade Agreement (NAFTA) eliminating trade barriers between the United States, Canada and Mexico as well as passage of the global treaty known as the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Bentsen had a major impact in promoting U.S. interests in the international financial institutions and ensured that the Treasury Department was a regular participant in the international summit process. Domestically, Secretary Bentsen also helped push the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which permits interstate branching of banks. He was also a pivotal figure in the passage of the 1994 crime bill, which banned assault rifles. Bentsen believes that "public service is the best way to affect the most lives, hopefully for the better," and often states publicly that all he wants said about his record is that "he made a difference".
Now I recall a few months back somebody bemoaning the fact that we've fallen capture to the Conservative wing of the party; and I imagine there are still people around here who are pissed about Bentsen beating Ralph Yarborough in 1970. Flame away! He couldn't possible be more obnoxious than, say, Joe Lieberman.
And moreover, we may be reminded that Bentsen's running mate was Kerry's old boss and a certi-f*ing-fiable Massachusetts liberal. Be that as it may, I here 80s nostalgia is coming back. See my previous post about New Wave music.
I bring this up since Iron Blog challenger Ara Rubyan suggested fellow octagenerian John Glenn for the veepstakes.
Kerry-Bentsen 2004: Why the heck not?
P.S. Would it be more palatable if I reminded you that Bentsen whupped up on George H.W. Bush, too?
Great editorial in the Austin American Statesman today on why we have ballot standards, and why Ralph Nader won't be on our Texas ballot this fall:
Pity poor Ralph Nader. The consumer advocate hasn't been able to drum enough support for his independent candidacy for president to get on the November ballot the two times he's tried.
Nader failed in April to add his name to the presidential ballot in Oregon when he couldn't get enough supporters in the state's one-day convention for independents. Nader only needed 1,000 people, but fewer than 750 showed up for him. That's in Oregon, which should be prime Nader territory.
This week, Nader failed to obtain the 64,000 signatures he needed to get on the Texas General Election ballot. Of course, he sued, arguing that the rules for independent candidates in Texas are unconstitutionally onerous. He badly wants to be on the ballot here, though President Bush should have this state's electoral votes locked up.
Nader, 70, said the requirement to have the support of 1 percent of those voting in the previous presidential election is too high a hurdle and the 60-day window to get those signatures is too short. But they haven't been too difficult for candidates who have statewide support, as Ross Perot had twice in the 1990s.
The qualifying conditions are there for a reason: to ensure that independent candidates have a modicum of support before being added to the presidential ballot. Without that provision, the November election would be cluttered with frivolous candidates happy to turn it into a joke.
Third-party candidates also have some hurdles to clear, though they are somewhat lower than for independents. But third-party candidates, like the Democratic and Republican party nominees, have proven support from an official political organization.
[...]
Still, there must be a threshold for any independent to be added to the presidential ballot in Texas. Nader has not succeeded where others have, and his lawsuit should be dismissed as an egotistical attempt to skirt his obvious lack of support.
Agreed. Now Nader can claim a success today with his endorsement by the Reform Party giving him ballot access in seven states. Then, again, I don't think that a leftist anti-war candidate gains much creditability running on the same ballot line occupied by Pat Buchanan in 2000.
I'm happy to report that Nader has failed to receive the necessary signatures to get on the ballot here in Texas. His petition folks are pretty desperate. He's paying people $1 / signature and I've happily told all of the folks on campus that I proudly support John Kerry for President when they harass me to sign Nader's ballot petition (I'm ineligable to sign the petition anyway as I voted in the Democratic Primary). Anyway, Nader's suing the state of Texas because we don't want him on our ballot. The Dallas Morning News reports:
Lacking the signatures needed to secure a place on the Texas presidential ballot, consumer advocate Ralph Nader on Monday asked a federal court to declare the state's ballot access laws for independent candidates unconstitutional.
"Democracy is under assault in Texas," Mr. Nader said. "Through unconstitutional laws and denial of access to public places, Texas voters are being denied more voices and more choices."
Secretary of State Geoffrey Connor said his office would vigorously defend the law against Mr. Nader's lawsuit.
"While Mr. Nader's campaign suggests that the state's deadline and required number of signatures is unconstitutional, there have been a number of successful efforts to gain ballot access in Texas as an independent presidential candidate, including Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 and Pat Buchanan in 2000," he said.
As late as midday Monday, Nader volunteers were in Austin coffee shops, making a last-minute effort to gather signatures.
Both camps jousted over ballot access for much of the day, when it became clear that Mr. Nader would fall far short of the requirement to have 64,076 signatures by 5 p.m. The total represents 1 percent of all votes cast for president in the 2000 election. Voters who had participated in the March 9 primary were not eligible to sign the petitions.
Mr. Nader says that the different standards for independent candidates and third-party candidates, who must turn in 45,540 signatures by May 24 to get on the Texas ballot, are unfair.
His campaign said it would not turn in its 50,000 voter signatures and would instead continue to circulate petitions.
Kevin Zeese, a spokesman for Mr. Nader, said they would have enough signatures by May 24.
"We're on the same pace we were on in 2000," when Mr. Nader was a Green Party candidate, Mr. Zeese said.
Getting on the Texas ballot was the first major test for the Nader campaign.
[...]
Mr. Connor said the state's ballot access standard had already been tested in court.
"Repeat litigation is regrettable, but we will certainly defend state election law," he said.
So here's strike one to the Nader campaign. Yay for Texas!
Well, I might not otherwise pay too much attention, but Hotline editor Chuck Todd makes a good case for a Kerry landslide. Personally, I'm betting on a close race, within three points either way. However, Todd argues that recent historical indicators would suggest that a close race is unlikely. He says a landslide is more likely, and historical indicators suggest it should be Kerry. Anyway, I wouldn't give too much credence to this, but considering that Chuck Todd is one of the top analysts in Washington, its worth a look:
2004 could be a decisive victory for Kerry. The reason to think so is historical. Elections that feature a sitting president tend to be referendums on the incumbent--and in recent elections, the incumbent has either won or lost by large electoral margins. If you look at key indicators beyond the neck-and-neck support for the two candidates in the polls--such as high turnout in the early Democratic primaries and the likelihood of a high turnout in November--it seems improbable that Bush will win big. More likely, it's going to be Kerry in a rout.
In the last 25 years, there have been four elections which pitted an incumbent against a challenger--1980, 1984, 1992, and 1996. In all four, the victor won by a substantial margin in the electoral college. The circumstances of one election hold particular relevance for today: 1980. That year, the country was weathering both tough economic times (the era of "stagflation"--high inflation concurrent with a recession) and frightening foreign policy crises (the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Indeed, this year Bush is looking unexpectedly like Carter. Though the two presidents differ substantially in personal style (one indecisive and immersed in details, the other resolute but disengaged), they are also curiously similar. Both are religious former Southern governors. Both initially won the presidency by tarring their opponents (Gerald Ford, Al Gore) with the shortcomings of their predecessors (Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton). Like Carter, Bush is vulnerable to being attacked as someone not up to the job of managing impending global crises.
Everyone expected the 1980 election to be very close. In fact, Reagan won with 50.8 percent of the popular vote to Carter's 41 percent (independent John Anderson won 6.6 percent)--which translated into an electoral avalanche of 489 to 49. The race was decided not so much on the public's nascent impressions of the challenger, but on their dissatisfaction with the incumbent.
Nor was Carter's sound defeat an aberration. Quite the opposite. Of the last five incumbent presidents booted from office--Bush I, Carter, Ford, Herbert Hoover, and William Howard Taft--only one was able to garner over 200 electoral votes, and three of these defeated incumbents didn't even cross the 100 electoral-vote threshold: --1992: 370 (Bill Clinton) to 168 (George H. W. Bush) --1980: 489 (Ronald Reagan) to 49 (Jimmy Carter) --1976: 297 (Jimmy Carter) to 240 (Gerald Ford) --1932: 472 (FDR) to 59 (Herbert Hoover) --1912: 435 (Woodrow Wilson) to 88 (TR) to 8 (Taft)
Make of it what you want. It's always nice to be hopeful.
It seems that Bush and Kerry both made 'oopsies' when on their "Yes, American Can" and "Real Deal Express" busses this year. Apparently their 'American' busses were actually Canadian.
President Bush rode across Ohio on Tuesday in a bus emblazoned, "Yes, America can." Turns out the bus was made in Canada.
So was the "Real Deal Express" that Democrat John Kerry rode earlier in the year.
Both were made by Prevost Car, which is owned by the Swedish Volvo Bus Corp. and Britain's Henly's Group PLC. Its manufacturing facility is in St. Claire, Quebec.
Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel defended the president's use of a foreign-made bus and said many of the components on the red-white-and-blue coaches, along with their engines and tires, are American-made.
"As President Bush says, 'economic isolationism' would derail our recovery and kill jobs," Stanzel said.
Bush has defended his free-trade policies against Democratic criticism and says those who favor restrictions on imports are "economic isolationists."
Foreign-made vehicles are a touchy topic in the job-strapped industrial Midwest -- states like Michigan and Ohio, which Bush toured on Monday and Tuesday.
"The problem isn't the bus he's riding on. It's the failed economic policies he's driving," said Phil Singer, a Kerry spokesman.
Speaking of culture, as neoconservative nation-builders would be well-advised to avoid doing, Pat Moynihan said: "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself." Here we reach the real issue about Iraq, as distinct from unpleasant musings about who believes what about skin color.
The issue is the second half of Moynihan's formulation -- our ability to wield political power to produce the requisite cultural change in a place such as Iraq. Time was, this question would have separated conservatives from liberals. Nowadays it separates conservatives from neoconservatives.
Condoleezza Rice, a political scientist, believes there is scholarly evidence that democratic institutions do not merely spring from a hospitable culture, but that they also can help create such a culture. She is correct; they can. They did so in the young American republic. But it would be reassuring to see more evidence that the administration is being empirical, believing that this can happen in some places, as opposed to ideological, believing that it must happen everywhere it is tried.
Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.
In "On Liberty" (1859), John Stuart Mill said, "It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say" that the doctrine of limited, democratic government "is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties." One hundred forty-five years later it obviously is necessary to say that.
Ron Chernow's magnificent new biography of Alexander Hamilton begins with these of his subject's words: "I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be." That is the core of conservatism.
Traditional conservatism. Nothing "neo" about it. This administration needs a dose of conservatism without the prefix.
The upshot here, I think, is that if you take Moynihan literally, it's our job to set the conservatives right (no pun intended).
It's half a year away from elections day. And the news about Bush and Kerry is saturating the media. Normally I would think the following story is a silly waste of time and not worthy of news. But right now, I'm almost thankful for a break in the continuing back and forth wrangling.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) took a fall on Sunday while riding a bicycle but was not hurt, a campaign spokesman said.
Michael Meehan said Kerry, 60, skidded on a patch of sand during the ride in Concord, Massachusetts. He was due to fly back to Washington, D.C. later on Sunday.
It took some time, and lot of us Dean supporters have been waiting for some action out of Burlington, but it seems that the wait is going to be worth it as the elements are being put in place for Democracy for America.
The website was relaunched today. The Blog is back. And the Bat is back to support grassroots candidates.
For the full statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate today from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who displayed the above picture, read here:
Chicken hawks shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of a chicken. We know who the chicken hawks are. They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersion on others. When it was their turn to serve, where were they? A-W-O-L, that's where they were.
Now the chicken hawks are cackling about Senator JOHN KERRY. The lead chicken hawk against Senator Kerry is the Vice President of the United States, Vice President Cheney. He was in Missouri this week claiming Senator Kerry is not up to the job of protecting this Nation. What nerve. Where was DICK CHENEY when that war was going on where 58,235 young men died and many more wounded and many with wounds that were never visible, but you could see it in their emotional structure and in their psychology? It was a war everyone thinks in retrospect was misguided. But JOHN KERRY volunteered for hazardous duty on a swift boat going up a river with people shooting at him all over the place. Cowardly? What an insult. I plead with veterans across this country. Look at what they are saying about your service. Exemplified: Max Cleland lost three limbs. What a sacrifice he made, and they beat him in the election, beat him in the polls because they characterized him as soft on defense. Now they want to take JOHN KERRY who served nobly and establish that he, too, is soft on defense. I don't know where they get it.
He fought for our country. He still has shrapnel from the battlefield. Vice President Cheney said: At the time he had other priorities in the sixties than military service. He ought to tell that to the parents of those who lost their lives in Vietnam, and ask them what they think.
Westminster President Apologizes for Cheney Speech
By Byron LaMasters
Yesterday Dick Cheney delivered a speech at Westminster College in Missouri. Westminster College President Fletcher Lamkin was asked by Dick Cheney if he would deliver a "major foreign policy address" to the College. Lamkin did what most any college president would do when asked by the Vice President of the United States. He said, sure. Little did Lamkin know that Kerry-basing would be part of the "major foreign policy address". Anyway, Lamkin did the right thing. He's invited John Kerry to the college out of fairness, and Kerry has accepted:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry will speak Friday at Westminster College, whose president complained after Vice President Dick Cheney sharply criticized Kerry during a campus appearance Monday, campaign officials said.
Kerry accepted an invitation to speak from Westminster President Fletcher Lamkin, Kerry spokesman Bill Burton said. Lamkin said Monday he was inviting Kerry out of fairness following Cheney's visit.
Lamkin expressed disappointment after the Cheney speech, telling students and faculty in an e-mail Monday that he had been told Cheney would deliver a "major foreign policy address" and was unhappy with what he called "Kerry-bashing." However, Cheney's spokeswoman said the speech was always intended as a campaign event.
Cheney questioned whether Kerry was fit to serve as president during wartime, repeating what he had said during a campaign event in March. "The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample grounds to doubt the judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security," the vice president said Monday.
British statesman Winston Churchill gave his famous "Iron Curtain" speech at Westminster College at the dawn of the Cold War in 1946.
In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you never see the bodies coming home.
In Bushworld, flag-draped remains of the fallen are important to revere and show the nation, but only in political ads hawking the president's leadership against terror.
In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as long as it doesn't control its own military, pass any laws or have any power.
In Bushworld, we can win over Falluja by bulldozing it.
In Bushworld, it was worth going to war so Iraqis can express their feelings ("Down With America!") without having their tongues cut out, although we cannot yet allow them to express intemperate feelings in newspapers ("Down With America!") without shutting them down.
In Bushworld, it's fine to take $700 million that Congress provided for the war in Afghanistan and 9/11 recovery and divert it to the war in Iraq that you're insisting you're not planning.
In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for political purposes.
In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for re-election as the avenger of 9/11, even as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.
In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations.
In Bushworld, it makes sense to press for transparency in Mr. and Mrs. Rival while cultivating your own opacity.
In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president even after hearing an intelligence report about Al Qaeda's plans to attack America and then stepping outside to clear brush.
In Bushworld, those who dissemble about the troops and money it will take to get Iraq on its feet are patriots, while those who are honest are patronizingly marginalized.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America.
In Bushworld, you can claim to be the environmental president on Earth Day while being the industry president every other day.
In Bushworld, you brag about how well Afghanistan is going, even though soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and the Taliban are running freely around the border areas, hiding Osama and delaying elections.
In Bushworld, imperfect intelligence is good enough to knock over Iraq. But even better evidence that North Korea is building the weapons that Saddam could only dream about is hidden away.
In Bushworld, the C.I.A. says it can't find out whether there are W.M.D. in Iraq unless we invade on the grounds that there are W.M.D.
In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much to avoid the Vietnam draft have now strained the military so much that lawmakers are talking about bringing back the draft.
In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists.
In Bushworld, you don't need to bother asking your vice president and top Defense Department officials whether you should go to war in Iraq, because they've already maneuvered you into going to war.
In Bushworld, it's perfectly natural for the president and vice president to appear before the 9/11 commission like the Olsen twins.
In Bushworld, you expound on remaking the Middle East and spreading pro-American sentiments even as you expand anti-American sentiments by ineptly occupying Iraq and unstintingly backing Ariel Sharon on West Bank settlements.
In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops.
In Bushworld, you pride yourself on the fact that your administration does not leak to the press, while you flood the best-known journalist in Washington with inside information.
In Bushworld, you list Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" as recommended reading on your campaign Web site, even though it makes you seem divorced from reality. That is, unless you live in Bushworld.
Peter Singer isn't my favorite contemporary philosopher (that title goes to Richard Rorty, since pragmatism seems (to me) more convincing than utilitarianism, and because I like Rorty's writing style). But you can't really argue with a man when he's stating the obvious; when you're right, you're right:
Singer has made himself noticed outside the ivory tower: his conviction that animals have significant moral rights means he opposes using them for food as well as for experimentation; a principled openness to euthanasia under various medical circumstances has led to picketing by groups of disabled people. In ''The President of Good & Evil,'' he confronts the ethics of the man he calls America's ''most prominent moralist,'' George W. Bush. As a philosopher Singer must abjure the cynicism with which, he tells us, many of his friends greeted his intention seriously to study the president's ethics. For one thing, Singer's concern is with the views rather than with the man who says he holds them. In any case, he argues, ''tens of millions of Americans believe that he is sincere, and share the views that he puts forward on a wide range of moral issues.'' Hence they are, as he says, worth thinking about.
Much of Singer's discussion proceeds on the basis of common sense, as when he points out that Bush's argument for tax cuts -- that the government has no right to take ''your money'' -- is undermined by his acceptance of taxation for a wide variety of government purposes. But Singer also calls on elements of theory to develop his analyses, as when he notes that ''ownership is not a natural relationship between a person and a thing'' but ''a social convention'': in the United States, law defines how much you get to keep of the money you make using public resources like roads.
Singer is a generous critic. In discussing Bush's reverence for life, evidenced in his opposition to stem cell research, he constructs the most plausible arguments possible against the sacrifice of unwanted embryos, to demonstrate convincingly how unsustainable they are. But he can hardly help observing that Bush's ''culture of life'' cohabits jarringly with his enthusiasm for capital punishment and readiness to inflict civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. Singer is led, on issue after issue, to a double conclusion: Bush's views are not intellectually defensible, and his behavior shows he doesn't believe in them anyway.
I'm not entirely sure that John Kerry is intellectually self-consistent either (am I stating the obvious?), but neither does he parade as a moralist, dodging tough questions by rambling on, using loaded jingo-jargon rhetoric (case in point, the prime-time press conference a few weeks ago).
A man's gotta know his limitations.
Thanks to DailyKOS user libby for noting Times review of Singer's book.
From MoveOn.org, check out these two documents and tell me which one is "tough on defense"- the one that said "I consider the opportunity to serve in Vietnam an extremely important part of being in the armed forces and believe that my request is in the best interests of the Navy," or the one that checked a Texas Air National Guard box saying "I DO NOT VOLUNTEER FOR OVERSEAS"? I just don't get why Bush would even mention this- he is so clearly weak here.
Help MoveOn.org make it even clearer to the American people where strength really lies. Contribute to their ad campaign to let the American people know the truth about Bush and Kerry's service in Vietnam.
Texas won't be seeing too much of John Kerry this year, but Houston got a glimpse of him today. NBC reports:
Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry stopped in Houston Thursday -- Earth Day -- and credited President George W. Bush with recycling.
The Massachusetts senator said Bush has recycled the deficit, bad economic policies, bad environmental policies and bad foreign policy.
Kerry said that's why Bush should be recycled back to Crawford, where the Texan has a ranch.
Kerry spoke at a lunchtime rally at the University of Houston.
He highlighted his plan for a clean environment, emphasizing that a healthy environment and strong economy go hand-in-hand.
He considers environmental issues critical in his effort to beat the president at the polls.
"It makes a difference to our health care bills. It makes a difference to the length of our lives. It makes a difference (to) the quality of our lives. And we deserve a president who's going to fight for the American people," Kerry said.
He attacked the Bush administration's record on clear air, water and toxic waste site cleanup.
On a different note, it was interesting to see John Kerry hit back hard on gas taxes with a suggestion that George W. Bush has a deal with the Saudi's to have the price of gas lowered in time for the election:
Kerry also criticized Bush's meeting with a top Saudi official, contending that consumers are paying billions of dollars in higher gasoline prices while the president is chummy with big oil producers.
"I believe the American people deserve a president who just isn't going to have a friendly talk, but who is going to fight to guarantee that we lower prices for Americans," Kerry said.
Kerry criticized a meeting in which, according to a broadcast report, Bush and Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sulton discussed increasing oil production to drive down prices as the election nears.
"I don't know if it was a deal, I don't know if it was a secret pledge, I don't know if it was just a friendly conversation among friends," Kerry said. "The fact remains that whatever it was, the American people are getting a bad deal today."
Bandar has denied any linkage between the election and a Saudi pledge to the Bush administration to push for lower oil prices. CBS's 60 Minutes reported Sunday night that journalist Bob Woodward said Bandar promised Bush that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on Election Day.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time the election was rigged...
I just received a call from one of Ralph Nader's Texas organizers. Apparently, Nader will be in Austin to give a talk at the law school in the next few weeks. They were contacting "student leaders" to help organize the event. I said no thanks. Should we have another protest?
We'll know in less than a month if Ralph Nader will make the ballot in Texas. Texas requires Independent candidates to receive 65,000 petition signatures (from registered voters who did not vote in either party primary) by May 10th - the first deadline in the nation. The more states Ralph Nader fails to make the ballot the better. Why? If Nader isn't on the ballot in a significant number of the states (especially in big states), the media and the polsters will stop paying attention to him. Nader failed to attract 1000 voters to a rally in Oregon (which would have placed him on the Oregon ballot) several weeks ago when four years ago he attracted 10,000 people at a rally in Oregon. Most of the 2000 Nader voters get it this year. Thank God.
Ok, well I know most of us knew that already, but here's a recent example where the Bush campaign banned reporters and photographers from college newspapers from a campaign event:
Reporters and photographers from two college newspapers said Thursday White House officials denied them access to President Bush's appearance in Des Moines.
Student newspapers at Des Moines Area Community College and Iowa State University were turned away from the noon event at the Marriott hotel in downtown Des Moines after submitting requests for media credentials on time, they said.
Reporters and photographers for the DMACC Chronicle and Iowa State Daily said their organizations were not on the list of approved media when they arrived, despite faxing their request for credentials ahead of the 2 p.m. Wednesday deadline.
Chronicle reporter Mike Allsup said White House advance staff told him his time would be better spent in school. "It really is not fair that we represent 14,000 students at my college and I'm disregarded and sent away," said Allsup, of Des Moines.
A news crew from WQAD television in Moline, Ill., was not on the approved media list but was allowed into the event, Iowa State Daily photography editor Eric Rowley said.
White House officials did not immediately reply to repeated requests for comment.
Meanwhile, John Kerry participated in a conference call with campus media last week.
Compare and contrast, folks. With more weeks like this, I'd be shocked if Kerry's ten point lead among college students doesn't continue to expand. Any politician is smart to pay attention to college newspapers. For example, the UT newspaper, The Daily Texan has a daily circulation of 28,000 - 30,000 during the fall and spring semesters. For many students, their #1 source of news is the student newspaper (unfortunately, most students don't read the New York Times or Wall Street Journal or even our local papers for that matter). Student newspapers are available at dozens of locations on or near campus for free. For the average student wanting to keep up with national, local and campus events in less than ten minutes a day, the student newspaper is the place to go. Yeah, there's us crazy government types that will spend several hours a day sorting through dozens of news articles, but we're smart enough to know that we're not in the college mainstream on that one. Anyway, it's good to see the Kerry campaign reach out to students. Students and other young people are often overlooked in politics since (shamefully) we turn out in the lowest percentages of anyone, but in a close election a little attention to a traditionally ignored group can go a long way.
Links via Smart Ass, the official blog for the College Democrats of America.
Good news in this poll. It shows Kerry with a ten-point lead among college students and an increase in Democratic Party identification over the past year among students. Most college students polled also support gay marriage. CNN reports:
College students favor Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry over President Bush by a 10-point margin and have become substantially more dissatisfied with Bush over the past six months, according to a poll released Thursday.
The survey by Harvard University's Institute of Politics (IOP) comes amid increasing focus on the nation's youngest voters.
[...]
The Harvard poll of 1,205 college students, conducted March 13-23, found Kerry leading Bush 48 percent to 38 percent, with independent Ralph Nader drawing 5 percent. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.
The poll suggests "Kerry's support is soft," however, because many who say they'd vote for him simply want an alternative to Bush, the IOP said in a news release.
Thirty-seven percent of students said they don't know enough about the senator from Massachusetts to have formed an opinion about him.
Since a survey by the same organization in October, Bush's job approval rating plummeted 14 points, from 61 percent to 47 percent, while support for the war in Iraq dropped from 58 percent to 49 percent, the poll found.
Some recent signs of economic recovery have failed to give Bush a boost on one key topic: two-thirds of students polled said they believe it will be difficult to find a job after graduation, a figure nearly identical to the October poll.
[...]
The poll also found that unlike in the general population, the majority of college students surveyed -- 57 percent -- support legalizing same-sex marriage.
[...]
The largest number, 41 percent, identified themselves as independent.
The survey found that fewer now identify as Republicans -- 24 percent, down from 31 percent in the fall. Democrat identification increased from 27 percent to 32 percent.
This Salon article (free daily pass) is a great piece of insight by a longtime Kerry aide Dan Payne of how Kerry wins his campaigns. It goes back to Kerry's first failed bid for Congress, through his runs for Lt. Governor and U.S. Senate ending with Kerry employing his same tactics to win in Iowa. How does Kerry win?
Kerry's first election as Lt. Governor in Massachusetts provides some good insight:
In the very next debate, a seething Kerry told Shannon, "You impugn the service of veterans in that war by saying they are somehow dopes or wrong for going," he said. Shannon balked. Employing a Southernism popular in Congress to assail an argument as baseless, Shannon said, "John, you know that dog won't hunt."
The Doghunters were born. A band of Vietnam vets who supported Kerry heard their own service demeaned and rallied almost spontaneously.
One of the lead Doghunters was John Hurley, who had first watched Kerry nearly steal a caucus from his candidate, Drinan, 14 years before. (Hurley is now Kerry's national vets recruiter.) Another was Tom Vallely, an ex-Marine and longtime Kerry friend who now runs the Vietnam Program at Harvard University. Chris Gregory, a Vietnam veteran leader, led former soldiers who staked out Shannon's headquarters and shadowed him as he campaigned. In the days and years ahead, the ranks of the Doghunters would swell.
Vietnam veterans supplied the energy, an opponent gave him the opening, his field organization run again by Whouley turned out the vote, and John Kerry tightened his message. He won by three points. Had he known, Howard Dean might have seen it coming.
Also of intest to me was the comparison of the political fights of Kerry and Dukakis, and why in Payne's assessment, Kerry is much better prepared for a national election:
It's worth comparing Kerry with his fellow Massachussetts Democrat Michael Dukakis to understand why Kerry is more likely to prevail. For Kerry, unlike Dukakis, Massachusetts was a crucible that readied him for the national battle ahead. Dukakis' toughest fights were primaries. Kerry has had to run in both difficult primaries and general elections. In every case, he seems to need to feel the shape and impact of the attacks before he acts, which frustrates supporters who panic in the heat of battle and expect Kerry to act precipitously. But as soon as Kerry judges that the charges he's facing are similar to those he has faced before, he and those who have been with him know what to do, almost by instinct -- even if they disappoint the Beltway by not responding in the next e-mail.
Kerry's election is by no means certain, but he will not lose because he was thrown off balance by what will be hurled at him in the months ahead.
It sounds pretty silly, but can anyone say coherently why exactly John Kerry wants to be president? Both Kos and Mark Shields asked that very question this weekend.
First, Kos:
I was asked last week, in all earnestness, "Why is Kerry running for president?"
Interesting question. I knew why Edwards was running -- to rectify the inequalities of the "two Americas". Gephardt was the champion of the working class. Dean wanted nothing less than reform of the Democratic party establishment.
I know why I will vote for Kerry -- because he's not Bush. And this upcoming presidential election is literally a matter of life and death.
But why is Kerry running for president?
I've got nothing.
I'm with kos on this one. My biggest problem with John Kerry during the primary season was that I couldn't find a specific rationale for his candidacy. If you asked me, I could easily explain to you in a sentence or a paragraph or whatever the rationale and purpose behind the candidacies of Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Wes Clark, etc. But John Kerry? Yeah, he's a Vietnam hero, a good senator and most importantly, he's not Bush. But what specifically moved him to run for President? Is it a sense of entitlement? Unless Kerry specifically says otherwise, then that's the only logical conclusion one can come to. And it's not a conclusion that will help Kerry get elected. Anyway, Mark Shields has some good questions for John Kerry as well:
Among the questions only the candidate, himself, can answer are:
1) Why does John Kerry want to be president? Who are the victims of official indifference and injustice President John Kerry will aid? Who are the villains a President Kerry will bring to the bar of justice?
2) What are the three real differences in the lives of real people that John Kerry as president would make ?
3) What is the vision of John Kerry that is grander and larger than our own narrow or parochial perspectives -- the vision that will appeal to the best in all Americans?
In answering these questions, John Kerry must do so without any reference to George W. Bush. Voters want to know who John Kerry is, what makes him go and what John Kerry, if he wins, will do.
The electorate probably already suspects that Kerry thinks Bush is a lousy president, and yes, the 2004 election should be a referendum on the incumbent chief executive.
But Kerry would do well to study the "game films" of the 1980 campaign, when Republican challenger Ronald Reagan refused to simply run against the unpopular incumbent, President Jimmy Carter. Instead, Reagan laid out his plans repeatedly, in specific detail -- double the defense budget, cut taxes by one third and, that's right, balance the federal budget -- so that when the Republican did win, that November, he could legitimately lay claim to a mandate for his program.
What sacrifices would a President Kerry ask of all Americans? The profound lesson from the national tragedy of Vietnam, which George W. Bush either never learned or has chosen to forget, is: An army does not fight a war; a country fights a war. If the country is unwilling to make the collective sacrifices required to wage that war, then it must never send an army into battle.
The message from George W. Bush, War President, to the most fortunate and most privileged of his fellow countrymen -- you will pay no price, you will bear no burden -- is an indictment of failed leadership. But what would John Kerry ask? Does he agree with the conservative writer Michael Barone that, "War demands equality of sacrifice"? The voters need those questions answered, soon.
Presidential elections are about incumbents. Incumbents win or lose because of their performance in office. If a president has high approval ratings then its unlikely that anyone will beat him. If a president has screwed up and people are unhappy, all that matters is that the challenger is competent, and the challenger will win. In 2004, we're in the middle. George W. Bush is liked by Republicans, hated by Democrats and Independents aren't so sure. That means that John Kerry will not only have to prove his competence (he has), but he must do more. Kerry needs to give the American people a reason for his candidacy. He needs to tell people how he'll make a difference in their lives, and how he will make them safer and more prosperous. Finally, Kerry needs to connect his heroism in Vietnam to his vision for America. It's one thing to be a war hero, it's another to apply the lessons he learned in Vietnam to making America a better nation.
We all have our fun at our opponents expense. I had some fun with the Bush-Cheney poster maker before it was taken down, and now it looks as if conservative bloggers are trying to have some fun with the Kerry Core feature.
Here's what they've come up with here, here and here.
Pretty creative. They all seem to think that the Kerry campaign will take down the feature because of their work. That won't happen. The Kerry campaign has raised tens of millions of dollars online, and many people have contributed to give their favorite bloggers (kos, atrios, etc) credit for their donation. It'll stay.
Update: Well, the Kerry campaign caught on and deleted some of the posts, so two of my links don't work. There's screenshots of some of pages that were created here.
Much is made of the left's hatred of President Bush. What is it that makes it hatred as opposed to mere disagreement or dislike? I think much of the Clinton and Bush hatred is derived not so much from policy disagreement, but rather from presidential symbolism. Many conservatives hated Bill Clinton because they believed that his moral character denigrated the institution of the presidency. They saw him as a playboy who did not respect the dignity of his office. Why do liberals hate George W. Bush? Sure, we disagree with his politics, but there are many people who I disagree with that I still respect. What I can't stand about President Bush is that he does not seem to grasp the seriousness of the office. The precidency is not a vacation. Yet President Bush treats it as such. The Washington Post reports:
Democrats criticized Bush for taking the Easter-week vacation while U.S. forces are struggling to put down an uprising in Iraq. Campaigning in Milwaukee, Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, said: "I notice President Bush is taking some days off down at Crawford, Texas, and I'm told that when he takes days off, you know, he totally relaxes: He doesn't watch television, he doesn't read the newspapers, he doesn't make long-term plans, doesn't worry about the economy. I thought about that for a moment. I said, sounds to me like it's just like life in Washington, doesn't it?"
[...]
This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency.
George W. Bush is a part-time president. While Americans died in Iraq yesterday our president was having a nice relaxing day fishing:
President Bush skipped a third round of fishing on his ranch pond Saturday with a crew from an outdoors show, though his performance the day before was something to brag about.
"He took the biggest one of the day," a bass nearly four pounds, said Roland Martin, host of the Outdoor Life Network program, "Fishing with Roland Martin."
The president and Martin released several big fish they caught Friday but kept the smaller ones for eating.
[...]
The president was very relaxed," Martin said.
How can the president be "relaxed" when men and women he sent into battle are being killed every day? Does President Bush feel anything about the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq? If he does, then why hasn't he attended a single funeral? Why is he on vacation forty percent of the time? Stories like these are what makes it so difficult for me to have any respect for the man.
Zack Exley will be the Kerry campaign's director of online communications and organizing. He was the MoveOn political action committee's special projects director, focusing on research and mobilizing MoveOn supporters, Eli Pariser, the PAC's executive director, said Wednesday.
The only big concern I have is that Republicans will try to use this as proof that there's been coordination between MoveOn.org and the Kerry campaign. It looks, however, as if both Exley and the Kerry campaign are doing everything in their power to show that there's no coordination involved:
At MoveOn's PAC, Exley worked with a branch of the group that spends limited individual donations, so-called "hard money" that is allowed in presidential races.
To guard against any risk or appearance of improper coordination between MoveOn and the Kerry campaign, steps are being taken to make sure Exley doesn't communicate with anyone at MoveOn until after the November election, Pariser said.
Exley's MoveOn laptop was returned to the group as soon as Exley decided to work for Kerry, Pariser said.
"He's not bringing any technology or any physical material to the Kerry campaign. It's just what he's got in his head about how we do online organization," Pariser said.
Good. I'm looking forward to some good stuff from the Kerry online opperation. It's certainly improved over the past few months, but there still a lot more that could be done.
I saw it on FOX News, too. They were trying to spin it, but it's hard to spin 43%. Newsday reports:
Public approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq has slipped to a new low -- alongside his overall job rating -- after last week's grisly deaths of four contractors in Fallujah, a poll says.
Still, a majority supports his decision to use military force in Iraq, says the poll released Monday.
Four in 10, or 40 percent, approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq, while 53 percent disapprove. That's down from six in 10 who approved in mid-January, according to the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Bush's overall job approval is at 43 percent, a low point for his presidency, down from 56 percent in mid-January. In the new poll, 47 percent disapproved of Bush's job performance. Bush's job approval soared to 90 percent after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and remained in the 70s for almost a year after that.
In other polls out today, Bush has a 38% approval rating in California and a 46% approval rating in Ohio.
It's good to see the folks at Air America radio embracing the blogosphere. The Majority Report has begun a Blog. I haven't yet had an opportunity to listen to The Majority Report, but I've been impressed with the first week of The O'Franken Factor and the Zero Spin Zone.
In other Air America news, they've just recently picked up four more stations which they'll be announcing soon.
While President Bush still highlights his "compassion agenda" on his website along with his compassion photo album where he poses with Black kids, it appears as if the Bush Campaign has decided to deemphasize the image of "compassionate conservativism" that was a large part of Bush's 2000 campaign. Hotline reports (via the Dallas Morning News:
As he approaches the November election, President Bush has shed a good part of the "compassionate conservative" image he cultivated during the 2000 election, a Washington Post poll has found. Mr. Bush came to office three years ago with a message that he was different from traditional Republican conservatives because he was promoting programs for the poor and disadvantaged. But with his presidency dominated by foreign policy issues and such traditional conservative favorites as tax cuts, he has dropped from his speeches the compassionate conservative moniker that was his trademark in 2000. The Post poll found Americans split over whether Mr. Bush has governed in a compassionate way, with 49 percent saying he has and 45 percent saying he has not. That is down sharply from February 2003, when a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 64 percent of Americans thought he had governed compassionately. The margin of error in the Post poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Makes sense to me. There's no point in calling President Bush a "compassionate conservative" when most moderate and independent voters won't buy it anymore.
Surpassing the estimates being floated around earlier this week ($43 million), the Kerry Campaign boasted total incoming cash flow of over $50 Million for the past three months. This is unheard of (for Democrats anyways).
Reuters
John Kerry's presidential campaign raised more than $50 million in the first quarter of 2004, a record for any nonincumbent White House contender, including George W. Bush, the Democrat's staff said on Friday. Grass-roots contributions, many made on the Internet, accounted for $35 million of the quarterly total, Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said in a telephone news conference.
She said the campaign raised $38 million in March, the month that Massachusetts senator clinched the party nomination to run against President Bush in November.
"Our grass-roots donors have been the backbone of our fund-raising this month, breaking every online record," Cahill said, adding that the campaign is more than halfway to its goal of raising $80 million before the Democratic National Convention in July.
The quarterly total breaks the $29 million record for a nonincumbent presidential contender, which was set in 1999 by then-candidate Bush, she said. Since 1999 the donation limit to a candidate has been doubled, which could account for some of the difference.
Also of note was the 2.6 million dollar fundraising day in Early March (4 or 7, I hear conflicting reports) that beat Dean's big day at the end of Q3 2003. Now just a comment on all this, I'm am positive that a lot of this money is not "pro-Kerry" money in the sense that people are more anti-Bush than anything else (a longer term problem, but we can deal with that later) and the fact that I think anyone once they became the nominee was going to get a huge surge of fundraising.
But hands down, it's a good thing for John Kerry and the Democratic Party (which also is free of debt and doing recording fundraising as well, even after he campaign finance laws).
Want to help elect John Kerry our next President? You can make a difference here in Central Texas. Here's how:
John Kerry for President
Organizational Meeting
Wednesday, April 7th at 7pm
AFL-CIO
1106 Lavaca Street
Austin, TX 78701
(at the corner of 11th Street and Lavaca Street)
Come help us organize the grassroots John Kerry for President campaign effort in Central Texas! Over the next few weeks we will be forming several issue-related committees to help focus and direct the John Kerry election effort in the greater Austin area. Join us on Wednesday and learn how you can get involved.
Contact: Ryan McCormick, 512-294-4630, ryan@austinforkerry.org
The Media Fund has a good new ad that clearly lays out the differences between George W. Bush and John Kerry on taxes. It's what the Kerry campaign should have been doing a week ago, and its much more effective than the current Kerry ad.
Of course, the Bush campaign is accusing the Kerry campaign of illegally colaborating with MoveOn.org and The Media Fund. The Guardian reports:
President Bush's campaign and the GOP on Wednesday accused the campaign of Democrat John Kerry of illegally coordinating political ads and get-out-the-vote activities with anti-Bush groups and donors including billionaire George Soros.
The Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee said they would file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing Kerry and pro-Kerry groups of violating a campaign law that broadly bans the use of ``soft money'' - corporate, union and unlimited individual donations - to influence federal elections.
In a highly unusual move, the Bush campaign and RNC plan to ask the FEC to dismiss the complaint immediately so they can file a federal lawsuit to block the activities and force the groups to pay for presidential ads and get-out-the-vote drives with limited donations from individuals rather than soft money. Usually complainants pursue FEC action before going to court, but it can take months or even years for the commission to resolve complaints.
[...]
The GOP cited at least three factors it says prove coordination: links between people involved in some of the soft money groups and the Kerry campaign during the same election cycle; the timing of media buys in the same states and media markets; and TV stations receiving a Media Fund ad on Kerry's economic plan before Kerry publicly released the economic plan.
``I'd call it slanderous nonsense - the typical Republican politics of intimidation,'' said Media Fund spokesman Jim Jordan, a former Kerry campaign manager who is among those named in the complaint. He said the Media Fund ad on Kerry's economic positions mentioned only what Kerry has been saying publicly for months.
Wes Boyd, president of MoveOn, said in a statement: ``We do not coordinate with the Kerry campaign. These charges are baseless and irresponsible.''
The 527s are following the rules. Neither the MoveOn.org or The Media Fund ads are advocating the election or the defeat of any candidate, nor are they coordinating with the John Kerry campaign. At least, that's my understanding of the current law.
Microtargetting Voters -- Good idea, fad, or both?
By Jim Dallas
Newsweek last week ran a story about the increased use of market research to target individual voters, with the prerequisite "Karl Rove is god" ("Wizard of Oz" might be more appropriate appelation for Mr. Rove).
True, the Republicans still have a huge lead on us when it comes to micro-targetting voters, but we're catching up with Demzilla (we hope).
Additionally, I tend to suspect that the law of diminishing returns applies here; just because the Republicans know which color underwear you're wearing right now doesn't mean that information is going to win them your vote; and if they're going to spend money on that, then let them (because at some point, a marginal increase in information on a voter is just going to be a wasted investment).
All this talk all boils down to making an educated guess about your neighbors values so that you can most effectively persuade them. For the El Cheapo candidate (e.g. a justice of the peace candidate in Podunk), a totally free service like Claritas's ZIP Code search -- or census records, tax assessments, and voting histories -- ought to get them half way there. While computers and market segmentation databases are going to be very helpful, they're simply an extension of what campaigns ought to be doing -- effectively -- anyway.
(I suppose it's worth noting that the free stuff I suggested only allows an assessment of your audience in the aggregate; it can tell you about a neighborhood, but not about one particular neighbor. That's true, of course, and that's why all this new stuff can't be ignored. But nor will it improve a campaign's effectiveness by orders of magnitude, in my humble opinion.)
On the other hand, the road to victory is paved with the skulls of backwards-thinking pols who failed to get with the times. See for example the folks who pooh-poohed scientific polling or television or helicopters in the 40s and 50s -- and then got beat (sure, Lyndon Johnson may or may not have cheated in 1948, but by embracing "high-tech", Johnson was able to essentially tie Coke Stevenson, who was at the time probably the most popular politician in Texas).
Thanks to Kevin Drum for noting Claritas's site on Washington Monthly.
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC: The "you are where you live" meme came up in Drum's defense of David Brooks, who was attacked by Philadelphia Magazine's Sasha Issenberg for "not checking his facts." Umm, and I could say the same thing about Issenberg, who claims that "one of Goodwin's strongest markets has been deep-Red McAllen, Texas."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. McAllen might be geographically located in Texas, but every Texan knows that McAllen isn't really part of the sociopolitical construct of Texas, by which I mean George W. Bush's cowboy fan club (nor is Austin, nor San Antonio, nor Galveston, really, by that standard).
More to the point -- shouldn't Lyndon Johnson's biographer (that's who Doris Kearns Goodwin is) get lots of readers in South Texas, where some of LBJ's more infamous exploits occurred (see earlier reference to 1948 Senate Race)? I mean, duh.
OH. According to Issenberg, Galveston is part of "Red America," despite having a political culture somewhere to the left of Philadelphia's. ("Blue Americans have heard so much about Red America, and they've always wanted to see it. But Blue Americans don't take vacations to places like Galveston and Dubuque," Issenberg claims.)
Just look at the numbers -- McAllen's Hidalgo County went for Gore 61-38, which is about the same result tallied in "uber-blue" Montgomery County, Maryland, which went for Gore by a margin of 63-34. Galveston County, as a whole, is deeply "purple"; but the city of Galveston itself went for Gore.
The whole Philly Mag piece is a laugh riot. Obviously, Sasha Issenberg doesn't know anything about Texas, or Texans, and I'm starting to think that I don't want people like that in my state, anyway.
Once you scale up the "red/blue" hypothesis to geopolitical units the size of states, it starts to lose all meaning and sociological accuracy (as the post I made a while back about Starbucks in Vermont ought to indicate).
Dean, Edwards, Kucinich, Clark and Kerry Texas Campaigns Reach a Deal
By Byron LaMasters
Here's what leaders of the campaigns of the Texas campaigns of Dean, Edwards, Kucinich, Clark and Kerry agreed on last Thursday:
Weve agreed to the following concepts: - All of us are agreed that we want a unified state convention for John Kerry in Texas. That will be achieved by all of us signing in for Kerry at State. - Democrats who were in the campaigns of any of the nine candidates still would like to go to the National Convention and all should feel free to run for Kerry delegates or for the nine Edwards seats allocated by the primary. To do so, you will have to file an application as a Kerry or Edwards national delegate. Applications will be posted on the Texas Democratic Party website beginning late April. - In all dealings at the State convention, no person will be prohibited or discouraged from being a party officer candidate or National Delegate because of which campaign they originally supported. - The various campaign leaders will all have input on naming some of the At-Large delegates. There will be people who originally supported Dean (or the others) considered and elected by the Nominations Committee to be Kerry At-Large National Delegates.
Sounds good to me. We're united. Off the Kuff has some more insight into the Democratic unity that we're seeing in Texas and across the country. Frankly, I'm amazed. I'm amazed how eager every single Democratic Presidential candidate (with the exception of Kucinich, for now) has been to help John Kerry get elected. Howard Dean endosed Kerry and sent out an email fundraising pitch for him. Dick Gephardt is campaigning with Kerry in Missouri this weekend. Wes Clark is using his contacts and email lists to raise money for Kerry. Joe Lieberman and Bob Graham will campaign for Kerry in Florida. John Edwards has introduced John Kerry to his fundraising contacts and is raising money for Kerry himself. Even Al Sharpton has embraced John Kerry, and Dennis Kucinich has promised to support John Kerry by the convention. We're united.
Just a note, I was told this morning that Dean won 27% of the delegates to the state convention in Travis County.
In Gillespie County, officially, Kerry got 3 delegate and Edwards 1 (me, don't ask). But of the 8 delegates and alternates from Gillespie County, 5 had been tagged as Dean from the campaign this past year.
The Republicans wanted Ralph Nader to run. They want him to be well funded. They want him to be able to take his message to America. Does anyone wonder why?
The Dallas Morning News reports:
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is getting a little help from his friends and from George W. Bush's friends.
Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News.
[...]
More than 24 Nader contributors of $250 or more about 10 percent of his total are otherwise reliable GOP donors, The News review found.
Mr. Paulucci, the creator of Chun King and Jeno's Pizza Rolls, donated $2,000 in February to Mr. Nader.
The Florida frozen-food executive is a prolific contributor to the GOP, giving more than $150,000 to the Republican Party and national candidates since 2000.
Is there any better proof that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush?
Update: Didn't notice it earlier, but Kos is on the story as well. He observes that it is likely that the 10% figure climbs as the campaign moves on as Nader taps out his personal network of supporters. I'm quite inclined to agree.
Blatant Lies (Otherwise Known as Bush's Latest Ad)
By Byron LaMasters
The latest George W. Bush ad goes beyond the earlier Bush campaign distortions of the Kerry record. They've now resorted to blatant lies:
George W. Bush's campaign ad says that "John Kerry's plan will raise taxes by at least $900 Billion his first 100 days in office".
John Kerry hasn't proposed $900 Billion in new taxes. The Boston Globe responds to the Bush lie:
Kerry has never proposed a $900 billion tax increase, as the ad suggests. The Bush administration, which has overseen the loss of government surpluses and an explosion of deficits, comes up with the $900 billion figure by calculating the cost of Kerry's programs. Kerry left himself open to criticism by failing to detail the cost of his promises.
While slapping price tags on Kerry's policies, the White House hasn't explained gaps in its own fiscal 2005 budget, including the cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan next year. Bush also hasn't accounted for the $1 trillion in transition costs of his proposal for partial privatization of Social Security.
First of all, the Bush folks are the last people any American should trust in calculating a budget, and how much various programs will cost. They have failed time and time again to grasping the costs of their programs, and turned a budget surplus into the largest deficits in history in only three years. Second, if we added up the difference between Bush's spending and Bush's current taxes (the logic the Bush administration uses for calculating the Kerry taxes), we could conclude that the Bush administration would raise taxes significantly in their first 100 days. Finally, how can anyone raise taxes by $900 Billion in 100 days? Any tax increases would be spread out over a period of years. The Bush campaign makes it appear as if the tax boogeyman will come and rob Americans of $900 Billion in 100 days. When it comes to Social Security, the Bush ad attacks Kerry for voting to raise taxes on Social Security benefits, but as is typical of Bush, he has not accounted for the $1 Trillion in transition costs to partial privatization. Can we assume that George W. Bush wants to raise taxes by $1 Trillion (using the Bush campaign logic) to cover it? No, probably not. He'll just continue the standard Republican borrow-and-spend economics, and make our generation pay it off in a few decades.
Next, the Bush campaign says that "Kerry even supported to raise taxes on gasoline by $.50 / gallon. Kerry voted for a $.043 / gallon tax increase on gas. Less than ten times less than the tax Bush suggests he supported. Kerry never sponsored a bill or voted for anything to increase gas taxes by $.50. The Boston Globe continues:
Kerry voted for a 4.3-cent increase in the per-gallon gas tax in 1993, defending it as a way to reduce the deficit. In 1994, he referred to his ''support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax'' in a comment to the Boston Globe. He later said he no longer held that view, and he noted that he had never proposed or voted for it.
Well, there's Zell Miller, a former Florida Lieutenant Governor during the 1980s, then after that, the number three "Democrat" for Bush is an obscure former Missouri Bollinger County Commissioner. Wow. What a high profile list. The Bush-Cheney Campaign reports:
Today, U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) and Democrats from across the country joined together in support of President Bush's re-election efforts. This event is one of many events scheduled by the campaign designed to energize and inform the nation's voters and grassroots activists who have shown overwhelming support for President Bush.
"I have been a Democrat all my life and I will be until my last day on Earth, but right now this president is the guy I support," stated Miller. "The direction the Democrats are headed is not based on what is good for America but what is good for the party, and at historic times like these, Americans deserve more."
After two terms as governor of Georgia, Miller is currently Georgia's senior senator serving his first term. John Wayne Mixson, Lieutenant Governor during Bob Graham's administration, and Ken Threntham, a former Missouri Bollinger County Commissioner, also participated in the events this afternoon.
It's tough now that they can't include Ralph Hall. He was every Republicans favorite Demcrat. As for Zell Miller, the man is a disgrace and a hypocrite. Three years ago, Zell Miller had nothing but praise for John Kerry (via kos):
Miller has not always been so dismissive of Kerry. At the Georgia Democratic Partys Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in 2001, he introduced Kerry as one of this nations authentic heroes, one of this partys best-known and greatest leaders and a good friend.
In remarks reported in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miller continued, In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Miller said Kerry fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.
Now, the tone is quite different. Not only does Miller wholeheartedly endorse George W. Bush, but he goes on the attack against Senator Kerry, and at times directly contradicts his comments in 2001:
SENATOR MILLER: Thank you, Marc. I appreciate your kind introduction, and I appreciate even more your efforts to re-elect President Bush.
[...]
I am honored to stand squarely with President George W. Bush as he leads America at this defining moment in our history. The road that brought me here today is paved with a lot of frustration, but also a lot of hope.
[...]
Senator Kerry doesnt make any secret of the fact that he wants to bring more money into Washington so that he can decide how to spend it.
In his first one hundred days in office, John Kerrys massive health care plan would force him to raise taxes by as much as $900 billion. And the only way hes going to get that kind of money is if he reaches into the wallet of every man and woman in America.
His spending and tax plan would stifle our economy and stall our recovery.
On one hand, Zell Miller credits John Kerry for cutting government waste and bringing accountability to government. On the other, Zell Miller attacks John Kerry for an irresponsible spending plan (no mention of the current Bush deficits, though) and unaccountability. Which one is it, Zell?
Can we just kick him out of the Democratic caucus? It's one thing to be a Blue Dog. I may not agree with people like Charlie Stenholm or Chet Edwards or Max Sandlin or Jim Turner, etc. all the time, but I'm damn glad to have them in Congress. From liberal districts, we should have liberal Democratic congressmen, for conservative and moderate districts, I'm happy to see Blue Dog and conservative Democrats win. But Zell Miller's antics are getting old. Can anyone.... anyone, please, name ONE thing that he has done in the past year or two to justify the "D" behind his name? Anything?
Atlantic Monthly has a lengthy article by Paul Maslin, Howard Dean's pollster on how Dean lost Iowa (and thus the nomination). It is a very revealing inside view as to how Howard Dean imploded in Iowa. From his summer surge, to how the Al Gore endorsement backfired, to how Dean allowed himself to get into a one-on-one battle with Dick Gephardt sinking both of their campaigns, to the campaign's failure to have experienced caucus coordinators in each caucus, to the final days where things spiraled out of control. It's all inAtlantic Monthly: The Front-Runner's Fall. Via Political Wire and Carl with a K.
I'll reiterate a few points I like to make on this subject:
1. Nobody votes for the VP. VPs carry states because they have strong organizations there from years of being elected and people will turn out for them
2. Two Senators on the ticket is not balanced- its a Washington insider ticket. We have a Senator running for President (already a bad move- all of two senators have been directly elected President from the Senate), we ought to have a non Senator for VP imho.
3. Consider the X Factors- being a member of a minority constituency means that that group will probably turn out in record numbers (or so goes the logic, no one has tried it yet). Having a personal fortune means that we can increase our money, etc.
So who do I like? Well, for a long time I've liked Bill Richardson. He won a landslide in New Mexico (check), he is a governor (check) and as an Hispanic he puts Arizona, Colorado and Nevada firmly in play (check check check). Still- his record at the Department of Energy led Sen. Robert Byrd to say that he would never get confirmed by the Senate again- he essentially allowed nuclear secrets to slip into the hands of Chinese spies- a fiasco that cost him the VP spot in 2000. If you don't think that George "Steady Leadership" Bush won't bring that up- you are dead wrong.
Another great choice, I feel, is Mark Warner. He might carry Virginia (though I am not quite sure about that) and could make some other Southern states reachable, he is a governor and most importantly- he's filthy freakin rich. He could pour $50 million or more into the campaign right away and put us on the air nationwide. He's also attractive, moderate and well spoken. Finally, he's term limited (you cannot be reelected as Governor in VA) and so we need to get him on the National scene one way or another. He'd make a great VP and I think Kerry/Warner might be the ticket for 2004.
Finally, let's consider the VP bounce. When the candidate chooses his VP, it invariably increases that candidates favorable media coverage which leads to a poll bounce. Its predictable and if it doesnt happen, something went wrong. If Kerry picks someone everyone already knows from a year and a half on the campaign trail- i.e. John Edwards or Bob Graham- he loses that bounce. The coverage is- Look, this is predictable and you know this guy. Feel free to change the channel. You want someone that needs introducing, that needs an explanation, that intrigues people. People have seen Bill Richardson but we can all see the two minute network news piece now- Congressman, ambassador, peace maker, four time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Secretary of Energy, Hispanic, Governor of New Mexico. Its a damn fine piece and the bounce would likely be huge. Of course, the nasty stories about the nuclear secrets will be in there too and that could mitigate the bounce some. Mark Warner is good too- Southern, businessman, moderate, education policy, NASCAR strategy, lots of money. Still other candidates would be great too- Mary Landrieu (she violates Rule 2 but could make up for it with lots of cred under Rules 1 and 3), Tom Vilsack, Brad Henry or maybe Madeline Albright (though I think the fact that she is foreign born actually disqualifies her). They are all obscure enough to make peoples ears perk up and give Kerry a bounce. As long as they fulfill these three qualifications, I think that they will make a great VP choice.
Kerry is in an enviable position right now- he is running even with the president and has the entire party behind him heading into the summer and spring. If he makes the right choices now, he could end up winning this thing big in November.
Update: So it seems thate Madeline Albright, born a Czech, is indeed disqualified from serving as Vice President. Someone who doesn't provide regional balance (as he is from Maine) but is highly qualified nonetheless would be William S. Cohen. Republican member of Congress from Maine, Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, his character and qualifications are impeccable and his independence would be intriguing. There's no telling if he'd accept it, but he would create no only a bounce but a shockwave through the race. As a life long Republican and one of the smartest men in America in terms of National Security issues, he could go toe to toe with anybody in this race and would create headlines like no one else. Put me down as a supporter of Kerry/Cohen 2004.
The Dallas Morning News interviewed eleven of the thirteen members of the Democratic National Committee from Texas on their choice for John Kerry's Vice Presidential pick, and their favorites are John Edwards followed by Bill Richardson.
Four of the 13 Texans on the committee, which manages the national party's business, chose Mr. Edwards. Three members backed Mr. Richardson, and three more were undecided. Two committee members Austin's Rosa Walker and Amarillo's Iris Lawrence did not return phone calls.
One member, former state party Chairman Bob Slagle of Sherman, said he backed Louisiana Sen. John Breaux.
"Breaux might bring Louisiana," Mr. Slagle said. "Right now, it's a tossup."
Others mentioned as backup choices included Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, though he wasn't anyone's first choice.
I'd have to agree with our state DNC members. My first choice for John Kerry's running mate is John Edwards, and my second choice is Bill Richardson. However, my government professor disagrees:
Mr. Edwards was the choice of U.S. Rep Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas, a committee member who was an earlier backer of his presidential bid.
Retired Bowie County Judge Ed Miller also said Mr. Edwards would be a good choice, though he wondered: "But can he really deliver a state?"
Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Austin, doesn't think so.
"He's not going to bring North Carolina electoral votes, though his appeal may energize the party's base," he said.
I agree with Professor Buchanan. John Edwards probably won't deliver North Carolina to the Democratic ticket, but I think that Edwards brings balance to the ticket. Edwards brings regional balance to the ticket, and his presence on the ticket can help significantly in several southern states such as Florida, Virginia, Louisiana and Arkansas. During the primaries, John Edwards appealed to many Independents and conservative Democrats across the country. Edwards can bring in Independents and conservative Democrats (and some Republicans) that may not be entirely comfortable with John Kerry into the Democratic fold. John Edwards is also relatively well known by many Americans. Kerry could pick some lesser known candidate (Evan Bayh, John Breaux, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Warner, etc.) that might be able to deliver a state, but they would be lesser known nationally than someone like John Edwards or Bill Richardson (or Dick Gephardt). While Dick Cheney didn't help deliver any state for George W. Bush, he gave many undecided voters the balance and experience that many voters were looking for. I think that John Edwards could bring youth, vigor, energy and charisma to the Democratic ticket. He'd be a tremendous asset on the campaign trail as we observed throughout the campaign. We'll see.
As usual, all the TVs in my parents' house were turned on to FOX News yesterday (no, I don't have power over the remote control), and it was one non-stop marathon of Richard Clarke-bashing.
(OK, I think they did talk about the Scott Petersen trial for a few minutes).
The steady march of pundits, politicians, and "analysts" coming up with new and more exciting reasons not to believe Clarke was pretty impressive, as an exercise in political damage control. But while the Bush administration had lots of quantity, they didn't have much quality.
Because it's painfully obvious that Bush's proxies are lying.
I'm not saying Bush's proxies are liars because they're "partisan" or "disgruntled" or "out of the loop," as Clarke may or may not have been.
I am saying they are liars simply because what they are saying is counter-factual and internally-inconsistent.
They are liars not for who they are or who they work for. They are liars because they are not telling the truth.
The Blogger Formerly Known as Calpundit makes this clear:
Look, every bit of evidence indicates that the Bush foreign policy team didn't see foreign terrorism as a top priority before 9/11. What's more, it's hardly plausible that the administration's top counterterrorism guy was "out of the loop" on what was supposedly the administration's biggest counterterrorism initiative. And given his background and his known intensity toward fighting terrorism, it's also unlikely to the point of lunacy to think that if the Bushies had been planning a bigger and far more extensive anti-terrorism program than Clinton's no more "swatting flies"! that Clarke would have opposed it. He probably would have been dancing in the streets.
But the Bush apologists can't be happy with simply suggesting that maybe Clarke misinterpreted what he heard, and in any case 9/11 was a wakeup call for all of us, wasn't it? That would be too subtle, too honest, too nuanced for them. Instead, they have to open up the throttle all the way and insist against all evidence that in reality they were working on the mother of all counterterrorism plans before 9/11 but their chief counterterrorism guy wasn't in the loop.
It's really a pretty pathetic performance. The only thing they know how to do is attack and then attack even harder, and look where it gets them: a pile of federal investigations and stories that are spun so ludicrously that even their supporters are probably having trouble swallowing them. You'd think they'd learn eventually.
Atrios links to Moe Blues, who nails it --
So Dick Cheney is making the rounds claiming that Clarke was out of the loop in the administrations counter-terror efforts. Therefore, Clarke doesnt know what he's talking about and anything he says should be instantly discounted.
Its amazing that Cheney does not seem to realize what he is actually saying: That the Bush administrations top expert on terrorism was not consulted about their counter-terrorism efforts. This presents several unpalatable choices:
1. Cheney is lying for political gain. If the public picks up on this, the backlash could be out of all proportion to the damage Cheney is trying to control.
2. The administration deliberately ignored its in-house expert, with September 11 being the result. This eliminates one more scapegoat, since the White House cannot simultaneously blame Clarke for failing to stop 9/11 while claiming he was out of the loop on counter-terrorism.
3. Assuming Cheney speaks the truth, it actually bolsters Clarkes claim to Cassandra-hood. Cut out of the loop, his warnings went nowhere and were ignored. That, too, is pretty damning of the administration.
With Clarke due to testify before the 9/11 Commission, how long will it be before Cheneys statements are "no longer operative?"
It comes down to this - Richard Clarke might be less than perfect, but we know (prima facie) that the other guys are lying.
Clarke's charges deserve to be dealt with using facts and logic, not slime.
UPDATE: Daschle Agrees!
Now the White House seeks to destroy his reputation. The people around the President aren't answering his allegations; instead, they are trying to use the same tactics they used with Paul O'Neill. They are trying to ridicule Mr. Clarke and destroy his credibility, and create any diversion possible to focus attention away from his serious allegations.
The purpose of government isn't to make the President look good. It isn't to produce propaganda or misleading information. It is, instead, to do its best for the American people and to be accountable to the American people.
The people around the President don't seem to believe that. They have crossed a line -- perhaps several lines -- that no government ought to cross.
We shouldn't fire or demean people for telling the truth. We shouldn't reveal the names of law enforcement officials for political gain. And we shouldn't try to destroy people who are out to make country safer.
I think the people around the President have crossed into dangerous territory. We are seeing abuses of power that cannot be tolerated.
The President needs to put a stop to it, right now. We need to get to the truth, and the President needs to help us do that.
I find the recent Newsweek poll's age-group breakdown fascinating.
According to the poll, Bush leads by 17 points among 30-49 year olds -- but loses every other age group.
Kerry has an 18 point advantage over Bush among senior citizens, a 2 point edge among 50-65 year olds, and a 10 point advantage among 18-29 year olds.
Why are 30-49 year old so freakishly pro-Bush, at least in this poll? Some evidence has suggested that married-with-children types have been leaning more Republican. But this is way beyond a "lean".
(And weren't these guys supposed to be the "hotly contested" Office Park Dads and Soccer Moms?)
Oh well. My guess is that the gap in this age group will steadily narrow.
I'd also note that Kerry's secret of success thus far has been older voters, who vote like its going out of style.
If we can get a cross-generational alliance between the young and the old going, then I think there might be a very favorable turnout dynamic on Election Day.
I find the recent Newsweek poll's age-group breakdown fascinating.
According to the poll, Bush leads by 17 points among 30-49 year olds -- but loses every other age group.
Kerry has an 18 point advantage over Bush among senior citizens, a 2 point edge among 50-65 year olds, and a 10 point advantage among 18-29 year olds.
Why are 30-49 year old so freakishly pro-Bush, at least in this poll? Some evidence has suggested that married-with-children types have been leaning more Republican. But this is way beyond a "lean".
(And weren't these guys supposed to be the "hotly contested" Office Park Dads and Soccer Moms?)
Oh well. My guess is that the gap in this age group will steadily narrow.
I'd also note that Kerry's secret of success thus far has been older voters, who vote like its going out of style.
If we can get a cross-generational alliance between the young and the old going, then I think there might be a very favorable turnout dynamic on Election Day.
Howard Dean to Officially Endorse John Kerry on Thursday
By Byron LaMasters
Not unexpected, but good news. I think that Howard Dean has handled the process from the suspension of his campaign until now very well. I think that waiting for a little bit, and giving the people that worked so hard a chance to reflect on things for a few weeks is better than turning into a cheerleader for the nominee the very next day (as we saw Wes Clark do). Especially among the hardcore Dean supporters, there has been a concern that some of them may not support the eventual nominee - John Kerry. I think that Howard Dean's approach has helped ensure that the overwhelming vast majority of Dean supporters will wind up wholeheartedly into the Kerry camp. Howard Dean posted about an hour ago on Blog for America:
I don't want to give any of you a heart attack, but I plan to formally endorse John Kerry on Thursday, along with all 34 Congress people who endorsed me during the campaign.
One of the goals of the campaign was to send George Bush back to Texas, and the only person with a chance of doing that is John Kerry. I have spoken with him on numerous occasions. He is committed to universal health care, he has an excellent environmental record, and for that and many other reasons, he is a far better choice for president that the current resident of the White House who apparently (as revealed on Sixty Minutes over the weekend) ignored warnings of the potential of a terrorist attack before 9/11 in addition to costing us 2.3 million jobs!
I any case, I encourage you to support Sen. Kerry, but if you are not ready to do so, I hope you'll put lots of energy into the other two goals: reforming the Democratic Party to nurture it's recent backbone transplant, and making the grassroots stronger to get progressive voices on every school board, county commission, City Council, etc. in the country. Many thanks for all you do!!
When Dean writes that he will be endorsing John Kerry for President, he also mentions that he will do so along with "all 34 Congress people who endorsed me during the campaign". I assume that that includes Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT), but it will be interesting to see if Jeffords does endorse Kerry on Thursday. Regardless, good news. I'll look forward to seeing everything that goes down on Thursday.
I just ordered two John Kerry bumper stickers. I just realized that the campaign will send you up to two for free. Just fill out this form, here. I figure that I'll replace my Lloyd Doggett sticker on my truck with a John Kerry one (as Doggett easily won his primary race). I'll also be buying some Kerry Gear in the next week or two (Kerry Gear is the official John Kerry store). For myself, I'd like one regular John Kerry t-shirt and probably one Real Deal t-shirt and I'll probably get 20-30 bumper stickers to give away to friends. I might order more Kerry shirts (bulk of 10) if there's interest at Wednesday's University Democrats meeting.
I just watched the new John Kerry ad today. I'm not quite sure what to think of it. Sure, it's not bad, and well done in a graphical sense. But I think that the content is lacking. It starts out with a picture of John Kerry in uniform and the narrarator says, "For 35 years John Kerry has fought for his country". Fine, good start, but instead of following this up by laying out a clear vision for what John Kerry would do to defend America and making us more secure, Kerry goes on to offer overly broad generalizations. He says, "We need to get some things done in this country: affordable health care, rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy, really investing in our kids". The narrarator comes back on to say, "John Kerry: the military experience to defend America, a new plan to create jobs...". What exactly is this ad about? I'm not quite sure. The Bush campaign is relentlessly attacking John Kerry for being unprincipled. John Kerry needs to respond, and not in the tit for tat sort of way that he responded in the previous ad. Instead, the Kerry campaign should do two things. First, he should lay out his plans to defend American, create jobs, reduce the deficit, improve the economy, make affordable health care, etc. He should defend his record and lay out his plan. Instead of responding to Bush's attacks, Kerry should lay out his agenda on his terms, not in terms of a response to Bush. Second, Kerry should turn the tables on Bush by pointing out the inconsistencies of the Bush record. Just as John Kerry needs to counter the Bush claim that he is "unprincipled", Kerry needs to refute Bush's own claim that Bush offers "steady leadership in times of change". Kerry should hit hard quickly attacking Bush for his unsteady leadership on multiple issues. Whether it be attacking Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility, his lies about the war in Iraq, his unpreparedness for 9/11 or his interest in creating jobs in India (rather than in America), Kerry needs to define Bush as the unsteady, uncaring and uncompassionate president that he is.
DailyKOS points us to a Reuter's report on a letter allegedly from Al Qaeda terrorists:
WE WANT BUSH TO WIN
The statement said it supported President Bush... in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry..., as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.
While KOS (and no doubt the Faux News B.S. Brigade) will join a futile spin war over what this means, I think there are some other parts of the letter which are more telling. Specifically:
"The Spanish people... chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America," the statement said.
Note that if this letter really is from terrorists, the terrorists apparently have received exactly the same talking points memo that the conservative pundits have been reading off of -- that the Spanish people are "appeasers" and "the terrorists won."
Bill O'Reilly:
Al Qaeda loves this -- it's goal is to isolate America. Many people in Europe are socialists, and they believe that capitalist America is worse than Al Qaeda. That crazy view has taken deep root.
So the U.S.A. cannot count on much support from Europe, and that puts President Bush in a difficult position.
The Bush doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists. Now, with the capitulation of Spain, America has one less fighting partner....
...Al Qaeda is the most dangerous threat to you and your family. The actions of Spain over the weekend have given Al Qaeda's thugs a resounding victory.
No doubt, the purported Qaeda letter merely validates O'Reilly's theory, and that's the problem.
The argument advanced by Bill O'Reilly and other Bush surrogates has had the devastating effect of legitimizing Al Qaeda, declaring the terrorists the "victors", and alienating the Spanish by ignoring their legitimate concerns about their outgoing government's mendacity. And apparently, the conservative punditry has been willing to concede victory to bin Laden without any forethought about the best interests of the United States of America.
This is an abomination on its face, and it saddens me that there has not been a widespread recognition among Americans that we are being had.
We are being told that we live in a world dominated by a zero-sum game between the Bushists and the terrorists. Either Bush and his "coalition of the billing" buddies win, or the terrorists win. This makes sense in the pseudo-logic of the right-wing, which views itself as the only legitimate defender of Western civilization locked in struggle against all those who would undo the West - whether they be Al-Qaeda, Democrats, or Janet Jackson's breast. Likewise, many terrorist groups, like Al-Qaeda, are playing this dynamic to strengthen their own claim that they are the true defenders of Islam. What you have are two groups rushing head-long into a class of civilizations that need not be.
What we need are not prophets of doom, but courageous leaders who govern honestly, efficiently, and openly. This is the "blaphemy" the purported Qaeda letter is talking about.
And that, my fellow Democrat infidels, is the blasphemy that we offer America today.
POSTSCRIPT: Daria G. says in the KOS comment thread, "This cannot be allowed to influence our election. Don't let it affect your vote."
And she is exactly right. It should be noted that this could be an exercise in reverse psychology (the immediate response being "well, the terrorists really want you to vote for Kerry, because they hate Bush so much."). Or it could be reverse-reverse psychology. I am reminded of the glass-switching scene from The Princess Bride:
You only THINK I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses while your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell for one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha -" (Vizzini drops dead.)
The point of posting this is to point out the bigger point - that our world is bigger than an "us versus them" worldview allows. We are not choosing between Bush and Al Qaeda in the election; we are choosing between a Republican and a Democrat (and for some, perhaps an Independent). We will be choosing an American to lead America, just as the Spanish elected PM-elect Zapatero to lead Spain. The Spanish election, just like ours, was not a referendum on Qaeda, but a referendum on the merits of the Partido Popular and the PSOE.
For insisting that elections are about "their wants" (e.g. the terrorists) and not about "our wants", the punditry has done a grave disservice to democracy, in addition to the immediate goal of legitimizing terrorism. We need to be writing our own script, not reading off of the terrorists'.
Once again, online donors are showing that they're on the leading edge of the effort to bring change to America. The Internet is playing a pivotal role in the political process, from spin-busting blogs to think-tank-style discussion forums to the massive wave of contributions that have come from thousands of ordinary Americans like you.
Ten million dollars in ten days
Amazing. John Kerry has truly united the Democratic Party, and Democrats across the country are joining his campaign. It's heartening to see.
You can donate to the Kerry campaign (and give me some credit for it), here.
Update: And now Bill Clinton wants us to raise another $10 Million in 10 days.
From the Desk of Bill Clinton
You and I have made history together before. It's time to make some more.
Just a week after they began their multi-million dollar advertising blitz, Republicans have gone negative with the first of what will certainly be a barrage of attack ads. This is a major test for John Kerry's campaign -- and it's a significant opportunity for you and me.
It's our chance to demonstrate that, in 2004, we're not going to yield an inch to the Republican attack machine when it comes to defining what this campaign is all about. It's our chance to give John Kerry the kind of immediate, dramatic support he needs to stand toe-to-toe with the President and force him to debate the real issues in this campaign.
March 16, 2004 -- Let's make today the day that the entire Democratic Party speaks with one voice and launches the most successful 10-day fundraising drive in our Party's history. Here's my challenge to you: Send a donation right now to help me launch a "$10 Million in 10 Days" fundraising drive for John Kerry's campaign. Let's send donations flooding into Kerry headquarters.
Today, you and I can send a powerful message to John Kerry. We can promise him that we will never let him stand alone in the face of Republican attacks. In the days ahead, you'll be hearing from forceful voices from all across the Democratic Party -- all united in our determination to carry our values to victory in 2004. But, don't wait to act. Join me in making 3/16/04 a day you and I will always remember -- and one Republicans will never forget.
Thank you for joining me in standing behind John Kerry at a pivotal moment in his vitally important campaign. You and I have proven it time and time again. Working together, we know how to win. Let's do it again.
Last night, I added some more John Kerry stuff to the left sidebar (below BlogAds). I'd encourage everyone to donate to the John Kerry campaign, and of course, give me credit for it here.
If you can't contribute, get involved. Check out the Texas for Kerry and the Austin for Kerry websites. John Kerry is our Democratic nominee and it is our responsibility to carry his message across this country. We need to beat George W. Bush, and it is time to unite behind John Kerry. It's time to elect the next President of the United States. Together, we can do it. John Kerry for President.
John Kerry may not have been my first choice for president, but I have to say, I'm damn proud of him. He's not lying when he says he's a fighter. He fights back. Bush went negative yesterday, and today, Kerry returned the fire. I'm proud of our presumptive nominee. We all should be. He's going to make a great 44th President of the United States.
Bush-Cheney Poster Maker Takes Down Text Feature...
By Byron LaMasters
But I had a little fun with it this afternoon before they did...
I was going to play with it some more tonight, but alas, the Bush campaign was getting tired of the jokes. As Karl-Thomas mentioned, there is no section for GLBT's for Bush on the Coalition Groups for his poster maker, but I did make some others. And the best thing about it is that my posters are paid for by the Bush-Cheney campaign. Hehe. Go to the extended entry to view them...
There has been much talk about the new Make Your Own Poster feature on the Bush website over the last few days as stated by this daily kos diary.
Of course, after much fun was had with it, Bush/Cheney stoped that nonsense by letting you choose just your state or coalition group.
That's just fine if you are from a group they thought of including which is fairly diverse including African Americans (for all 9% of them that went Bush in 2000), Arab-Americans (which now appear in Bush's "Muhammad Horton" ad as it may soon be called), Firefighters (who were not happy with Bush's last ads with September 11th images), and Investors (who I'm sure are just thrilled by this weeks 500 point decline on Wall Street).
But if you fall under the GLBT Americans Coalition, you have no place in Bush/Cheney's list. So much for the Big Tent.
"The tax cut that I got has been protected against all cost," said Clinton, referring to the $1 trillion income tax cuts that primarily benefited Americans with high incomes such as the former president, who has earned millions for his forthcoming memoirs and for making speeches.
"It's the most important thing in the world to the administration and the majority party in Congress to protect my tax cut," Clinton said.
"So to protect my tax cut in this budget, they are kicking 300,000 poor children out of after-school programs, 23,000 cops off the street.
"They've already removed 83,000 students from the student loan program, depriving 140,000 unemployed workers from job training and removing child care supports to 100,000 working families," Clinton continued.
"Now that's a choice they made. They actually believe the most important thing in the world is to have less government and low taxes.
"They believe that lower taxes are good even if you have to have adverse human consequences. It's a difference of opinion."
According to CBS News, maybe Texas Democrats really did matter after all (with a little help from our friends in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida):
Kerry won primaries Tuesday in Florida, Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana, largely without major opposition. He won about 75 percent of the vote in Florida and Mississippi, and about two-thirds in the other states.
The wins give Kerry 2,174 delegates (including so-called "super-delegates"), according to a CBS News tally, surpassing the 2,162 needed to win the Democratic nomination.
Kerry was returning to Washington on Wednesday to meet with Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who had been one of his top rivals for the nomination. He was scheduled to meet Thursday with John Edwards, who left the campaign after the Super Tuesday elections of March 2.
Dean is prepared to campaign for Kerry and ask his own contributors to donate to Kerry's campaign, said officials familiar with the meeting. Aides are expected to spend a week or so planning an endorsement, the officials said.
I guess it's time to start making our "Texas is Kerry Country" signs...
After 12 hours (before dawn to after dusk) of even-handed clerk-work guarding the purity of the election down in Precinct 115, I was able to rush across town to my home precinct (276) to attend my precinct convention.
It looks like I'll be a Kerry delegate to the Galveston County convention on March 27. I ended up voting for him - largely because I don't vote for people who have stopped asking for votes. So it really came down to Kerry and Kucinich. After a lot of thought, I ended up voting Kerry because I was ready for this whole nomination thing to be over.
The precinct convention was a nail-biter with two votes for Kerry and one vote for Kucinich. Oh, the humanity.
In other Galveston County news, the Republicans kicked out their old county chair and replaced her with Chris Stevens. Texas City attorney and Dean-supporter Patrick Doyle will be in a runoff with Galveston school board president John Ford for County Commissioner Precinct One.
Democratic turnout was about twice Republican turnout county-wide (9600 votes for the Democrats to 4800 for the Republicans). Our Republican counterparts in 115 - a working class minority neighborhood - were very, very lonely, whereas we got about 300 voters.
All the other positions in Galveston were uncontested on the Democratic side. No Democrat will oppose Republican Ron Paul for congress. Rep. Craig Eiland (the representative whose wife got a rather rude visit from state troopers last year -- while she was in the hospital having a baby!) was unopposed, and is looking strong heading into the general election.
Err... it's probably worth noting that at our polling place a lot of people showed up expecting to vote in the mayoral race, which is on May 15 this year in Galveston. So far the mayoral race appears to be largely between city council members Lyda Ann Thomas and Johnny Smecca (although Abdul H. Amin is also running strong), and it's a barn-burner.
Even better, the courts are forcing Galveston city officials to hold a referendum on putting parking meters on the Seawall. The city council had been expecting to simply re-zone the Seawall for parking meters without consulting the voters about amending the city charter, which was a major controversy. Now the idea - which could mean millions of dollars in revenue for beach improvements - is going to be put before the voters. For all the BOR readers who like to park on the Seawall, the May 15 election here in Galveston may affect your next vacation.
It was great seeing the people down in 115 that I knew and meeting new ones that I did not know (the high school that I graduated from - and now work at - is in that precinct.)
Hello all, this is Andrea, the newest blogger here on BOR. I would like to announce that I am a Dean delegate at the county convention. Thanks to all who came out and voted! I went to my polling place, and the line was enormous--I waited for about 40 minutes, and it was wonderful to see so many people who cared enough to wait. As Dean says, the biggest lie that people like him tell people like us is that if they are elected, they will make everything better, but the power is really in our hands. It looks like a lot of people took that to heart. The power to change the world really is in our hands when we use them to pull the voting lever.
When Fred Barnes and William Kristol are worried...
Lack of concerted effort is the least alarming part of Bush's problem. What's worse is the White House and the Bush campaign seem to have been spooked. They seem fearful and tentative and weak at exactly the moment when they need to be confident and aggressive. Democrats and their allies are united behind Bush's opponent, John Kerry, and have no qualms about attacking the president on any subject whatsoever. At best, Bush's aides respond defensively. At worst, their clumsiness turns a minor flap into a prolonged controversy.
A GOP insider told The Hill a couple weeks ago that there is a "real possibility ... we could see President Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero. Its clearly a venue theyre considering.
Let's be clear. The White House hasn't said they're going to do this. And we don't have any direct knowledge that they're considering it. But the idea is apparently being widely discussed in Republican circles.
I mean, the question isn't whether that would be a crass use of the 9/11 tragedies for political gain. The question is whether it's possible to imagine anything more crass. Isn't ground zero something like a graveyard?
What could be worse? The president addressing the crowd wearing a pelt from a recently executed Guantanamo prisoner? Personally executing Saddam on stage with a scimitar?
Not to be flippant, but could anything be more crass than accepting a presidential nomination on ground that is still mixed with the bodies of thousands of Americans?
Lincoln dedicated a cemetery at Gettysburg; he didn't hold the 1864 Republican convention there.
I doubt that Karl Rove would ever lose such control of his senses that he would allow George Bush to give his acceptance speech from Ground Zero, but the fact that its even being floated around is pretty telling. For the GOP the deaths of 3000 Americans is political capital, they are overjoyed that such a terrible event occurred on their man's watch so that they can exploit the tragedy for his reelection. This is shameful, mind boggling.
Of course, the question is now being floated- why is this president playing up his role in allowing for the biggest failure of intelligence, law enforcement and national security in American history? It's pretty clear that 9/11 probably would never have happened if Bush had pursued the proposals developed vis a vis Afghanistan towards the end of the Clinton Administration. If he had listened to his own briefings and followed the lead of his own Attorney General (who stopped using commercial airliners after briefings similar to the president's before 9/11) he might have been able to head this off at the ground level. I'm not ready to blame George Bush for the attacks quite yet, but questions exist and I don't know that the president should be encouraging people to rexamine his role in this tragedy when he wants their votes.
Barron's commissioned John Zogby to poll all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) to measure the shaping up of electors for 2004. Its conclusion is a perhaps predictable yet still exciting one: Bush is in serious trouble:
Barron's Online asked noted pollster John Zogby, president and chief executive officer of Zogby International, to lay out the electoral map as he sees it, based on various polls conducted throughout the country, including his own.
The table below spells it out: Senator Kerry is ahead in 18 of the so-called Blue states (including the District of Columbia), representing some 226 electoral votes.
President Bush leads in 21 of the Red states, with 176 electoral votes. A dozen more states, with 136 electoral votes, are considered "in play."
But if Zogby's current estimate holds, all the Massachusetts senator will need to do is take Ohio and Florida to pass the 270-vote threshold and win the presidency.
President Bush, despite his incumbency, would seem to have an uphill battle here, if things continue as they are now.
Why? Because only four of the states that we list as "in play" (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington) were Blue states in 2000, when they delivered a majority for Vice-President Al Gore.
The other eight states that are "in play" now (including Florida, Ohio, Arizona and Missouri), with a treasure trove of 98 electoral votes, were part of Bush Country in 2000.
That suggests the Democratic presidential candidate is holding his base of support better than the president is, allowing Senator Kerry to peel off a couple of the paler Red states from the president's column.
"National poll numbers are irrelevant," Zogby says. "What is relevant is how the president plays in the Red states, and how the Democrats play in the Blue states."
The whole "rush to the middle" strategy that has defined presidential politics since time immemorial (or at least since 1992) might come to an end thanks to George "Uniter Not Divider" Bush. Why? Because we are as divided as ever today. Culturally liberal voters on the coasts and the industrial Midwest won't vote for Bush. Culturally conservative voters in the Sun Belt, South and Mountain West won't vote for Kerry. Bada bing, we are at 226-176 and all Kerry has to do is remind Ohio about how many jobs have been lost thanks to GWB and he's at 246, wisely pick a running mate (like New Mexico's Bill Richardson) who will play well in Arizona (256 now), and maybe even in increasingly Hispanic Colorado (265) and focus on holding onto Minnesota (275) and he's President. Plus, contentious Senate races in Colorado, Florida and Missouri might bring out enough Democratic voters to swing those states Kerry's way, adding FL and MO to the total makes it 318- a solid victory.
The great thing is that with such a small number of true swing states, we can focus our money and Bush's $200 million might not be that big a deal after all. I suppose he could run ads in some of the less sure Blue states such as Maine, New Mexico or Iowa, but Kerry will be able to point to his radical social agenda in Maine, his easily decried (from both Left and Right) immigration plans in New Mexico (which will be solid if my dreamboat running mate is chosen) and his horrific policy on jobs and trade in Iowa. The election is going to be tough.
Of course, the usual caveat that anything can happen in 8 months applies here. 8 months ago Howard Dean looked like the likely Dem candidate, Bush looked absolutely unbeatable and the idea that we might have a shot at either the House or the Senate seemed laughable at best. Now we could potentially have Dem control of the federal government. An Osama bin Laden capture would give a good boost to Bush, dropping Cheney and picking a more likable running mate (Owens of CO or Tom Ridge would both be very good for Bush) or several months of just bang up job creation would turn the corner for Bush. Still, the way I look at it, in 2000 Bush was 500,000 votes down from the Democrats, about 3 million down if you add in Nader voters. Has he really made that many friends in the past 4 years? Sizeable numbers of Democrats voted for him, 50% of Hispanics voted for him and moderates saw him as a more personable version of his father- level headed and middle of the road. He's lost all the Democrats, he's lost most of his Hispanic support and moderates are a dying breed in this divided country. I don't see him making it out alive, but we'll see come November.
Say what you will about TNR these days, but I still have a lot of respect for the "Jonathans" Chait and Cohen (as well as Franklin Foer). Here is what Chait says, in a nutshell:
As Nader embarks upon his fourth protest run against the Democrats in as many elections, there is something slightly ridiculous about the shock of his liberal critics. They still don't know who they're dealing with. Nader is not a heroic figure tragically overcome by his own flaws; he is a selfish, destructive maniac who, for a brief historical period, happened upon a useful role.
In the waning days of the 2000 election, some of Nader's campaign advisers urged him to concentrate on uncontested states, like New York and California, where he could attract local media without competition from the major-party candidates and win liberal voters who needn't fear tipping the race to George W. Bush. Instead, he chose a whirlwind tour of battleground states, campaigning in Pennsylvania and Florida, where votes would be harder to come by but more consequential to the outcome of the race. Liberals assume Nader tried to maximize his vote total without regard to how it affected Bush and Gore. The truth is that he actively sought to help Bush, even at the expense of his own vote total.
Chait carefully details how Nader's personal demons doomed the Consumer Protection Act in the 1970s and undermined progressives for decades.
I'd hope that Kerry would do what nobody else has had the guts to do - actually challenge Nader to a debate. True, Nader would spend the entire hour misrepresenting Kerry and his record. But if Kerry does a halfway competent job, he ought to be able to defend himself, and score a few potshots on "Saint Ralph" as well.
A Kerry-Nader debate ought to be a rout, and should serve to strengthen Democrats claims that Nader is simply wrong to be in this race.
It's no surprise, but President Bush is exploiting 9/11 for political gain. The San Jose Mercury News reports:
President Bush's new campaign ads drew a sharply negative reaction Thursday from families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and from a firefighters union that supports Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
The Bush campaign began broadcasting four ads on Thursday in 17 states that are expected to be battlegrounds in November. One of the ads shows the smoldering wreckage of the twin towers of the World Trade Center, with a flag flying in the rubble. Another ad shows firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher. The International Association of Fire Fighters, which is backing Kerry, denounced the ads and demanded that Bush pull them.
The ads brought several victims' relatives to tears and triggered angry charges that Bush was exploiting others' misery for political gain.
"Using my dead friends and my dead brother for political expediency is dead wrong," said Chris Burke, whose brother, Tom, died in the North Tower. "It's wrong, it's bad taste and an insult to the 3,000 people who died on Sept. 11."
George W. Bush is exploiting 9/11 for political gain. It's an outrage and we need to speak out.
I was part of this. John Kerry raised $1.2 Million online in the 24 hours following Super Tuesday:
Kerry's aides said he brought in a record $1.2 million over the Internet in less than 24 hours after locking up the Democratic nomination Tuesday. Like former rival Howard Dean, Kerry hopes to attract legions of small-dollar donors through the Internet.
Having to view BlogAds everyday? Or having to look at John Kerry everyday (see below BlogAds)? Well, we now are forcing our viewers do to both (sorry!). I would like to see which is preferable to our viewers, but I don't really have any appologies. I need some money, and John Kerry is our nominee (and Morris Meyer is a great candidate for Congress), and he deserves our support. As much as John Kerry is not my favorite choice for President, he's our nominee, and he has my full support.
I just made a $10 contribution to the John Kerry for President Campaign. It's small, but it's symbolic. The Bush campaign is about to launch millions of dollars attacking our nominee, John Kerry. Whether he was your choice or not, we are now engaged in a huge fight. The right wing will do anything to hurt John Kerry, and as our nominee, it's our duty to fight back. Join me in donating $10 (or whatever amount you are able to contribute) to the John Kerry for President Campaign.
Update: You too, can receive this lovely emai:
Dear Byron,
I wanted to write and thank you again for your generous contribution
to my campaign. While I am certain you are asked to give to many
causes, your commitment to my campaign and to the larger political
process is humbling and much appreciated.
Your support remains crucial to my efforts and I trust that I can
count on your continued friendship and counsel.
Yesterday, I voted early in the Texas Democratic Primary for John Edwards for President. Next Tuesday, I will caucus for John Kerry in the Texas Democratic Caucuses for President. I voted for John Edwards yesterday because I felt that he had the right message to beat George W. Bush. He was a southerner who could explain how America was divided between people who had everything that they wanted and people that didn't have the opportunities that they deserved. I'm disappointed, but John Edwards is dropping out. His decision has essentially decided our nomination.
John Kerry is our nominee. He's a man who fought for our country in Vietnam, then protested the war here in America. He's fought for Democratic values in the United States Senate and he has the experience to be our president. He has won the Democratic nomination and he deserves our support. I will caucus for John Kerry next Tuesday, because he's the man to carry the banner for our party this fall, and he has my full support. I'll give him some money when I have a chance, and all of you should, too. This nomination has been decided, and like it or not, we need to unite behind our nominee. That man is John Kerry. He's my choice for President, and I hope that he's yours.
Unable to make a breakthrough on Super Tuesday, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has decided to end his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, CNN has learned.
Multiple campaign sources confirmed to CNN that Edwards will drop out Wednesday at a late afternoon news conference in Raleigh, North Carolina.
These are all over the place, of course, but here we go (via our favorite source, The Corner):
Kerry up 11 in Georgia;
Kerry up 25 in Ohio;
Kerry up 38 in Maryland.
There's also some suggestions that Howard Dean might be leading Kerry in Vermont. I hope that it happens. Howard Dean deserves to win Vermont, and it would mean a lot to him and his supporters.
Update: A Kos Diary has these exit polls for Vermont:
Dean 50%
Kerry 40%
Edwards 6% (write in)
Other 4%
And another Kos Diary has this:
OH: JK 55-32 JE
NY: JK 60-20 JE
MD: JK 60-28 JE
CT: JK 64-25 JE
VT: Dean 63-33 JK
MA: JK 75-16 JE
RI: JK 72-19 JE
GA: No #s/technical issues
CA: No #s/too early
MN: No #s/caucus
Data Collected - 2/29/04
Geography - State of Georgia
Sample Population - 302 Certain Voters
Margin of Error - 5.8%
Kerry, however leads by ten points in the most recent American Research Group poll in Georgia. Even if Edwards wins Georgia, I don't see his candidacy surviving past March 9th unless Edwards is able to steal victories in states like Ohio, Minnesota and Maryland tomorrow.
Survey USA also has a Texas poll in their batch out today. Here's the results:
President, TX Dem Primary - 3/1/2004
Kerry - 55%
Edwards -24%
Other/Undecided - 21%
Data Collected - 2/27/04 - 2/29/04
Geography - State of Texas
Sample Population - 442 Certain Voters
Margin of Error - 4.7%
I have been sitting on this for a couple of weeks now, but the big story over at DailyKos spurred me to post the following, hoping that it might spur my contact to reveal the rest of the letter...
On February 10, a comment was left in Joe Trippi's Change for America blog that stated the following...
hey, Joe, I have a question for you...
the night of the rally in Des Moines, after most of the people had left, I was stuck there waiting for my ride to come back, and I found a piece of paper laying near where the media had been.
it begins "Joe Trippi, our message won tonight" and is signed at the bottom "44". Is this a note that Gov Dean wrote to you that night?
anyway, I am so happy that you are already looking for a way to keep the fight going.
Posted by 2501 at February 10, 2004 11:25 PM
I e-mailed the person, Anthony T. who lives in Virginia according to DeanLink who e-mailed me back with the link to the following scan of the letter saying that he was blocking the rest out until Dean was out of the race.
If you want to know what the rest says, leave comments on this entry urging him to reveal the rest so that he may read them (since I'm sending him the link to this entry in order to protect the privacy of his e-mail).
John Edwards will be sure to let everyone know about this poll out today from Survey USA with head-to-head matchups between Bush and Kerry and Bush and Edwards in North Carolina:
President, Head-to-Head, NC:
Bush (R) - 53%, Kerry (D) - 42%
Bush (R) - 47%, Edwards (D) - 50%
Data Collected: 2/23/04 - 2/25/04
Some commenters have criticized us and the University Democrats for protesting the Ralph Nader speech. People say that Ralph Nader will help Democrats because third parties typically take votes away from incumbents (Right... Republicans for Nader sounds just about as silly as Republicans for Sharpton). Ralph Nader and his supporters have said that Nader will attack the Bush administrations in ways that the Democratic nominee cannot. That may very well be true, but that doesn't do much good to Democrats if Nader attacks Democrats with near equal vigor. On to the speech (which I meant to post on my Nader thread last night, but didn't get around to it)...
Ralph Nader first addressed Florida. He blamed Republicans for disenfranchising thousands of voters. He blamed the Democratic mayor of Miami for siding with Republicans in the recount and having a low profile during the campaign. He blamed some other people, and said that Al Gore won Florida and he won the election and he should be president to day, and it wasn't his fault. Then Nader went into his typical speech. He railed against corporate power, then redistricting. He said that there wasn't really much difference between the two parties (though he did say he'd "rather see a Democrat elected President") that the Democrats got a D+ and the Republicans a D-. He went off on the "liberal intelligencia" that opposed his run for president, saying that they had good jobs, money, health insurance, etc. so for some reason they weren't qualified in telling him not to run for president.
Nader said that regulatory agencies were just about as bad under Democrats as under Republicans. He said that the FDA was its worst in thirty years under Clinton-Gore. Nader attacked the "military industrial complex". He attacked Democrats and Republicans for caving to it. He said that on many issues Republicans were "harsher" than Democrats but that Democrats weren't much better. Of the Democrats warnings of how bad Republicans are / can be, Nader said "A party that defines itself by the worst is a party that never wants to be best". Nader said that both parties got worse every four years because every four years both Democrats and Republicans worked to shut out separate, independent and reform minded voices. Nader attacked Democrats for abandoning the south saying "its a shame that Democrats abandon southern states".
Nader did spend some time articulating his campaign themes. He spoke of a living wage, renewable energy, ending corporate and military contracts for universities, requiring all contracts for Universities of over $100,000 to be available online. He blamed the two party system for voter apathy among young people. He said that only 29% of 18-24 year olds voted in 2000. He talked about voter responsibility and the need for a "serious young generation". He attacked Democrats for not standing up on issues like the Taft-Hartley law, WTO, NAFTA, etc. Nader talked about how Richard Nixon was a liberal compared to Bush and a lot of politicians of both parties today and that Nixon "keeps looking better every year".
At the end of the speech Nader did offer something of an olive branch to Democrats wondering the rational of his run. As I said earlier, Nader said that he will "take apart the Bush administration in ways that the Democrats cannot". He said that he hoped to "puts the Democratic nominee back towards sanity and away from the corporate powers". He said that "Democrats don't inspire confidence and they need a little jolt". I agree with that last statement for Democrats in the 2002 election. Democrats didn't inspire confidence. And Howard Dean's enduring legacy will be that his campaign gave Democrats that jolt that Nader speaks of. Nader will probably prove to be largely irrelevant in this year's election. Even many hardcore Greens and Nader voters in 2000 that I've spoken to are not even considering voting for him this year. I'm all for Ralph Nader going across the country attacking George W. Bush "in ways that the Democrats cannot". But what good does that achieve when he attacks the Democrats with near equal vigor? Not much in my eyes.
I just returned from campus where I got to hear Ralph Nader. There were about a dozen of us from the University Democrats and another five or so people who had read Andrew's post from yesterday (it was great to meet some of our readers!). We had signs which we held up outside the auditorium before the speech ("Ralph Don't Run", "A Vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", "ABB (AN): Anyone But Bush (And Nader)", "Remember Florida", etc.) and we held up our signs and chanted "Ralph Don't Run" as he entered the auditorium, as well as after the speech. We were respectful as he spoke, as it is our hope that everyone who attended the speech ends up voting for the Democratic nominee this fall (we do share a similar progressive philosophy after all). We weren't there to make enemies, but rather to send a message. Ralph Nader said it himself. He said that exit polls showed that 38% of his voters would have voted for Gore, 25% for Bush and the rest wouldn't have voted. He used it to justify that many of his voters would not have voted and that he took votes from Bush as well. Very well, but had 38% of Nader voters voted for Gore in Florida (and 25% voted for Bush, and the rest not vote), Gore would have won Florida by about 13,000 votes and we wouldn't be talking about recounts. I'll never be able to forgive Ralph Nader for that. Never. But fortunately, we have a chance to remedy the 2000 fiasco in less than nine months. I'm looking forward to it.
Anyway, I did take some notes on the speech, and I'll post on it later tonight. I'll be continuing on this thread, so you all are welcome to start the discussion here.
Reading ABC's The Note today remind me of why I'm leaning towards Edwards. I don't think I'd go as far as saying that John Kerry makes me uneasy, because in all likelihood, I'll spend the next eight months defending John Kerry as the great hope for the American restoration. But what I don't understand about Kerry is why did he vote against DOMA if he essentially favors it now (and I don't mean to take anything away from Kerry voting against DOMA - it was a courageous thing to do)?
Kerry did the round of network morning shows today, slamming the President on gay marriage and accusing him of trying to "divide the country" -- and defending against charges that he's a flip-flopper. A quick look:
On ABC's "Good Morning America," Kerry told Charlie Gibson that as a matter of law under the Defense of Marriage Act, the State of Ohio would not have to recognize a marriage performed in the State of Massachusetts.
Kerry said that he does not favor repealing DOMA, even though he voted against it in the Senate based on the rationale that it represented an "outright effort of gay bashing on the floor of the United States." He compared DOMA to President Bush's effort to amend the Constitution and said they were both done for the same purpose: "to divide the country." (There was no mention of President Clinton's pretty key role in signing DOMA.).
Ok, maybe I'm overreacting. Yes, DOMA was only opposed by 14 votes in the Senate, and repealing isn't really a political possibility, but Kerry should have stood by his vote and said that it wasn't necessary then, and it's not necessary now, because individual states have the right to decide for themselves how they will recognize marriage.
Moving on was more on Kerry while stumping in Ohio yesterday:
Inside Astros Shapes of Struthers, Ohio, Kerry seemed to have trouble connecting with the 90 manufacturing plant workers gathered at the closed to the public event. Kerry twice referred to Ohio as Iowa, answering seven questions in 27 minutes, with three of the responses taking well over five minutes.
In a scene eerily reminiscent of a pre-staff shake-up Kerry, the Senator drifted from a question on retirement pensions into a riff on "No Child Left Behind," explained the Bush Administration cuts in veterans' benefits by blaming failures inside the Office of Management and Budget, and labeled the Bush Administration's foreign policy a "folly."
Rambling answers, confusing Ohio with Iowa, not connecting with his audience? Grrr... This is an easy problem to fix, one would think. Kerry's advisors and consultants need to get him out of this. Like so many politicians, John Kerry likes to hear himself speak. Now, I don't mind. I happen to like sitting down and watching C-SPAN for hours on end (of, well sometimes) watching politicians listen to themselves speak. But most American's don't. They don't want simple questions to be answered in seven minute mini-speeches. Most American voters want a message, and someone that can sell it. That's what I see John Edwards do all across the country. Kerry may have the right profile to be president, but it's hard to articulate what John Kerry's message for America is. I'm really hoping for a debate in Texas before our primary as Texas Democratic Party Chairman Charles Soechting has called for. It would be helpful for people like me who are still undecided. I'll definitely keep an open mind until after Super Tuesday (so, for once, I will probably not be voting early). However, if either candidate accidentally refers to Texas as Tennessee or something, well he can kiss my primary vote goodbye.
DMN: 2004 to be the "Most consequential presidential election in a generation"
By Byron LaMasters
For once, I wholeheartedly agree with a Dallas Morning News Editorial on the candidacy of Ralph Nader:
Mr. Nader plans to plug away for gay marriage, universal health care and a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and against the North American Free Trade Agreement, tax cuts and globalism.
Well, fine. It's a free country. But it's also a country facing much more serious challenges than the last time Mr. Nader ran. On the most important issue of all how America will deal with the post-9-11 world Mr. Nader's notion that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties is absurd. Because of the two competing visions of America's place in the world, this is likely to be the most consequential presidential election in a generation. Given those stakes, it's hard to see that Mr. Nader's gadfly candidacy serves any useful purpose this year, besides mischief-making for Democrats.
Amen. Ralph Nader serves no useful purpose in the 2004 election. Period. Let's do our part in Texas to keep him off the ballot in Texas.
Even though recent polls show that the majority of Americans oppose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, even in socially conservative states like Missouri where such a proposal might be a winner for Bush, it's very low on people's list of priorities. It's the economy, stupid. The LA Times reports:
Here in the political swing state of Missouri, considered a top prize in the 2004 presidential election, voters overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. They also solidly back the concept of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
A statewide poll in late January found that 62% of Missouri voters oppose granting same-sex couples the same benefits as married pairs. And 53% favor a constitutional amendment, according to the poll, which was conducted by the St. Louis Post Dispatch and television station KMOV.
That puts Missouri which narrowly supported Bush in the 2000 election on the conservative side compared with the nation as a whole. A majority of Americans oppose gay and lesbian marriage, but polls indicate that less than 40% support a constitutional change.
An ABC News--Washington Post survey last month found that six in 10 Americans prefer to let states define marriage on their own.
A majority of Missouri voters, by contrast, would welcome a federal standard like the one Bush has endorsed.
But that doesn't mean that Bush has an automatic edge on his Democratic rival here in the heartland come November.
Even in this community of 11,000 which overwhelmingly backed Bush in the last election voters made it clear that gay marriage is not high on their list of concerns as they weigh presidential candidates.
They're far more interested, they said, in hearing detailed proposals to create jobs, make healthcare more affordable and improve education. They're also upset with the course of the war in Iraq and some are hoping a new commander in chief might turn things around.
"I got to church on Sunday and I read my Bible, and my point of view is that marriage should be a man and a woman, so I'm for what Bush is saying," said Ray Spavale, 64. "But I might vote for [Massachusetts Sen. John F.] Kerry this time around. Bush jumped into the war in Iraq too soon. I don't like to see our young men dying."
"It would take a lot more than this one issue to make me vote for Bush," said Carolyn Baynes, 70, a retired credit specialist who supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Interviews with two dozen shoppers Tuesday in this well-off suburb west of St. Louis found passions running high on the subject of gay and lesbian marriage. Just about everyone had an opinion and a vehement one on whether the state should sanction same-sex unions.
Sure, everyone has an opinion about the gay marriage issue. It's good that we're finally having a debate about it in America. The only way that we'll actually make progress on social issues and for equal rights for all Americans is if we actually force people to talk about it. It'll be a long process, but what's clear here, is that even conservative voters in middle-America aren't buying it. They're not convinced by the scare tactics of the right. The anti-gay marriage amendment may be a factor in their voting, but only after issues like the ongoing war in Iraq, education and jobs. The article goes on:
Yet many also expressed ambivalence about turning their private, often religiously rooted, beliefs into a political crusade.
[...]
Construction contractor Robert Diamante has made up his mind: Much as he recoils from the idea of same-sex marriage, he does not want to tamper with the Constitution. He's uneasy with the federal government imposing a value system on its citizens even a value system he happens to agree with.
"This is America," said Diamante, 39. "People can live their own lives."
[...]
Over at Wal-Mart, however, Ruth Ruprecht looked up from a stack of toasters to say she couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. A retired educator, Ruprecht, 73, said she figured gay marriage was inevitable a concept she, like much of America, would have to learn to accept.
"We're breaking a new frontier," Ruprecht said. "You object for a little while, but you get used to it. This is a way of life now. It's going to happen."
Gay marriage is inevitable. Just look at the poll numbers for young people. Not only to most polls show that most young voters (18-29) oppose a anti-gay marriage consitutional amendment, polls show that most young voters, in fact, support gay marriage. Sure, young people may not vote as much today, but in a generation, we'll be the leaders of America, and our generation will see that this civil rights battle is won, once and for all. Just go to most any college campus (ok, well maybe not Liberty University of Bob Jones, but you get the idea). Being openly gay in most colleges is like being openly Black or openly left-handed. It's not really an issue (well that is for everyone but the YCT folks who have their straight pride days and White's only scholarships).
Hawaii (97% reporting)
Kerry 50% - 14
Kucinich 26% - 6
Edwards 14% - 0
Dean 323 8% - 0
A few things of note. Edwards probably could have made a run for a victory in Utah or Idaho if he had just visited there. On the other hand, though, who cares? A visit could have given him maybe a handful more delegates, which compared to the delegates at stake next Tuesday is completely insignificant. Why bother picking up a delegate or two in these states when you can pick up a few dozen in say - Georgia or Ohio. That is, of course, unless your name is Dennis Kucinich. He campaigned in Hawaii, and it paid off with a strong second place with 26% of the vote, which was good for six delegates. Dennis Kucinich, may just get more delegates than dates after all.
Back to Edwards - He's closing in Georgia (via kos) in the American Research Group poll. Kerry leads 45-37% there. I'll bet on Edwards scoring a win there (even though John Lewis and Max Cleland are working hard for Kerry). New York looks just about out of reach for Edwards (Kerry has a 54-21% lead), and Ohio is closer but still a solid (46-27%) Kerry lead. Then again, five days before the Wisconsin primary, Kerry had a 53-16% lead in Wisconsin, and that 37 point lead eroded 31 points in five days. Anything can happen, and don't forget that the schedule gets a lot easier for Edwards after Super Tuesday.
Hey everyone, I'm going to be taking some time out of the incredibly hectic Student Government campaign I've been working on to tell Ralph Nader not to run for President. It will probably be next to impossible for him to get on the ballot in Texas (he'll need to gather a minimum of 65,000 signatures in 2 months, you'll probably need at least 100,000 since many of them won't work out) but we need to nip this in the bud. Make it clear that the grassroots are against him reelecting Bush.
Ralph will be on the University of Texas campus in the Geology Building, room 2.324 at 7:00 pm. It will get crowded fast and we want to be visible so let's say we meet up at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Statue on the East Mall at 5:30 PM with signs already made. "Ralph Don't Run" or "No Ralph No" or "A Vote for Nader is a Vote for Bush" or "No More Floridas" or something to that effect would be great. Let's get a big crowd out there and let him know that the grassroots are not going to let him spoil this election.
5:30 PM, MLK Statue, UT Campus, Ralph Nader Protest. Have your signs made and I'll see you there.
Henseforth, on this blog, I shall refer to the Federal Marriage Amendment as the Hate Amendment. George W. Bush can't win this election on jobs or on foreign policy (because he's miserably failed in both regards), so he's playing the gay card. Blame it on the homos. Andrew Sullivan (someone who endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 if you all remember) has correctly declared (on his website, via a reader) that Bush's full endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment as a declaration of war against gays and lesbians in America:
The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.
Amen to that (well, other than the fact that I never bought into the whole uniter crap in 2000). Never before has the United State constitution been amended to rewrite discrimination into that sacred document. It took hundreds of years to amend the constitution to do away with discrimination against African-Americans (XIII, XIV, XV) and women (XIX), and now the President of the United States, here in the twenty-first century wants to rewrite discrimination into the United States Constitution. This is not only a declaration of war against gays and lesbians, as Andrew Sullivan writes, this is a declaration of war against the United States Constitution.
There is some good news, however. Karl-Thomas wrote earlier that he wasn't sure if he could vote for Kerry in November based on some of his previous statements on the issue. Karl-Thomas, I'm here to tell you that you can gladly vote for Kerry or Edwards. Sure, neither of them support gay marriage (but then again, neither did Howard Dean), but both went on the record this afternoon as opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It's our job to hold them to it. The AP reports:
Democrats accused Bush of tinkering with a document that is the bedrock of American democracy to divert election-year attention from his record an allegation the White House denied. Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., who hopes to run against Bush in this year's presidential election, said: "I believe President Bush is wrong."
"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign," said Kerry, who opposes gay marriage but will oppose the amendment if it reaches the Senate floor. Bush is "looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people," Kerry said.
Campaigning in Georgia, where the state legislature is debating its own ban on gay marriage, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites), D-N.C., said he was against the president's idea of a constitutional amendment. "I don't personally support gay marriage myself," he said. "My position has always been that it's for the states to decide."
Ok, so now I just need to decide which one of these guys I'm going to vote for...
There are certainly signals of such an alliance, and as I wrote last week, Dean and Edwards are talking, although I don't really see Dean endorsing Edwards anytime soon. Reuters reports that some Dean state organizations are helping Edwards:
Edwards is hoping for an endorsement from former rival Howard Dean, the ex-governor of Vermont who dropped out of the race last week. He has benefited in several states from the support of Dean's political organization and on Monday announced his endorsement by two leaders of the "Generation Dean" youth movement.
"We're going to do what we've got to do to get the word out for Edwards," Dean's former Ohio state coordinator Steve Chaffin told Reuters after endorsing him this week.
Among other former Dean supporters backing Edwards, Kos endorsed Edwards yesterday, and offered a strong case for undecided voters like myself to support Edwards. Early voting in Texas started today, and for the first time in awhile, I won't be voting on one of the first days of early voting. Instead, I think I'll wait until after Super Tuesday to see what happens. I'm currently leaning towards Edwards, but still undecided. Andrew has told me that he plans on voting today (for Edwards), so I'm sure he'll write on the experience when he has a chance.
500,000 to 1,000,000 Protesters Expected at GOP Convention
By Byron LaMasters
This could easily turn into a circus. The New York Times reports:
Though the Police Department and many protest organizers have been reluctant to predict how many people will ultimately turn out for protests, estimates have ranged from 500,000 people to a million.
Six months before any delegate is to take a seat at Madison Square Garden, it is clear that many groups are already planning strategy and activities. Labor unions, environmentalists, self-declared anarchists and others who merely label themselves as anti-Bush or anti-Republican are making plans to turn out. Barely a week passes without several planning sessions in New York, focusing on everything from housing and tactics to legal strategy and what to expect in interactions with the police.
Are Bush / Rove etc., still deluded into thinking Bush can actually carry New York? Hah.
It's really great to see the GOP implode. Now, George W. Bush is getting booed by Republicans. The LA Times reports:
An uproar over illegal immigration roiled the state Republican convention on Saturday as party leaders struggled to keep the rank and file united behind Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush.
Hundreds of GOP loyalists booed the president at a rally where U.S. Senate hopeful Howard Kaloogian and his allies denounced Bush's plan to give temporary legal status to undocumented workers.
"Enough is enough!" the crowd shouted. "Enough is enough!"
A Kaloogian supporter, Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, told the crowd he knew a gynecologist who surveyed patients about the plan and found it rated "right below genital herpes."
Schwarzenegger fared no better than Bush. Even staunch allies of the governor distanced themselves from his effort to strike a deal with Democrats on a bill to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa of Vista warned that the move would "empower criminal aliens."
It's always fun to see Tom Tancredo screw with whatever Hispanic outreach attempt that Bush is trying to make. Via Atrios who has now enabled trackbacks thanks to Haloscan.
Bush may be gearing up to release some if his $143 million in the first blast of ads on television but it seems the RNC has started their part on the web.
Yesterday I checking out the statistics for Burnt Orange Report traffic, which had exploded because of Byron's latest posting about the Rick Perry Rumors. There on top of the Site Meter Report was the latest banner ad from the Rublican National Committee which I managed to capture.
Interesting that they were using Edwards for their picture if they are so sure that John Kerry will be their opposition. Though I have wondered if it may be their intention to start attacking Kerry this next week in the lead up to Super Tuesday voting so that Kerry has to defend from two sides and give Edwards a chance of slipping in some wins. (Conspiracy: Hurt Kerry now so that Edwards becomes the nominee because they would rather run against him and have the money to afford this even if it doesn't work and Kerry just gets damaged?)
Either way, I went ahead and clicked on the ad to see where it went to. It was just the usual front page for getting people to find out more about Bush. But it did have the following interesting piece which I captured as well and I bracketed the quote I will refer to.
Now that the total National Debt is over $7,000,000,000,000 (seven trillion dollars) and the year's shortfall is a mere half a Trillion dollars, I'm having trouble seeing where and how we are not denying, ignoring, or passing along a problem to future generations.
UPDATE: A reader by the name of Benjamin L. has sent me a screenshot of his own by e-mail. He had this to say..."The RNC has been running their ads for several weeks now. I took this screencap two weeks ago, and I think you'll agree they aren't doing the best job of targetting them. Feel free to post it." So I am. It's in the extended entry because it's kinda big.
UPDATE 2: Kudos to 100 Monkeys Typing for yet another great example. Click here and then click on the ad. It's interesting.
Conventional wisdom says that Edwards needs to get a few wins on March 2nd to be able to make it to the more favorable southern March 9th primaries. Most often mentioned in Edwards' strategy are Georgia (a southern state), Ohio (hard hit with job loss) and New York (upstate has been very hard hit). California offers an oppotunity, but advertising costs are likely to be well beyond Edwards' budge range there. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island are Kerry strongholds, so it's unlikely for Edwards to strongly contest there. John Edwards isn't even on the Vermont ballot. Maryland and Minnesota give Edwards two more opportunities, but New York, Ohio and Georgia are seen as his best. So, this Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion poll shows that Edwards certainly has quite a bit of work to do in New York:
John Kerry 66%
John Edwards 14%
Al Sharpton 7%
Dennis Kucinich 3%
That compares to last week's Quinnipiac University Poll where Kerry also had a big lead:
John Kerry 48%
Howard Dean 10%
John Edwards 7%
More troubling for Edwards is that Kerry leads upstate 70% to 14%.
While these numbers may look gloomy for Edwards, let's not forget where he was the week before the Wisconsin primary. Edwards makes a great close, and Kerry's rarely topped 50% as the anti-Kerry vote has been split. If the anti-Kerry vote coaleses around Edwards, we'll have ourselves another chapter in this race.
I'll have more on this later, but here's the official word from the Blog for America:
Today my candidacy may come to an end--but our campaign for change is not over.
I want to thank each and every person who has supported this campaign. Over the last year, you have reached out to neighbors, friends, family and colleagues--building one American at a time the greatest grassroots campaign presidential politics has ever seen. I will never forget the work and the heart that you put into our campaign.
In the coming weeks, we will be launching a new initiative to continue the campaign you helped begin. Please continue to come to www.deanforamerica.com for updates and news as our new initiative develops. There is much work still to be done, and today is not an end--it is just the beginning.
This Party and this country needs change, and you have already begun that process. I want you to think about how far we have come. The truth is: change is tough. There is enormous institutional pressure in our country against change. There is enormous institutional pressure in Washington against change, in the Democratic Party against change. Yet, you have already started to change the Party and together we have transformed this race. Along the way, weve engaged hundreds of thousands of new Americans in the political process, as witnessed by this years record participation in the primaries and caucuses.
The fight that we began can and must continue. Although my candidacy for president may end today, the most important goal remains defeating George W. Bush in November, and I hope that you will join me in doing everything we can to support the Democrats this fall. From the earliest days of our campaign, I have said that the power to change Washington rests not in my hands, but in yours. Always remember, you have the power to take our country back.
Gov. Howard Dean M.D.
I'm looking forward to seeing what Howard Dean does with the power and influence in which he now holds within the grassroots in the party. I think given the results last night and throughout the primary season, he has made the correct choice. While it became clear that Dean will not be the nominee, it is also clear that there is a significant role for Howard Dean to play within the Democratic Party. I look forward to helping him fill that role when he decides what it might be.
Tell Ralph Nader not to run for President. A good site on the topic is Ralph Don't Run. Nader has an exploritory committee on this website. Contact him here and tell him not to run.
The former Vermont governor sought out rival John Edwards for a private meeting in Milwaukee Sunday night. After what Democratic sources described as a friendly but inconclusive conversation, Dean said the two men should talk again Wednesday. The implication was that there could be ways for Dean to help a candidate he has said he prefers over Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.).
Here's the results with 51% reporting:
Kerry 138,924 39%
Edwards 130,209 37%
Dean 64,000 18%
Kucinich 10,232 3%
Clark 5,368 2%
Sharpton 3,485 1%
I understand that we are all rushing to find out what happened as soon as possible in elections. I find it disturbing enough that the media this eleciton cycle can't even go a couple hours into voting without releasing exit polls.
But you know it's bad when they start to bypass polling and simply predict the future and publish it before events have actually happened.
As a sidenote, what percentage of the Punx for Dean group do you think will be swayed to vote for John Kerry?
Methinks not to many.
Would someone please remind me again where and how Kerry is going to be broadening the base of our party in the long run?
Sometimes the good Lord just hands you such a beautiful nickname, such a wonderful summing up of things in a simple turn of phrase that it must become widely used. Interestingly enough, one such name was developed in the early 1970s by Alabama Republicans, according to Time Magazine:
George W. Bush has long had a habit of giving people nicknamesand perhaps that's because he picked up a few along the way himself. Like the one he earned in 1972, when he left his home in Houston to work on the long-shot Senate campaign of Winton M. (Red) Blount in Alabama. Bush, then 26, would often turn up at campaign headquarters in Montgomery around lunchtime, recount his late-night exploits and brag about his political connections, according to a Blount campaign worker. All that made him slow to win over the Alabama crowd, who began to complain that Bush was letting things slide. C. Murphy Archibald, a nephew of Blount's who worked on the campaign that fall, told TIME that Bush "was good at schmoozing the county chairs, but there wasn't a lot of follow-up." Archibald, now a trial attorney in North Carolina, remembers that a group of older Alabama socialites, who were volunteering their time, gave Bush a nickname because they thought he "looked good on the outside but was full of hot air." They called him the Texas Soufflé.
Texas Soufflé- sums up the sort of spoiled rich kid, all hat and no cattle persona of George W. Bush to a T if you ask me. In fact, let's try and googlebomb this one. Without any further ado, Texas Souffle.
John Edwards has received the endorsement of the two largest newspapers in Wisconsin, the Milwaulkee Journal Sentinel and the Madison Capitol Times.
It will be interesting to see if these endorsements give Edwards a late boost into second place. Today's Zogby Poll has Edwards and Dean fighting for second place in Wisconsin.
John Kerry 47%
Howard Dean 23%
John Edwards 20%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Al Sharpton 1%
Early Dean supporter and former DNC chair, Steve Grossman is preparing to shift his support to John Kerry. The New York Times reports:
The chairman of Howard Dean's presidential campaign said on Sunday that he would leave and shift his support to Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts if Dr. Dean lost the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday, an outcome he sees as all but inevitable.
"If Howard Dean does not win the Wisconsin primary, I will reach out to John Kerry unless he reaches out to me first," said the chairman, Steven Grossman, who was chairman of Mr. Kerry's 1996 Senate race. "I will make it clear that I will do anything and everything I can to help him become the next president, and I will do anything and everything I can to build bridges with the Dean organization."
The comments by Mr. Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who has known Mr. Kerry for 34 years, came as Dr. Dean faced growing pressure from aides and outside backers to abandon his quest. But while many leading supporters and staff members expect him to either quit the campaign altogether or radically scale it back by the end of this week, the candidate remained steadfast Sunday that he would soldier on.
"We're not dropping out after Tuesday, period," Dr. Dean said in a television interview with the Fox affiliate here Sunday.
[...]
Dr. Dean has no events scheduled beyond Tuesday night, when he plans to fly home to Burlington, Vt., to regroup. He has not won in any of the 16 states that have voted. His bank account is dwindling. Many of his aides are planning vacations or seeking jobs with other candidates.
While many in the Dean camp felt Mr. Grossman had spoken out of school, none disputed the essence of what he said: that the campaign would not last the week in its current incarnation.
Roy Neel, Dr. Dean's campaign manager, said "anything is possible" after Wisconsin. "I'm not going to contradict Steve," Mr. Neel said of Mr. Grossman. "Every possibility is still on the table. The governor's not made a decision.
"He believes it's premature to make up his mind because we don't have the results from Tuesday night yet. He's still planning to win the primary."
The most recent polls here show Mr. Kerry 40 points ahead of Dr. Dean, who also trailed Mr. Edwards.
Aides to Dr. Dean and Mr. Kerry have met to discuss Dr. Dean's future plans, a Democratic operative said Sunday night on condition on anonymity.
"None of us are doing a whole lot right now, because there's not a whole lot to do," one top Dean aide said Sunday, on the condition he not be named. "We've put one ad on the air in Wisconsin. We're not polling anymore. We're not going to have the money to run some full-fledged campaign for March 2."
No plans after Tuesday... going back to Vermont to regroup... aides planning vacations and seeking jobs... sounds like the end of a campaign to me.
An article I submitted to my hometown newspaper, the Fredericksburg Standard-Radio Post was published this past week. I wrote all about my adventures for the Dean campaign and earned front and back page covereage of the Community Section with 2 pictures as well. I wish I had it online to link to but I don't. So I'm going to post the full text, including what wasn't included in print, here for your enjoyment and the records...
It's long, but it is the complete summary of what happened with some new parts not in the day to day entries I posted. And there is info on Fort Dodge, Iowa which I never got around to writing. So here it is...
Becoming Part of the Process
Karl-T. Heads North to Stump for Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean
In the past month of my volunteering for Democrat Presidential Hopeful Howard Dean, I have discovered as much about the American People as I have about American Politics. Though both can be unpredictable at times, one must never forget the beauty of each and the fact that each one as a whole is defined by individual free-thinking people. The following is an account of some of my experiences with people and politics in four states, including Texas, in what has been the largest volunteer effort in Democratic Presidential Politics in modern time.
The Beginning
I was one of the few people back in the early months of 2003 that had set my eyes on the little known Howard Dean, the former five term Governor of Vermont, family doctor, and long shot for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It was the first Presidential Cycle that I had the opportunity to follow closely after being inspired to study Political Science by the 2000 election. I really didnt think Dean had a chance at the time but he was running a campaign based on everything that I thought the Democratic Party had forgotten about in the 2002 mid-term elections. The Republicans showed us that when one at least stands up for something, whether it is right or wrong, you tend to win. I felt that because we as a party didnt stand up for much of our traditional values, we stood to lose, which we did.
The year progressed, I came to the University of Texas in Austin because of the political opportunities it offered, and soon discovered that the Dean campaign was being discovered by more than just a few people. The stories were starting to be written about the hundreds of thousands joining the campaign, the record fundraising, the revolution of campaign tactics by embracing the Internet.
It was shortly after my arrival in Austin, that I was asked to help keep in touch with Dean supporters in 21 counties out here in the Hill Country, including my home, Gillespie. At the same time, I was volunteering in our makeshift state headquarters while helping the campaign gain the eventual 12,000 petition signatures that were submitted to the Texas Democratic Party to place Dean on the ballot.
In late September, the national campaign asked if a few hundred Texans would be willing to travel to Iowa or New Hampshire for a weekend to help the operation there. Thinking that I would never have the opportunity again, I signed up with FHS Senior Maggie Ross and 450 other Texans who eventually traveled north to go canvassing, door to door, to spread the word about Dean.
But as I was soon to find out, the bulk of my volunteer efforts were not to end there. I decided, with the encouragement and support of my parents, to spend part of my winter break volunteering in New Hampshire and Iowa. As part of my send off, my parents helped organize a House Party for Dean where 40 interested voters came over to the house to eat heartily and discuss Dean and politics. We listened in on a Conference Call with the few thousand other House Parties held that same night with Gov. Dean, and raised over $1,000 in small donations that night for the campaign. The next day I set out, spirits high, and ready to take part in something that I was sure not to forget anytime soon.
On to New Hampshire
Getting to the Manchester State Headquarters in New Hampshire was the first challenge. My flight arrived in Boston, Massachusetts, where I hope to return to this summer as the youngest Texas, if not nation-wide, delegate to the Democratic National Convention. After my first ever greyhound bus trip from Boston to Manchester, I encountered something uncommon in Texas. Snow banks and ice covering everything in a brilliant white.
After a local bus, a bit of walking, and a raspberry scone, I managed to find my way to the building where the Headquarters was supposed to be. I ended up on the wrong side of the rather enormous complex which led to a funny story. The John Kerry campaign Headquarters was in the same building so I went into their offices where three staffers were standing around.
I told them, I have a bit of a stupid question to ask yall.
There are no stupid questions, they said. How can we help?
Could you direct me to the Howard Dean headquarters? I say.
Ok. So there are stupid questions, the staffer responded jokingly as she helped me with directions.
Once I managed to get around to the other side of the building, I entered the Dean campaign where literally a hundred people were busy with too many tasks to list. For the next few days this was to be my base of operations.
In the Field
Its now the first day of actual work for Dean here in New Hampshire for me. Its an early morning as we head out to be the advance team for the Bill Bradley endorsement event. Lots of press there and we get the place decked out for the Governor with signs and all the trimmings that go into announcement events. I was out in the snow for much of the pre-event time with the visibility crew, waving our huge Dean totem signs by the entrances so people knew where to come.
We were joined that morning by about 5 Kerry volunteers who brought their own signs to stand by us. But Kerry didnt have an event there. In fact, the only reason they were there, as I was told later, was to take part in an old political practice of trying to confuse potential attendees in order to drive down event turnout.
But back inside, the Bradley endorsement was huge. Hundreds were there to see him and Dean and Bradley gave a great speech. I knew nothing about Bradley in 2000 but I wish I did. He was a great speaker, inspiring and hopeful. I want that again in politics.
For the next two days, it was back to the regular cycle of work. Each day, teams were sent out to canvass neighborhoods to find out where voters stood on the candidates and to try to convince them to vote for Dean over the other candidates. It is probably the most labor intensive of all tools available to political campaigns, but by far, one of the most effective, especially in a state like New Hampshire where voters come to expect, if not demand, that campaigns reach out to them on a personal basis. Such is the nature of most voters in the first in the nation primary status.
The walk lists of voters here are created by computer with a set path of streets to follow and printed out in the exact order that one would come to houses when walking. For the most part, walkers are only expected to find 30% of voters home during the weekdays so literature is left for everyone who isnt home. Uncovering just one or two supporters per list is about average for any campaign as many people remain undecided up until the bitter end.
Much the same is true of phone banking, which occurred every evening from about 5:00 to 8:30 after the canvassing crews came back in. Most people are fairly respectful in either form of contact because they are use to being contacted by everyone every four years. But there are the unhappy few that will turn out the lights in the house as a hint to go away, or will be fairly blunt in telling phone bankers to stop bothering them and never call again. At least we are trying to do something for democracy, unlike telemarketers. In terms of overall friendliness, though, Texans beat New Hampshirites hands down.
There is a fairly organized system in the Manchester office. All completed call and walk sheets are entered into the database, with bad phone numbers or address being puller out of the voter file. Then volunteers, often taking their own call or walk sheets, write personal letters to voters that asked for more information or issue papers. Its a regimented process that starts over each day like a well oiled machine.
By the end of my few days stay in Manchester, though, I was quite tired and aching. I was staying at a house for the longer term college Winterns (winter interns). It was what one could expect for hardcore college students in support of Dean. Mattresses on the floor and random things lying all over the house. Not to mention the usual college age cleanliness problems, the orange juice in the fridge that expired in November and the moldy cantaloupe in the vegetable bin. I stuck with the canned soup for meals and felt marginally safer. College students and grassroots politics- a potent combination of dedicated support so long as one can survive the living conditions.
The Return to Des Moines, Iowa
It was almost like visiting an old friend as I walked off the plane into Des Moines, Iowa, having been here a little more than three months ago. Of course, now its much colder with snow covering the ground, not as frigid as New Hampshire, but enough to cause this Texan to keep the long johns and a few more layers on at all time.
Seeing some of the same streets, people, and places again is comforting and the Headquarters was hopping just as before. It has now expanded into a second building that used to be Florida Senator Bob Grahams place back when he was still in the race in the fall. John Kerrys office is still a block down and John Edwards office still has the infamous son of a millworker quote on the windows which every campaign jokes about in good fun.
I managed to make a few phone calls that night but nothing major because the office was gearing up for the appearance of Al Gore! I was too excited, especially to hear that Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin had endorsed Dean earlier in the day. I couldnt believe that in the span of one week Id see Bill Bradley and Al Gore, two former competitors in their own bids for the Democratic nod in 2000, both supporting Dean.
I actually got front row standing for Gores talk and I have to say that I think the man really had changed from 2000. I think that that whole election had changed who he is and he seemed more at ease when he spoke about why he was supporting Dean. After his short speech he worked the ENTHUSIASTIC crowd and I got him to add his signature to my signature shirt right alongside Howard Deans and campaign manager Joe Trippis, an icon to most Dean supporters.
Being that it was still a week and a half before the Iowa Caucuses, the first showing of voters opinions, even before New Hampshires primary, things were not quite as hectic, minus Gores appearance, as the final days were sure to become. In addition, there was still plenty of housing at the winterized campground where the volunteers were staying which consisted of free standing bunk beds in wooden cabins with bathrooms a good 50 foot walk away along snow covered paths. Needless to say, midnight bathroom runs were kept to a minimum.
Making the Pitch
I have to say that things are slightly more organized than they were in September with the first Texas Rangers trip but are still not as organized as New Hampshires block mapping system. The precincts are larger and the maps and voter lists are left up to volunteers to figure out the best paths. The volunteers from out of state are mostly older, not just college students, though the media seems to have that impression. In fact, I did some canvassing with an 81 year on my second day in Des Moines.
For hours upon hours of walking, I seemed to get though only 1/2 to 2/3 of my list. But that is still a good 75-100 houses and a high number of them were willing to talk. I got asked inside no less than 5 times which was in part to the snowy weather and to Iowans being much friendlier than the New Hampshire voters.
There was the 54 year old woman who wants to caucus for Dean and it will be her first time to go. There was the middle aged couple that was for Dean (who may also take their son because I asked them too), but now may go for Congressman Dennis Kucinich. They may end up for Dean again if the Kucinich people have to re-divide because of the way the caucuses have their 15% viability threshold.
There was the 30 year old tattooed painter union guy who was leaning Dean but didnt know much about his caucus as well as the independent Couple who invited me in and talked issues with me for 15 minutes. Both now know what to do to participate and wouldnt have done anything had someone not spent the time to talk to them. There was the black man who invited me in and was very open to listening and wanted to know about Dean on the economy and trade and health care. There were the few people who said they were too old to caucus, an unfortunate side effect of the caucus system, since it demands voters presence and voting cant be done by mail.
Only one or two said they were flat out for another candidate, there was one Republican, and there were many undecideds (including the man who said he could have a chance to make a decision if everyone who stop asking him what it was). Thats the problem with so many Democrats running. There are too many phone calls to the same people, too much literature, too many ads. But because I was talking to independents as well and not just the standard caucus goers, there were many that were still receptive because they had not been reached out to before. Thats what needs to happen in our democracy, more people in the process. Thats how Dean was going to win this nomination in my opinion and its how Democrats are going to need to act if we are serious about winning elections again.
The Sign Wars
The Black and Brown Presidential Debate was being hosted one evening, not but a few blocks away from the Dean Headquarters. In front of any debate, anywhere, there are always supporters of the candidates and there is always the competitions to try to make the largest and loudest impressions for the media that float around beforehand. This has come to be known as the sign war.
Its a funny thing these sign wars. There is real strategy involved here. Groups of supporters try to cluster on one of four corners of the intersection in order to make their presence all the more impressive. Large signs are always helpful but if left alone, roving bands of people with small signs can take over and blot out the oppositions unguarded territory. And there is always the situation where supporters rove with their own large sign and plant it in front of other signs or even people.
Its like a continuous dance for hours. Everyone is always moving to the best spot, limited by traffic, of course, and whether or not they can get there before another group. Invariably some poor sign waving supporter ends up stranded in a sea of opposition but such is the nature of a sign war.
There are the chants as well, competitive only if two campaigns are on the same corner which was always the case since Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Kucinich were all represented. There were three people that showed up late for Chris P. Carrot for President, the PETA pseudo-candidate. Even so, those three outnumbered the representation for the Lieberman, Clark, Moseley-Braun, Sharpton, and even Bush campaigns combined.
Dean chants included, D-E-A-N, Lets Take Our Country Back Again, Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean, People-Powered Howard, Dean for America, Dean for Iowa, and The Doctor is In. The Kucinich Crowd, looking like modern age 1960s war protestors, had drums and a speaker and sang We All Have Hope in Our Hearts and We Want Kucinich for President with a little improv rapping mixed in. The Kerry folk chanted the latest campaign slogan, The Real Deal, while the Gephardt and Edwards groups stuck with just their candidates names from what I could hear.
Also joining the rally were the Kucinich Bus, painted in bright colors once again reminiscent of the 1960s and the Teamsters Union Big Rig which would blast its horn in the intersection, trying to drown out the Kucinich drums and dancers. Kerry got dropped off in front of the entrance and his supports created a protective corridor of the huge five foot by 7 foot signs on the spot. The other candidates came in the back due to security issues.
Once the debate got underway, most everyone started to disperse and within 15 minutes, the corners outside of the Debate complex cleared out and returned to their everyday state, as if there hadnt just been a sign war with hundreds of people. Such is the nature of the sign war.
The PrAP-C
As luck would have it, me being at the Headquarters instead of out canvassing for a change, ended up getting me involved in a special project which was no one day event.
I was pulled aside with 6 other people in order to be the formative group of the Pre-Arrival Processing Center, later to become known as the PrAP-C. Our goal? To call the over 2000 people signed up to arrive this next weekend. We started from scratch as there was nothing organized yet to take on this feat.
There was an empty room in the back of the secondary Headquarters that did nothing but house the tens of boxes of chewy granola bars and stacks of bottled water. Soon bottled water packs plus some plywood became instant tables. Lights, heaters, some Internet lines plus a box of cell phones were called in. One phone each for outgoing and one each for incoming responses. Posters were hung up on the wall and soon were filled with numbering systems, scripts, larger group names that were being taken care of, and maps of Iowa with major Dean volunteer hubs and sub-bases marked. A mini-map of the United States was drawn so that way when it hit 9 p.m. in any particular time zone it could be announced that that zone was closed and to go West on the phone lists. Our laptops were set up and connected to the network so that we could update everyones information on the spot using a system that had been built just for this surge of thousands of volunteers, unheard of in the history of the Iowa Caucuses.
Ah yes, the phone lists. Page after page of them were brought in. Each was divided by state and had full names, phone numbers, housing and transportation status, and arrival information if available. It was an enormous task, but we went from zero to a fully-fledged operation in less than three hours. No small feat.
And the calling began. Call after call of confirming information and offering helpful hints and tips to those coming from all over the country, even from Hawaii, Alaska, and Japan! It was slow going but we improved as we gained experience. For four days the calls continued non-stop. New blood was introduced on the second day and the room was buzzing with about a dozen volunteers at its peak. By the third day, we were running into some people who had already arrived but hadnt been checked into the system. It was always good for a laugh in the PrAP-C when we called someone who was working two rooms down from us in the same building.
At one point we had to duct tape a door shut that people kept trying to come into from outside, which not only disrupted us but tended to blow papers around the room at inconvenient moments. Not fun. We were a very close knit group and we posted signs outside our entrances warning others not to enter. We were masters of our own domain and seldom left, unless it was to retrieve water and chewy granola bars, most of which had since been moved out of our room. If we had used the only nourishment available in the PrAP-C room, we would have had to start consuming our tables makeshift legs. We universally agreed that that wasnt in out best long term interests.
Once we were done, it took little time before the Des Moines staff has determined that the PrAP-C room needed to go to make way for flow control so that things would proceed more smoothly for the weekend volunteers. And in less than 30 minutes, PrAP-C was no more.
It was sad but it was closure. Our task was finally complete. We were a scrappy crew but we did our job, well enough that a quote about the Iowa operation in a New York Times article by an incoming volunteer stated that we seemed organized and professional! Those probably wouldnt have been the words that we would have used, but if thats how it seemed on the outside, we werent about to complain!
It was a huge project, but it was nice to have to deal with it. Never before has a presidential campaign attracted literally thousands of volunteers from everywhere to spend a weekend in the cold in Iowa just because they believe in something more than just a man running for president. In talking with people on the phone, its evident that there is something different going on here. People are believing in themselves and their ability to enact change. Its extraordinary; its what keeps me going at the end of the day.
Fort Dodge, Iowa
For the last weekend when the big push of thousands of volunteers was to be at its peak, the Des Moines office asked dedicated volunteers, including most all of PrAP-C to become captains for all the secondary field offices across the state. I, along with a fellow PrAP-Cer, Steve from Eugene, Oregon, was sent out to Fort Dodge, Iowa. It was the smallest of all the field offices, and we were given one van, nearly 500 granola bars and bottles of water, and plenty of literature and door hangers. Fort Dodge was the center for most of the most rural parts of Iowa in East Central Iowa and was not in charge of handling much training or out of state check-in. We were to be forwarded volunteers from Des Moines, mainly Texans and an Ohio crew who canvassed the three days that we were out there.
Fort Dodge is an older town, complete with the classic brick buildings of times past, often with the old painted advertisements for products like Borax still visible. It a place rich with both despair and hope. Many jobs have moved out, with bars on every other street in what could be called downtown. Though the town sign says Fort Dodge is the Frontier of the Future, the first two businesses past the sign are a concrete plant and salt distributor. But there are many churches and other places of worship. In fact, surrounding one parking lot near the Dean Field Office was the First Baptist Church, First Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Masonic Temple. There is that sense of community that Im sure most of these rural Midwestern towns share and I think that provides some of the same hope that has parts of the downtown area being rebuilt.
I Have a Scream
The day of the caucuses had finally arrived. All of the volunteer filled office staffs were asked to start heading back to Des Moines and let the local coordinators take over the nights Get Out the Vote operations. With just under an hour or two to go until the caucus doors closed, I joined up with the 150 strong Texas bus crew in Ames, Iowa, where Dean and Sen. Harkin were giving their last speeches at the thousand person rally on the University campus. Soon after, we joined the few thousand people who had been called back to Des Moines in preparation for the post-caucus rally at the now infamous Val Air Ballroom.
Throughout the weekend, and even up until the very last day, we thought he had had the caucus in the bag. The numbers of identified Dean supporters we thought we had should have easily been enough to sweep the night. How wrong we were. The results had started to filter in and within an hour, everyone know that, yes, we had beaten Rep. Dick Gephardt, but it was with a 3rd place finish. But somehow, someway, nothing seemed to kill the spirits of all the out of state volunteers who had just given so much for the campaign. The rooms was abuzz with activity; Howard Dean was about to give his speech after being introduced by Sen. Harkin.
There was little space to move as the room was packed. Volunteers were waving their American flags and pom-poms like there was tomorrow. When Dean walked out on stage, it was as if the feature act of a rock concert had just begun. The cheering of the crowd was literally deafening, and we were acting as if the man had just come in first place by 20 points.
Dean rolled up his sleeves and began his speech, quickly moving to the now well known listing of states. With each one named, the roar from the crowd swelled. The energy was at the breaking point as we fed off of each other. And just as we were going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House, the enthusiasm breeched its last barrier as a deafening combination of clapping, whooping, and stomping overpowered what we later realized was the moment that Dean let loose The Scream. Most anyone in the crowd would tell you that the sound adjusted clip, played over 700 times in the next four days, was grossly out of touch with the reality of what happened there that night. Dean wasnt insane; we the people were. If I could have changed what happened, sure, a speech without the hollering would have done less damage. But I would never have changed a single thing I did that week having given it my all in support of the notion that change is needed in politics and that each and every one of us has the power to begin that process.
Young Man Goes West
I was restless. I had seen the man I had given money and weeks of my life to being beaten down by the media and competing candidates. The very same type of politics and insider game was creeping back into controlling the nominating contest that Dean had redefined. I had time to make one last stand for the guy I believed in so this past weekend I went West to Phoenix, Arizona.
The headquarters was much smaller than I expected after the near gargantuan Des Moines and Manchester state offices. But this was Arizona and there were 6 other states voting on the same day as this one.
Things had just started up for the day. The first big task was one that I was prepared for after experience in Fort Dodge, Iowa. Putting labels, precinct specific, on door hangers which would be put in packets with other information. 60 per precinct, all bundled with literally hundreds of precincts for the Phoenix area. Things got a big boost once the Utah group came in; we were at full labeling capacity with about 20 on the job.
We also were on a conference call with Rob Reiner and the California Southwest Voter Express volunteers, hundreds of them on busses flowing out of the surrounding states to fill Arizona and New Mexico. Most of the Texas people were going to New Mexico and Oklahoma; I was the Texas delegation for Phoenix, if not Arizona!
Much of today was preparing for the next two days when we would be canvassing about 100 precincts here in Phoenix. I was really impressed with the organization here. It doesnt seem like it on the surface, but statewide the operation is pretty much the same. The Dean campaign was the only campaign to file forms with the state party to get Democratic watchers for each precinct for Election Day, meaning we will be able to have access to the voter rolls throughout the day.
Each precinct will have a captain that will be able to cross check the IDed Dean supporters with those that have voted. There will also be the runners for each precinct that will then be directed to drag people to the polls that have not come in yet. This will all be preceded by walkers, dropping polling place info to those IDed Dean supporters and leaners who have not already voted early or by mail, a huge thing here in Arizona. All that was to be preceded by the next two days last big canvassing and phoning efforts to undecided voters.
The most work came on the last day I was there. I ended up going canvassing with Phoenix natives Randy and Rebecca. We only had to cover about 50 houses, much smaller than the New Hampshire list, and way smaller than Iowa. That was mostly due to the fact that Arizona has a closed Democratic Primary that Independents and Republicans cant cross over into like they could in other states. This also meant that we did more drive and drop style canvassing than door to door walking. But the Phoenix area is very grid-like in nature making it easy to find houses.
Many people here have cast their ballots early, with that response coming most often from the older voters. There are a number of veterans here, as well as more minorities which are largely non-existent in Iowa and New Hampshire. One WWII veteran broke down in tears when talking to us about how much he disapproved of Bushs War in Iraq saying that we live in modern times and should be able to elevate ourselves on the way we operate in the world. But even with that issue being so important to him, hes planning on voting for Joe Lieberman, who has been the strongest champion of the war among the Democratic candidates. Its because, as a fellow Jew, he wants to open up the Democratic Party to more people, he said.
Its interesting to see how voters prioritize their voting issues. As a canvasser, you try to understand why people think the way they do while respecting their choices, but it can be deeply frustrating when it appears voters are not being logical. For instance, some voters discuss how much they are upset with the war, or with the Patriot Act and then say they support Senators Kerry, Edwards, or Lieberman who all either voted for or sponsored those bills in the Senate. The Edwards is a nice young man one is equally as confusing as a reasonable argument for deciding who to vote for, but people will be people, reasonable or not.
Final Thoughts- for Now
I never thought a year ago that I would have done so much for a presidential campaign. It was always my impression that it was something left up to insiders who knew the process and didnt want any help from everyday people. The Dean campaign has changed that view, and it has taken me all this time to finally realize what Dean means when he says You have the power, in his speeches. Each one of us has a voice, though small in comparison to the empires that nationalized politics and the media have built. But it is not impossible to use that voice, that individual power and stand up for what is right. My favorite quote of the campaign, by Margaret Mead, says it best: Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
One of the more progessive mayors of a major American city has endorsed John Edwards in the Democratic Primary in Wisconsin this Tuesday. The AP reports:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards picked up endorsements Saturday from Madison's mayor and one of its two newspapers.
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, who leads the state's second-largest city, was courted by all leading candidates, but said he decided to back Edwards largely because of his focus on economic issues, especially the concerns of low-income Americans and the needs of cities.
"John Edwards is the only candidate who has talked consistently and before every audience about the issue of poverty in America," Cieslewicz said.
Edwards state director John Kraus said Cieslewicz's statewide reputation as an environmental activist will help Edwards with Democrats far from the capital city.
Cieslewicz has a very progressive background as he was elected mayor of Madison in a Democrat / Green coalition. Columnist John Nichols writes:
When Dave Cieslewicz was campaigning for mayor of Madison earlier this year, the veteran environmental activist received valuable support from leading local Greens.
Cieslewicz is a Democrat, but his record as director of the 1,000 Friends of Wisconsin environmental group, his very progressive stances on economic and social issues, and his freewheeling style made him attractive to a number of committed Green activists and elected officials in Madison.
Arguably, Cieslewicz's appeal to the core Green voting bloc, and to the broader bloc of Green-leaning voters in the city, made the difference in his narrow win over Paul Soglin in the April vote.
It's interesting to see that a lot of progressives are flocking to John Edwards as Howard Dean is fading. Personally, if I had to vote today, I would vote for Edwards because I think he brings a passion and appeal to Americans that is missing from the Kerry campaign. If Edwards beats Dean for second in Wisconsin (which I think is likely), the ABK (Anyone but Kerry) crowd will probably coalese around John Edwards. It will be interesting to see how much traction Edwards gains from it. Still, I think that Kerry's war record in Vietnam has convinced the majority of Democratic voters that he is the best candidate to go toe to toe with Bush on national security. Even so, a vote for John Edwards is a vote for him to be Kerry's Vice President at the least, and for that purpose, I'd vote for him, as he brings a balance to the ticket in many ways, especially regarding region and background.
We spent some time in one of my government classes today discussing today's Paul Krugman op-ed piece in the New York Times.
By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River.
It was not ever thus. Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.
The issue here goes beyond using the Government Printing Office to publish campaign brochures. In this budget, as in almost everything it does, the Bush administration tries to blur the line between reverence for the office of president and reverence for the person who currently holds that office.
Very true. Krugman goes on to compare this abuse of presidential symbolism to Opperation Flight Suit, etc., but the idea of putting dozens of pictures of the president in the budget is very distasteful. This is a federal document, not a piece of campaign literature. George W. Bush has shown time and time again how he, as Krugman writes, has more reverence for himself, than for the office of the Presidency itself. So much for returning dignity and honor to the White House...
Dennis Kucinich played The Dating Game on the Tonight Show last night:
Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich took his quest for a girlfriend to late-night television - and won a date with actress Jennifer Tilly.
The Ohio congressman, who has been divorced twice, asked questions of a trio of unseen women Thursday in a takeoff on "The Dating Game" on NBC's "Tonight Show with Jay Leno."
Responses by Tilly, actress Cybill Shepherd and Los Angeles radio talk show host Kim Serafin blended sexual innuendo with politics and references to Kucinich's environmental concerns.
Serafin said she would help Kucinich relax after a long day on the campaign trail by rubbing him "with oil not tested on animals."
Shepherd, in a reference to Janet Jackson's Super Bowl halftime show, plotted a "wardrobe malfunction" - pulling up her dress to reveal red boxers.
Kucinich asked bachelorette No. 1: "So I win the Democratic nomination, but I have laryngitis so I ask you to make the victory speech. What do you say?"
"Good evening delegates," Tilly responded. "My husband, Dennis, thought he was going to lose so he didn't write a victory speech. And now he's pretending like he has laryngitis."
"That's really good," Kucinich said, laughing.
After Kucinich selected Tilly and she emerged from behind a screen, Leno presented Kucinich with a gift certificate to a Santa Monica vegan restaurant.
We could play a game with this. Which will Dennis get more of? Convention delegates (he has 2 currently), or dates throughout the campaign? I'm personally betting on dates...
I don't know about anyone else, but that was my first thought upon seeing this:
Wesley Clark, who abandoned his bid for the presidency, plans to endorse Democrat John Kerry, according to Democratic officials.
Clark spokesman Matt Bennett would not confirm the endorsement, but said, "Gen. Clark is looking forward to going to Wisconsin to be with Sen. Kerry" on Friday.
Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the retired Army general would make a formal endorsement at a campaign stop in Wisconsin, which holds its primary Tuesday.
Clark may have made some mistakes and gaffes as a candidate, but as a surrogate speaker for our ticket on the campaign trail and as a posible Secretary of State, he offers a great deal to the Democratic Party.
The White House yesterday released a photo of John Kerry at an anti-Vietnam war rally where he is seen near Jane Fonda:
Big Deal. John Kerry is several people behind Fonda, and it was thirty years ago. Trying to attach John Kerry to the comments of Fonda in Hanoi is absurd. While Jane Fonda spoke defending the North Vietnamese government, John Kerry was saving American lives and fighting for his country. He served his duty, then returned home, saw the futility of the war, and spoke out against it. Trying to associate him with the comments of Jane Fonda in Hanoi is disgraceful and disgusting, especially when they are coming from the Bush administration (did anyone say AWOL?).
While I was president of the University Democrats last year we were a co-sponsor of an anti-war rally (February 2003). I helped aquire two Democratic elected officials to speak at the event. I stood in the front with the speakers and shook their hands. Does the fact that there were speakers at the event that are Socialists or that the event was co-sponsored by the International Socialist Organization make me a socialist? Of course not. Anyone can be called a racist, a sexist, a socialist, a fascist, a communist, etc. etc. if you connect people through people or organizations in which they were associated with someone who really is a racist, a sexist, a socialist, a fascist or a communist. I agreed with the International Socialist Organization that going to war against Iraq was a bad idea. I agreed with them on one issue. That's it. John Kerry agreed with Jane Fonda that the Vietnam war needed to end. They agreed on one issue. That was it.
But, under the Bush logic, I guess we can call Bush an anti-Semetic racist, because he spoke and campaigned at Bob Jones University on February 2, 2000, a month before Bob Jones University ended their ban on interracial dating. Thus, under the Bush logic, this picture of Bush speaking to Bob Jones University in February 2000 obviously proves that George W. Bush is a racist.
This whole line of attack is rediculous. Is this the best they can do?
Jane Fonda picture is via Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, one of the first of what will soon be many smear John Kerry sites.
The Bob Jones picture is via the David Duke's website.
Update: Thanks to Jeff for the tip. I had forgotten about this picture, via Blog Critics:
Here, Donald Rumsfeld is shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Does that mean that Donald Rumsfeld is a terrorist? Under the Bush administration logic with the Kerry/Fonda picture, it obviously does...
Looks like a Kerry sweep in the south. If these numbers hold up, it's great news for Kerry, and while Edwards would obviously like to win both Tennessee and Virginia, if he's able to come in a strong second in both and effectively knock out Wesley Clark, then it's a good day for him too.
Here's the numbers. They're all over the place, but they seemed to have originated in the blogosphere over at the National Review:
I watched Crossfire and several other political news shows, and the conservatives were up in arms attacking Al Gore's speech (wav file) in front of 1500 at a GOTV rally by the Tennessee Democratic Party on Sunday where Gore said of George W. Bush, "He betrayed this country". Tucker Carlson was going nuts over it.
Al Gore's right, and I'll defend him. George W. Bush betrayed America. He betrayed the lives of the 500+ Americans who have been killed in Iraq, their families and their future. George W. Bush told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was a clear and direct threat to our national security. He lied. Americans died, and George W. Bush betrayed America. It's that simple.
Speaking of Al Gore... It's interesting reading my thoughts on his endorsement of Howard Dean at the time. What looked so smart two months ago looks quite different today. Pundits are already claiming that the big loser of the primary season is Al Gore (more so than Howard Dean who went from having no base nationally to transforming the debate and the Democratic Party). Gore, so the CW assumed, endorsed Howard Dean so that Gore could reap the benefits of a Dean presidency, and if Dean lost to Bush, Gore would be able to inherit Dean's base in 2008. Well, neither of those scenarios are likely. Instead, Gore is marginalized and has been unable to deliver for Howard Dean. But then again, Richard Nixon looked like he was marginalized and completely out of the picture after losing his bid for Governor of California in 1962, and we all know what happened. Al Gore may be the biggest loser of this primary season so far, but I still don't think we should be writing his political obituary yet.
Is the Democrats Abroad Primary. Democrats Abroad send 22 delegates to the convention this summer. Today is the final day of caucuses around the world, and in early returns, Dean and Kerry are running closely.
In the Toyko caucus, Howard Dean won with 69 votes, with 51 for John Kerry and 29 uncommitted.
Howard Dean also won the Sweden caucus (no numbers on this one).
Interestingly, John Kerry won the Paris caucus by a landslide. Kerry received 310 votes to 87 for Dean and 59 for Clark.
As with many other primaries and caucuses, Democrats Abroad's caucus turnout is breaking records everywhere.
Update: From the Expats for Dean site are results from around the world.
John Kerry won the Amsterdam caucus and will have 5 delegates with 2 for Dean and 1 for Clark.
Howard Dean won with 48% of the vote in the Switzerland caucus (1.5 delegates for Dean, 1 for Kerry and .5 uncommitted).
John Kerry won the Ireland caucus with Dean and Edwards tied for second (1/2 delegate for Kerry, 1/4 delegate for Dean and Edwards).
John Kerry won a majority of the vote the delegate at the Hong Kong caucus.
John Kerry won the Mexico caucus and received two delegates with one for Edwards.
John Kerry won the Germany caucus by two votes over Dean and they will split Germany's two delegates.
Anyway, it looks like Kerry will probably win a majority among Democrats Abroad, but it's still early.
I'm up here in Kingsport, Tennessee this weekend for my grandparents 50th wedding anniversary. Although most of my immediate family back in Galveston are Republicans, my momma's side of the family is overwhelmingly Democratic, and with the Tennessee primary coming up, there was a lot of discussion on that this weekend.
From talking to my family members, here's the informal results of the kitchen table primaries (by party, jurisdiction, and age-eligibility):
DEMOCRATS
(Tennessee) Grandma - Clark (although she's said nice things about Kerry, too). Grandpa - Clark
(North Carolina) Uncle Keith - Edwards Aunt Dana - Edwards
(North Carolina, not eligible) Cousin - Edwards
(Colorado) Momma - Uncommitted (Anybody But Bush)
(Texas) Me - Dean (or Edwards)
REPUBLICANS
(Texas) Little Sister - Bush
(Colorado, not eligible) Little Brother - Bush
(I also ran into another distant relative at the anniversary party who said he was for Clark, but I still don't know exactly how I'm related to me).
Kerry seems to be pretty respected for his service in Vietnam up here, but we're not sure he shares our family values. We're worried about Edwards experience and Clark's partisanship (or lack thereof).
Kerry is running a lot of TV ads here in Northeast Tennessee (which is pretty solid GOP territory), and overall they are really very well produced. I also caught the tail end of an Edwards ad.
Clark and Edwards were both in town on Friday; however, I missed the chance to see there stump speeches due to the fact that I hit 8 hours of delays/cancellations flying into Kingsport.
US News and World Report's Washington Whispers has the following tidbit:
Vice President Dick Cheney's political problems have folks in Tennessee gabbing about rumors that their own Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, would be tagged to take the veep's job if the former Halliburton exec had to step aside. Both sides make the expected denials that anything's afloat.
With the Halliburton troubles, the energy policy coverup, the gay marriage issue (which Cheney has made statements 180 degrees from the GOP base on in the past) and the fact that without a wanna-be President in the #2 spot means a bloody inter-necine battle in 2008 I would not be surprised if Dick Cheney is not the running mate by this summer. "Heatlh problems" and "wanting to spend more time with (his) family" will add up to him stepping aside for someone who wants to be and could be president in 2008. But would it be Frist?
Frist's performance as Majority Leader has left much to be desired. The scandals concerning spying on Senate Democrats that have recently erupted and his *ahem* interesting history with cats might end up hurting his candidacy:
Frist is an animal lover who said his decision to become a doctor was clinched when he helped heal a friend's dog. But Frist now found himself forced to kill animals during medical research. And his new dilemma was finding enough animals to kill. Soon, he began lying to obtain more animals. He went to the animal shelters around Boston and promised he would care for the cats as pets. Then he killed them during experiments.
Other articles, such as one in the NYT that costs money to read now, said that the shelters stopped giving him cats so he started taking strays. Now, snorting coke, driving drunk, going AWOL for a year or so from the National Guard and breaking insider trading laws are all bad things but they don't have the kind of visceral reaction that stealing people's pet cats and cutting them up does. Its probably a silly issue, he was doing it for medical research blah blah blah, but silly issues are the only issues nowadays. So if not Cheney and not Frist, then who?
First, Bush will want to have a candidate that can take away a big Dem state in the general. Dem-leaning swing states with lots of electors like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Illinois would be the way to go. Second, you want someone with a strong statewide organization in these states- senators or governors. Next, you want someone that could be President in 2008- someone conservative, attractive and ambitious. I think that he will probably look real hard at Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security (highlight that big ticket issue) and former Governor of Pennsylvania; and at Tommy Thompson the Secretary of Health and Human Services and 4-term former Governor of Wisconsin. But the best choice for Bush? Freshman Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman. Coleman is the former Mayor of Minneapolis and former Democrat, a Jew (which could steal away an important Democratic constituency/fundraising base and put states like New York into play) and is from a big Democrat state that is in the tossup column of late. It'd be a big deal for Bush and it might be a brilliant move.
But there is one wrench in the machine with this plan. Let's say that Bush/Coleman were to go up against Kerry/Edwards (which appears to be the emerging Dem ticket). Kerry picks up New Hampshire (as he is that state's neighbor and the Dem voter file there is far better than the GOP's now) and North Carolina (with Edwards) but loses Minnesota. Bush picks up everywhere else. The result? A 269-269 tie in the Electoral College. The House would end up giving the election to Bush, as 29 states went for him and only 21 (and DC) for Kerry.
CNN and FOX News reported. CNN cited the AP. I don't see any confirmation of it, other than this San Francisco Chronicle article where AFSCME officials comment that they are "considering withdrawing" thier support for Howard Dean
Meanwhile, here are the early Washington results with 49% reporting (Via CNN):
Kerry 3,287 48%
Dean 2,142 31%
Kucinich 525 8%
Edwards 423 6%
Clark 252 4%
If Howard Dean can't win in the state where he drew a crowd of over 10,000 back in August (see below) then where can he win?
Dean will likely receive less caucus votes today than there were people attending this rally in Seattle last summer.
Update: It's official. ABC Reports:
The head of a major union that gave an early boost to Howard Dean's presidential campaign told the former Vermont governor on Saturday that he would withdraw his union's support, dealing a major blow to the Democrat's faltering campaign, The Associated Press has learned.
Gerald McEntee, head of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, delivered the news to Dean in a meeting with two other unions whose support has been propping up the former governor's campaign, said two Democratic officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
From Mickey Kaus of Slate, John Kerry will probably not pick John Edwards as his running mate because he is 1) vain and doesn't want his VP showing him up and 2) he's not mean enough. That's pretty presumptive and not that interesting but then he launches this one on us:
(Kausfiles) hears semi-reliably that Kerry's polling shows that Edwards on the ticket doesn't win any states for Kerry, even in the South--while Evan Bayh does win Indiana (which is hard to believe, Indiana being a pretty Republican state).
This is a pretty big story as it suggests that Evan Bayh is on Kerry's shortlist for running mates if he wins the nomination (as it appears increasingly likely he will do). This isn't necessarily a surprise, the moderate, attractive, well-spoken and highly credentialed Bayh has been talked up for some time, but the news that it would carry Indiana for the Dems is pretty exciting. Having a Catholic at the top of the ticket would have helped us there anyways and having a home town boy- former 1 term Secretary of State, 2 term governor, 1 term Senator and son of the longtime Senator and well-respected statesman Birch Bayh makes Indiana a solid Dem leaner at that point. This is an election year for Bayh so he'd have to be able to run for both Senate and VP at the same time, which may be against Indiana law, as he has to file to be on the ballot in less than 2 weeks. I'd be worried if it starts to look like Republican Mitch Daniels is going to win the governor's office there (which is increasingly unlikely) as a Bayh victory as VP would mean a lost seat in the Senate (along with a lost seat from MA when that state's GOP governor gets to replace Kerry). Still, that's putting the cart before the horse...
The big problem is of course that two Senators on the ticket might not be the best idea. Making it too Washingtonian will turn people off. On the other hand, having a former Governor with him would be great and would put Bayh on the fast track to the nomination sometime down the line, and the Gore states plus Indiana would be 271 electors- just 1 more than enough to win. So Bayh might end up being a good choice. Still, we would have no Southerner on the ticket and no ticket has won without a Southerner since Nixon/Agnew in 1972. I still like Phil Bredesen, Governor of Tennessee for the VP nod. Southern, non-Washington, moderate, attractive and he brings just as many electors as Bayh. Still, I haven't heard anyone but myself touting his strengths so I doubt it will happen. Perhaps I should write a letter to the Kerry people but I used to have to answer emails from crazy people demanding a Dean/Graham ticket all the time when I was in Vermont and I don't want to be "one of those people" to some sap working for Kerry in DC. Still, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on a Kerry/Bredesen or Kerry/Bayh tickets.
Yeah, he's not my first choice, and no, the blog community probably isn't united behind John Kerry, but ordinary Democratic voters across the country certainly are. And I'm not just talking about geography. Yeah, Kerry's now won in the midwest (IA, MO, ND), the northeast (NH), the east coast (DE), the southwest (AZ, NM) and he was competitive in the south (OK, SC). In two major swing states, John Kerry has united liberal and moderate Democrats, Black, White and Hispanic Democrats, young and old Democrats, male and female Democrats, union and non-union Democrats and pro-war and anti-war Democrats. Take a look at the exit polls of the two Red States that voted yesterday where Democrats need to seriously compete in order to beat George W. Bush - Arizona and Missouri. Via CNN.
Take a look at Arizona. Kerry won the votes of 44% of men and 41% of women. Young voters (18-29) went 34% for Kerry, 30-44 gave him 40%, 45-64 gave him 39% and 65+ gave him 48%. Kerry had 42% of Whites and 43% of Latinos. Kerry had 43% of Union households and 41% of non-Union households, 45% of liberals and 40% of moderates, 35% of those who approved of the Iraq war and 44% of those who opposed the war.
Moving on to Missouri, Kerry won 51% of men and 50% of women. Young voters (18-29) gave Kerry 49%, 45% among 30-44, 50% for 45-64 and 59% for 65+. Kerry won 50% of Whites and 53% of African-Americans, 52% of Union households and 50% of non-Union households, 51% of liberals and 53% of moderates, and 44% who approved of the war in Iraq and 54% who opposed it.
Kerry's not my first choice, but if exit polls are to be believed (and they were pretty accurate today), it's begining to look like John Kerry is the candidate that can unite the Democratic Party to beat Bush. On the other side, Dean, Clark and Edwards are begining to look more like niche candidates.
Update: There's a good discussion going on my cross-post on kos diaries. I'd encourage anyone interested in commenting on this story to check it out over there as well.
Great night for Kerry. Yeah a sweep would have been nice for him, but having Clark win OK and Edwards win SC is better than if Edwards would have swept the two (although I was pulling for Edwards in OK). Now, both Kerry and Edwards will compete in Virginia and Tennessee, probably splitting the anti-Kerry vote, possibly giving Kerry a good shot at both. Up north, Kerry's looking good in Michigan, where the unions are likely to jump on board, and Gov. Granholm will put her people to work for Kerry, and he should have a spirited campaign against Dean in Washington and Maine (although I'd put my money on Kerry).
So here's the final returns from CNN (candidates receiving 5% or more are listed):
Alright, I know that some of my TB sufferers (True Believerism that is) will accuse me of being some demon borne of hell and a traitor to all that is good and just for suggesting that Dean is done but I'm going to back it up now.
By now we have had 2 Southern states (SC and OK), 3 Midwestern states (IA, ND and MO), 2 Northeastern states (NH and DE) and 2 Southwestern states (AZ and NM) weigh in. We've had 3 states with large African American populations (SC, MO and DE), 2 states with large Hispanic populations (NM and AZ), 4 states with mostly White populations (IA, NH, ND and OK), 4 Conservative states (SC, ND, OK and AZ), 3 Liberal (in terms of their Democrats) states (NH, IA and DE) and 2 Moderate states (NM and MO). We've had states that are largely agricultural (IA and ND), 2 states with particularly large urban areas (AZ and MO) and 3 states that went for Gore (IA, NM and DE) and 6 that went for Bush (AZ, NH, ND, OK, SC and MO). If you haven't won a state yet, you aren't going to win one probably.
That means that Gephardt (check), Lieberman (check), Braun (check) Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton should all be gone. Clark is hanging on by the skin of his teeth and Edwards is on the brink. We have had a very diverse group of states speak and they have spoken almost unanimously- Kerry (with a side of Edwards and a dallop of Clark). It's time for everyone else to leave so we can have a nominee as soon as possible so we can start raising money, crafting message, building organization and beating Bush.
According to the Associated Press, Joe Lieberman will end his campaign for President tomorrow if he doesn't win any states today- an almost certain conclusion.
Democrat Joe Lieberman, facing an uncertain showing in his must-win state of Delaware, was making contingency plans Tuesday to withdraw from the presidential race, according to sources close to the campaign.
The campaign was making calls to close supporters asking them to be at the Hyatt Regency in Arlington, Va., Tuesday night at the postelection party. If Lieberman does not win at least one state -- and his best hope is Delaware -- he will make his concession speech there, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
He then would head home to Connecticut for a formal announcement Wednesday in Hartford.
While campaign staff continued to insist that Lieberman was moving on to campaign in Virginia this week, others close to the senator confirmed they have been told about a tentative 3 p.m. event in Hartford on Wednesday.
He probably should have quit after his dismal 5th place showing in New Hampshire last week, but he decided to stick it out. With Kerry kicking butt in 5 states and Clark and Edwards neck and neck in the other two, Lieberman is unlikely to finish above 3rd anywhere and might very well walk away with 0 delegates. If Edwards wins SC and OK, I'd say that Clark is probably finished but he might stick it out for TN and VA. Either way, these 7 states will serve to whittle the field down even more, pushing us towards the climatic Kerry v. Edwards battle for the nomination.
Delaware: Kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11
Arizona: Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13
Good news for Kerry and Edwards. Bad news for Sharpton (fourth place in SC?), Clark (third in OK and way back in AZ), Dean (where to start...) and Lieberman (shoulda dropped out last week).
This is essentially a cross post from Yellow Dog Blog but the language will be a little more casual here. To wit- here I'll say that George W. Bush's ass is sucking wind right about now.
Quinnipiac University has new poll numbers out that show George Bush's approval ratings dipping below the magic 50% line for the first time in his presidency. Quinnipiac's poll of 1,219 respondents nationally has a 2.8% margin of error and showed a 48-45 approval, the lowest he's ever shown and a pretty dangerous number for someone seeking reelection. Furthermore, Bush loses to John Kerry in a head to head matchup by 8 points- 51-43%. He beats all other Dems but is within the margin of error against John Edwards and Wesley Clark. He is only 5 points ahead of Dean and Lieberman thus blowing up the whole "electability" argument. Finally, 2/3 of all respondents say they'll vote on economic issues and 88% of voters consider the deficit a "somewhat or very serious problem" while voters think a Democrat will do better than Bush on the economy 52-40.
Another poll, conducted by CNN/USA Today/Gallup shows Kerry with a 7 point lead over Bush and Edwards and Clark were well within the margin of error. Dean lost to Bush by 7 points. Bush does a little better in this poll- his approval is at 49%- but it was still the only time that poll has had him below 50% and that is down from 60% just a month ago. Finally, a majority of respondents disapprove of how Bush has handled the economy, foreign affairs, the situation in Iraq and health care.
Don't expect Bush to take these numbers lying down- he has barely even started campaigning yet. Also, state by state numbers will be even more important as we try and gauge how each of the candidates will do in the electoral college but still this is promising in that it shows a definite positive momentum for the Democrats and a negative one for Bush. Kerry is now the clear frontrunner with a 30 point advantage over all the other Democrats in each of the polls. If he wins the nomination (as is looking increasingly likely) and beats George W. Bush we'd have our first legitimately liberal president since John F. Kennedy or maybe Lyndon Johnson.
Time will only tell if this is just a pipe dream or a legitimate possibility.
I've been keeping track of what Karl Thomas has been saying, and I have to share his frustration (as well as hope - even if perhaps it is an unrealistic one - that, no matter how bad things look right now, that us Deanies can turn this thing around and win).
This sort of reminds me of a "moment" I had when the Iowa caucus results started coming. I had bought a little portable TV to watch things unfold.
From the start the results were depressing. I started to cry (don't worry, I cry a lot; you should have seen me balling when I went to go see Finding Nemo at the movie theater). Other folks frustratedly told me to "turn off the TV." We could see where this was headed, and we just wanted it to stop.
That was the moment when an older gentleman reached over the seat and cautioned me that this campaign was only a "vehicle". Which, after all, is what we've been saying for months now, hasn't it?
So anyhow. Some parting thoughts for Karl-T. We're right. They're wrong. We might win. We might not. But let's never, ever, ever give up.
I have one more day here in Arizona, after missing yet more school and spending more money for a cause that for me, has grown beyond its original purpose. What has happened to me (and I know I'm not alone) in the last month, even the last year has opened up my eyes to much more than a political campaign. It has opened up my eyes to what is so very wrong in our country and the Democratic Party and more importantly what we have come to accept as politics as usual.
My god, how stupid have we as Americans become? How easily have we let ourselves become beholden more than ever to the latest wind change or news cycle? How come when disappointing results come in that we didn't expect it's time to retreat to the safe old ways of doing things?
I find it really sad that two people that I had come to respect so much in coming to UT for their work, their insight, and their commitment to a party that can do better, have given up hope under the guise of 'political reality'.
To that I say, like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2000, I dissent.
You know what? In the end you may be right. But I must say this before I become the last remaining Dean supporter on this Blog at the rate things are going.
According to Political Reality, Howard Dean should never have happened. Political Reality said that Dean shouldn't ever have been able to raise, and continue to raise the money he has. Political Reality says that you can't get thousands of volunteers to commit to travel across the country to help a candidate. Political Reality says that you cannot by any means let any control of your campaign be given to the grassroots. Political Reality shuns letting people self-organize, hell, even become involved if they aren't willing to do everything exactly like you tell them to. Political Reality can't change.
Well, guess what, this campaign didn't get to the end of 2003 by playing by the rules of Political Reality. Maybe this thing becomes a delegate race; maybe it isn't over after 2 states and less than 10% of the delegates being decided. Maybe it won't be pre-determined by a front loaded schedule. Maybe it will continue to find a way to waltz around Political Reality.
You know, I could end up being totally wrong about all of this, I admit that. But it will only be because once and for all, the system of caution and bowing to the 'way things should work, because it's the only way they have in the past' wins.
That day will be a sad day. Not for the Democratic Party, but for Democracy. Politics as usual will be the only winner at the end of the day. And why? Because people stopped believing.
P.S. Will someone please tell me which states "Mr. Electibility Kerry" is going to win for the Democratic Party in November that Dean isn't? i.e. Arizona- Deans makes it in play. Kerry? Hardly. That's the impression that Arizonans here have that I have canvassed and talked to, (excluding the obviously biased Deanster's opinions). Thus, can Kerry even put up as much of a fight as Dean can?
The following is a report from the other day that I copied out of my regular journal, so it's not exactly written the same way I would write it for the BOR.
...The Phoenix State HQ was much smaller than I expected after the near gargantuan Des Moines and Manchester state offices. But this is Arizona and there are 6 other states voting on the same day as this one.
Things had just started up for the day. The first big task was one that I was prepared for after experience in Fort Dodge, Iowa. Putting labels, precinct specific, on door hangers which would be put in packets with other information. 60 per precinct, all bundled with literally hundreds of precincts for the Phoenix area. Things got a big boost once the Utah group came in, we were at full labeling capacity with about 20 on the job.
Once things were labeled in just over an hour, they all had to be put into larger bags with precinct names put on them. Of course that led to having to find space to put all those filling bags in alphabetical order. We filled once storage room with G-Z. A corner of the main room soon came to own all the S precincts. The Phoenix Dean Chairs office became the placeholder for C-F and then A and B were placed near the bathrooms.
In between all of this was the continual bag shortage. So bags were scavenged from other packets which were holding old information. So there was this never ending shifting of location for bags as some were emptied from one store room to make way for the emptying of old bags to make room for new bags which were temporarily being put in some other random corner. Co-ordinated Chaos. But the job was done in a couple hours and all were happy.
We also were on a conference call with Rob Reiner and the California Southwest Voter Express people, hundreds of them on busses flowing out of the surrounding states to fill Arizona and New Mexico. Most of the Texas people were going to New Mexico and Oklahoma, I was the Texas delegation for Pheonix, if not Arizona! Lol.
Much of today was preparing for the next two days when we would be canvassing about 100 precincts here in Phoenix. I was really impressed with the organization here. It doesnt seem like it on the surface, but statewide the operation is pretty much the same. The Dean campaign was the only campaign to file forms with the state party to get Democratic watchers for each precinct for election day, meaning we will be able to have access to the voter rolls throughout the day.
Each precinct will have a captain that will be able to cross check the IDed Dean supporters with those that have voted. There will also be the runners for each precinct that will then be directed to drag people to the polls that have not come in yet. This will all be preceded by walkers, dropping polling place info to those IDed Dean supporters and leaners who have not already voted early or by mail, a huge thing here in Arizona. All that will be preceded by the next two days last big undecideds canvassing and phoning. The database here is very well set up, similar to New Hampshire which was by far an improvement over the Iowa technique in my view.
Also, a few weeks ago, the Dean campaign sent out vote by mail applications to 120,000 people. Over 20,000 responded and voted which I found very impressive. There is a very organized, concerted effort to have outreach to the various constituencies here in Arizona by members of those constituencies.
Now the ground game is focused on one last ID and message spreading weekend of canvassing and then getting all those people to the polls. I am impressed, at least for an operation out here. The field office coordinator here is a 6 cycle veteran of this; Im glad to see that experience on board.
Howard Dean probably ought to end his campaign right now but the powerful forces of self-delusion and institutional intertia will keep him on the road until February 8th, the day after the Michigan primary- a primary he is sure to lose. As the New York Times has reported:
After raising $41 million in 2003, far more than any of his Democratic rivals, Dr. Dean spent so much on television and on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire that campaign officials said they were only confident of having enough money to compete through next week (...)
Dean has also pulled all of his campaign ads, has said that he will not campaign in any of the February 3 states, preferring to focus on Michigan on Feb. 7. He fired Joe Trippi- a cult like figure who is almost as beloved by Deaniacs as Dean himself is. He is dealying the paychecks to his employees and is polling very very poorly everywhere. Dean ran a phenomenal grassroots effort to get to the front of the pack and then forgot what got him on top and fell back to the bottom again.
Though it appears that Howard Dean will not be the nominee for our party, I think that it is impossible to say that he hasn't been an amazingly positive influence on our party. His message was one of pride in being a Democrat, outrage at what Bush has done and vision for a future where everyone had health care, education, employment and civil rights. Before he came into prominence the race was one of "I support the President, but..." and one of sloganeering. His presence shook up the party and gave us something to look forward to this year. No less than conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan has noted that Bush is in trouble, in part because of Howard Dean:
The huge turn-out in New Hampshire; the electability factor for Kerry; the passion of the Dean people: all this shows how thoroughly energized the Democrats are to win back the White House. Bush is in the Rove-Cheney cocoon right now. From the SOTU, it looks like he's going to run on 9/11. Bad, backward-looking idea. His coalition is fracturing; his reach out to Hispanics seems to have hurt him more with the base than won him new votes; his spending has independents deeply concerned; Iraq is still a wild card; prescription drugs pandering hasn't swayed any seniors; the religious right wants him to attack gay couples in the Constitution - which will lose him the center. More worrying: I'm not sure he even knows he's in trouble.
Howard Dean has made this race competitive- his passion and his commitment to the grassroots has meant a reinvigoration of the Democratic Party and a new commitment to our values. I'm incredibly proud of the work I did on this campaign and I'll never forget the people I met and the lessons I learned. But its time to move on and get ready for the next fight. My greatest hope and goal isn't to get Howard Dean to be elected President- its to assure health care, education, housing and fair treatment for all Americans. The first step on this goal is beating George W. Bush and Howard Dean will not be the person to do that it seems. Not that he couldn't beat him one-on-one, I believe he could, but that he will not be the nominee.
I would like to see John Edwards recieve the nomination. He is not so easily attacked by Bush and Co- he doesn't have the regional, ideological and polemical problems of John Kerry and I think that he is an attractive alternative to George W. Bush. He can't be attacked as another Northeast Liberal- he isn't either of those things. He can't be attacked as negative- his message is one of hope. I realized that we'll probably end up with Kerry and I suppose I'm okay with that, but Edwards is the man I want.
The thing that pains me, more than not having Howard Dean the nominee or president, is the fact that the experience of this summer- all of those amazing people in a beautiful place working for a cause so much greater than ourselves, all of the fun we had and experiences we were a part of will no longer be there again. Its tough to think that I'll never sleep on an air mattress at 72 Cherry Street again, that I'll never jump into Lake Champlain in all my clothes after a long day of campaigning, that I'll never dance to U2's "A Beautiful Day" with 100 great friends- sweaty and excited at the world unfolding in front of us. It makes me sad, but I suppose its time to move on, time to get ready for the next fight because we can take our country back. I have always said about the Dean campaign that its not the man or even the message but the movement that matters. The movement lives on and the message is as strong as ever even if the man will be staying behind.
I have been thinking about this in almost the exact sense and am glad someone put into better words than I have attempted to. And though I don't have any personal grudges against any of the other writers here on the BOR (though I'm sure it has seemed that way the past week or two, my apologies guys) this post over at DailyKos hits the nail on the (ditto)head.
...To put it in more colorful language, in conjunction with the corporate media, the Political Opinion Complex has starved the Democratic electorate of campaign information to the point where they will eat up anything put in front of them. Whether that meal is Clark, Dean, or Kerry, the public is simply far too hungry to choose.
Sadly, this state of affairs has turned the Democratic electorate into dittoheads. We will vote however the POC tells us to vote. We jump at a resume when we are told to jump, we join a movement when we are told to join, we will accept a southern strategy when we are told to accept, and we believe in electability when we are told to believe. We will sell-out unions if we are told it will help us win. We will go to war if we think it will appeal in the south. We will abandon urban renewal if we are told it won't play in Middle America. We will stamp out volunteer movements if we are told they won't lead to corporate donations. Although it primarily exists outside and above the party, The Political Opinion Complex wields significantly more control over the Democratic Party than any institution supposedly "inside" of it....
Momentum is back in a big way, and it's because Democrats have become dittoheads to the center-right POC.
That's all from me now. I'm off to Arizona tomorrow afternoon to continue the good fight for Governor Doctor Dean because I don't believe in letting Iowans and New Hampshirites making up my mind for me. I'll try to blog from Phoenix live when I get the chance. I leave you with a late night spur of the momment quote from yours truly.
If you don't stand for something, then you stand for nothing. If you stand for nothing, then you don't stand a chance.
It was probably inevitable and it looks like this could be the beginning of the end of the Howard Dean campaign. Then again, John Kerry changed campaign managers a few months ago, and look what happened... No one thought that Kerry could recover, and he did. Will Dean? I don't think so. Dean faces a huge geographic problem at this point. There are seven primaries next Tuesday, but none of them have a natural Dean base. The DNC chair has said that if a candidate hasn't won any primaries by February 4th, they should probably drop out. Well, Dean probably won't have any victories by then as states more to his liking (Wisconsin, Michigan and Washington) aren't untill the next week, and it will be hard for Dean to win those states without any momentum. Furthermore, despite raising $40 Million, Dean is about to run out of money.
As for Trippi? He's a genius. He turned Dean from a no-name governor of a small New England state into the national frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Trippi was brilliant in the way that he embraced the internet and the grassroots structure of a campaign that it could create. He made Dean for America more than a campaign - he made it a movement. For that, we all ought to be grateful for Joe Trippi. With Howard Dean, Trippi has reshaped the way that the Democratic Party communicates to its activists. He tapped into a new source for money and volunteers that will be followed by every major campaign for years to come. However, Trippi eventually got too caught up in the movement, and forgot that he had to win elections. Yeah, it was great responding to the Club for Growth ads and donating to the bat and bringing out Al Gore and Bill Bradley and Tom Harkin, but in the end Trippi lost his focus. Instead of keeping a positive message and keeping Dean cool when he was held to the fire, Trippi and Dean lost focus in the weeks approaching the Iowa caucus. They went negative and forgot that they were running a campaign for president and not a holy war with Dick Gephardt in Iowa, a battle which sunk both Gephardt and (now probably) Dean.
We'll see what Dean does, but the fat lady is warming up...
Kos has thoughts on this as well (and a lot other folks do too, check the Blog for America Trackback link for that).
Well, it's looking like Kerry by a few points over Dean with Edwards and Clark duking it out for a distant third. If that's what we're looking at I see it as great for Dean (he's back, the comeback Dean? Well, maybe not, but something like that), good for Kerry (back-to-back victories make him the official frontrunner), and not so good for Clark (it looked like he might come in second ten days ago). If Edwards finishes third, that's still a boost for him, and helps him going into South Carolina (he becomes the favorite there), Oklahoma and Missouri. If Clark finishes third, then he does what he's expected to do and isn't helped or hurt. If Clark's fourth, then he's in trouble, but he has enough strength in the 2/3 states that he'll still be in the race (same for Edwards). Regardless, Joe Lieberman is finishing fifth, and it looks like his campaign will be over.
If you haven't seen the exit polls, kos has some from midday, and Drudge has 5 PM (Eastern) numbers at: 36 Kerry, 30 Dean, 12 for Edwards and Clark. The polls close in one hour, so we'll see how things shake out.
Update: Well Dean lost in double digits. It'll be hard for him to come back. Dean's not done, but he's going to have a very tough time in the Feb. 3rd states. States like Michigan, Wisconsin and Washington are more likely to go for Dean, but the Feb. 3 states come first. So, what happens? I don't know, but Dean has some tough decisions to make.
Would anyone agree with me that David Duke is the Freddy Krueger of Louisiana politics... the bad guy whose supposed to go away but always ends up coming back in less-credible and even-more disgusting ways?
I promised to respond this post by Karl-Thomas a few days ago. I finally have a chance to write it now.
I first met Howard Dean in May of 2001. I was a senior in high school at the time and a lesbian couple in Dallas (who had gone to Vermont to get a Civil Union), who I had met through my activism during the 2000 election cycle invited me to be their guest to a Howard Dean reception hosted by the HRC Dallas Federal Club (a group of wealthy gay donors who give $100+ per month to the Human Rights Campaign). I had no idea at that time that Howard Dean would be running for president, but it was an honor to meet the man who had the courage to sign a law granting gay and lesbian couples the same equal benefits and rights that are granted to heterosexual married couples. It almost cost Dean his re-election. While he won 50-38% over Ruth Dwyer in 2000, Vermont's quirky election laws send the election to the State House when no candidate wins a majority. With Republicans taking over the state house in a backlash over the Civil Unions (in the "Take Back Vermont" campaign which I saw on barns and yards across the state when I visited in the summer of 2000 for a rowing camp), Dean barely won re-election. Dean was within 2645 votes of the election being sent to the state house, where he surely would have lost, and likely not had the opportunity to run for president. On a side not, my lesbian friends were a big part of Dean's re-election in 2000. When the race was close in September, they decided to send out a fundraising mailer to the several hundred gay and lesbian couples who had gotten Civil Unions in Vermont since it became law earlier that year. Within weeks they raised over $10,000, and that last minute cash helped put Dean over the top.
When I first looked for who to support in 2004, I looked to Al Gore. When I met Al Gore in May of 2001 (yeah, that was a busy month for me), I encouraged him to run again, and I pledged to support him. Al Gore inspired me. I may have been the only person in America to be inspired into politics by Al Gore, but I turned 18 in July of 2000, and while I initially liked Bill Bradley, I quickly rallied to Gore. While there was little I could do to help in Texas for the Gore campaign (and I got involved in a congressional race where I could make a difference instead), I did what I could. I co-wrote an article for my high school newspaper, Al Gore: The Best Choice For Our Generation. And after the election, I was angry and helped organize protests in Dallas of the Florida recount. So I was with Gore, then Gore decided not to run in December 2002, so I had to find a candidate.
Well, January 2003 rolled around and I was angry, depressed and sad for America. Democrats had just gotten trounced in November. We lost our Senate majority, we lost seats in the House, we lost the Texas House, lost seats in the Texas Senate, Republicans swept the statewide ticket and we were about to go to war without allies, without clear evidence and without exhausting all of our other options. There were several candidates running for president and none of them really stood out. That was - until I heard Howard Dean speak. I remember hearing Dean speak at several forums in January and February 2003, most notably the NARAL event and the DNC Winter meeting where Dean inspired me. Finally, a candidate willing to stand up to George W. Bush. Finally, a candidate not ashamed to be a Democrat. We had lost the 2002 election, in my opinion, because Democrats failed to offer a clear and coherent message for America. So many Democrats ran campaigns on messages such as: "I support the President on this and that, but....". Howard Dean was the answer to this problem. He gave Democrats a reason to be proud of their party. He stood up against the right-wing in Vermont, and he beat them. Last Spring, he was the only one standing up to the right-wing in America, and I thought that he was our best - our only shot at beating George W. Bush.
By March, I was a Deaniac. I went to my first meetup in March, and brought half of the University Democrats with me. I hosted a Students for Dean party and raised some money for the organization. I went to meetup in April and then to more meetups throughout the summer. I went to three fundraisers between March and July, donating a total of $40. I wrote letters to Iowans. Why? Because I didn't want 2002 to happen again. I saw most of the other candidates as Bush-lite. I believed that Howard Dean was the only Democrat that could beat George Bush, because he was the only one that had the courage to fight him and speak out. Howard Dean was the only candidate that drew hundreds and thousands of supporters to his events and rallies. He was the real deal.
This fall, I began to have my doubts. There was no defining event last fall that caused me to go from a hardcore Dean supporter to soft supporter - it was more of a gut feeling. My anger over the war had subsided, so that was no long a defining issue. I still supported Dean, but I stopped going to meetups, donating money and volunteering. I stayed in Austin while many of my friends boarded a plane for Iowa in September to blockwalk for Dean as "Texas Rangers". Here's what I wrote about that at the time:
I'm not able to make it for the weekend, because I'll be working tonight, and to be perfectly honest, I'm a little less enthusiastic about the Dean campaign than I was several months ago. I think that Dean had the right message for the Spring of 2003, but I'm not quite sure if it's the right message to win next November. Unfortunately, there's no candidate out there that just grabs me, though, and I'm not longing for Al Gore or Hillary Clinton to jump in the race either. Of the other candidates, the only other candidate that I'm really drawn to is Wesley Clark, but things like this and this obviously concern me. So, basically you can put me on the record as currently leaning Dean, but my support is much softer than before. I've officially resigned from various volunteer roles (Students for Dean, Longhorns for Dean, etc.) that I've held with the campaign.
I do think that there are serious issues about Dean's ego, about his abrasiveness, about his issue positions, about his ideas for Iraq that his hardcore supporters would like to ignore (or just pretend that it's DLC propaganda). Can Dean win the nomination? Yes. Can he be elected President? Yes. But he still has a lot of maturing as a candidate to do (although you could say the same about any of the other candidates, especially Wesley Clark). Back to Bush. I don't just want to beat him, I want to beat him bad. I don't want it to be close enough for their to be any doubt. And I want to bring a Democratic Congress in with our Democratic president. I'll support the candidate in which I think could best do that. If after a few months, it becomes clear that Wesley Clark is in the best position to bring us that victory, then I'll endorse him. If Howard Dean remains that candidate, then I'll stick with him. We'll see.
I guess the main concern was electability. I worried that Dean couldn't beat Bush. Not that I had any specific evidence at the time, but it was a gut feeling that he was less electable than another candidate - and electability was the main reason that drew me to Dean.
Moving forward, some people might think that the "I have a Scream" speech is the main reason that I'm turned off to Howard Dean. Actually, that's not the case. The main reason is that I think that his campaign organization is vastly unprepared to take on George W. Bush. Take a look at the results of Iowa. Howard Dean probably spent about $7 Million in Iowa. He had thousands of volunteers, and finished a distant third. Geez! That's what I call a miserable failure. Pundits have pointed to a bunch of things as turning points in the campaign. The two that I've seen most often are the capture of Saddam Hussein and Al Gore's endorsement. Both are good things. It's good that Saddam is in custody and it was good, for the Dean campaign, that Al Gore lent his support. But where Dean failed, was translating Gore's support and his campaign from one of an insurgent to one as a frontrunner. He never did it. He pulled in endorsements, but continued his message attacking Washington Democrats. And while he attacked "Washington Democrats who supported the war" (Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry), Dean hit the campaign trail in Iowa with his new best friend, Tom Harkin.... a Washington Democrat who supported the war. Hypocrisy anyone? Maybe, maybe not, but regardless, a terrible campaign tactic. And those ads... I hope that Dean has a new campaign ad team. Some of his ads are decent like his response to the first Club for Growth ad, but others where he's speaking into the camera against a blank backdrop are just god-awful.
So why? Why have I gone from "lean-Dean" to uncommitted at this point? Two reasons. The first is that my main reason for supporting Dean in the first place was because I thought that he was the only candidate that could beat George W. Bush. Dean was the only candidate that was energizing Democrats and bringing new people into the party. That theory was disproved on Monday night in Iowa. While more young people attended the Iowa Caucuses than ever, the majority of 18-29 year olds voted for John Kerry and John Edwards. And furthermore, while the vast majority of Iowa caucusgoers opposed the war in Iraq, the majority of anti-war caucusgoers voted for John Kerry and John Edwards. Why is this? Why did anti-war Democrats and young Democrats vote for Kerry and Edwards who supported the war resolution? They obviously saw something in Dean that made them look elsewhere. The main reason that I supported Howard Dean was because he could bring new people into the party and energize the base. The results of Iowa suggest that Howard Dean didn't do that - and if Howard Dean can't win over White pacifist Democrats in Iowa, then how can he win anywhere else, and more importantly, how can he beat George W. Bush?
The second reason for my conversion from lean-Dean to uncommitted is the "I have a Scream Speech". Was I personally offended by it? Not really. Did the media completely blow it out of context? Yeah, of course. But, the fact of the matter is that Howard Dean has two major perceived weaknesses. First, that he is weak on national security, and second that he is angry and doesn't have the temperament to be president. I don't agree with either, but that's not the point. American electoral politics is much more determined by perception than reality. Yes, politics is unfair, but it's true. Is George W. Bush a "compassionate conservative"? Hell, no! But Bush and Rove convinced enough people that he was one, and he became president. Perceptions... Many people heard Howard Dean for the first time on Monday night. And what was their perception? That he is loud and angry and most importantly... unpresidential. Dean and his people like to blame the media. That's the easy way out. He was the frontrunner and the frontrunner gets media scrutiny. That's life. And that's a good thing. If Howard Dean can't handle the fire he gets from the media and other Democrats, how the heck could he handle a barrage of attacks from Bush and Rove? Dean went to the DNC chair to whine about people attacking him when he should have just had a little more thick skin and taken an "Aww, shucks" attitude about it. Instead, he lashed back, and while he knocked off Dick Gephardt, he seriously wounded himself.
So what now? I'm uncommitted. If Dean proves that he can get back on message, that he can laugh at himself a little bit more, that he can spend his money a little bit better, that he can produce better ads, that he can deflect attacks, that he can stop blaming the media, that he can prove that he can go toe to toe with Bush on national security, that he can disprove attacks that he is angry and doesn't have the temperment to be president, that he can once again prove that he (and no one else) can bring new people into politics and the party - THEN I'll be back with him. But I have serious doubts. I want to see the Democrat best positioned to beat George W. Bush win the Democratic nomination, and I don't know who that is. It may be Dean. It may be Kerry. It may be Edwards. It may be Clark. Dean should get credit for being the first serious Democratic presidential candidate in this race to stand up to George W. Bush (which all of the other candidates are finally doing now), but I'd rather nominate someone who figured it out late and can bring a serious challenge to Bush, than nominate a candidate that had the right message from the begining, but who is perceived as unpresidential and would more likely lose to Bush. But for now, I figure that the best thing I can do is wait, work on local races for the next month or so, and let the good folks of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Delaware, Missouri, North Dakota and the other states after February 3 help me with my choice on March 9th.
Update: One thing that I forgot to add, which came up in comments by Sherk:
It seems like electability is a fairly important criteria to you, for obvious reasons. I'm curious, though, what if you knew for certain (say, through divine revelation or something equally guaranteed to be true) that no Democrat could beat Bush come November? Would it change who you support?
Well I disagree with the premise, as WhoMe? points out in the comments that polls in the last day or two have shown John Kerry beating George W. Bush. We're a 50-50 nation and I believe that barring any huge changes by November, this election will result in a close victory for either side. However, I would not change who I would support even if I knew that the Democratic nominee would lose no matter what. I want Democrats to nominate the candidate that is not only best positioned to take on Bush, but who is best positioned to have coattails on our entire ticket all of the way down the ballot. In that respect, Dean has worried me for months. While I think that Howard Dean can beat Bush in November, he would probably win with a combination of the northeast, the midwest, the west coast and the southwest (and maybe Florida). The rest of the South would be pretty unattainable for Dean, in my opinion. Well the South (Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Oklahoma) is where the battle for control of the U.S. Senate will be primarily fought. While it's unlikely that any Democrat would win those states (except Florida, and maybe North Carolina for Edwards), Clark and Edwards are best positioned to cut Bush's coattails in those states. If Dean were the nominee, we would probably see the Democratic candidates in those states running away from Dean on issues such as his position on war and rolling back all of the tax cuts. With the Texas redistricting, some of our Texas Democrats will be running away from Dean if he is the nominee. The best example is Martin Frost who in his announcement speach last week boasted his support of education and supporting the "No Child Left Behind Act" (which his opponent Pete Sessions voted against), which Howard Dean has attacked other Democrats for supporting. And Martin Frost is only the tip of the iceberg of Dean's potential problems for Texas Democrats this fall. Frost is probably the most liberal of the five Democratic incumbents (Frost, Stenholm, Sandlin, Lampson, Edwards) running in new Republican-dominated districts. I want all of them to win, and to have a presidential nominee with a platform that they can run with.
This will likely be my last post on the topic of the Post-Caucus Dean rally, for one, because I don't have any family members left to comment on it. But I bring these words to you, written by my father to friends in the conservative Hill Country west of Austin because I think that sometimes we forget in the world of commenting that a little historical perspective is in order. My father has seen a lot of politics in his over 50 years in this country. He also said something to me today that struck me- "even is all else fails," he said, "and the right rules for the next 10 years, it's only ten years. They will fall just like others have before them. We still must set our agenda."
It is a true statement, yes, and at the same time we have a duty to do the best we can to offer the public an agenda that means something. I personally think back to the days of Andrew Jackson sometimes when thinking about Dean. Maybe we have the opportunity to fundamentally change how things work. We havent been able to do it on the House or Senate level, too many people that can't be removed at once. That leaves the Presidency. Kerry or Edwards, all their rhetoric aside, sound hollow when blasting Washington politics as usual. I wonder why.
Anyways, here's a bit from a father, a teacher, a historical buff- older and wiser than I...
I have just returned from Austin, where my wife and I visited our son Karl-Thomas. Karl-T worked for Gov. Dean in Iowa for the last two weeks, while he was on winter break from the University of Texas (he returned to Texas with Deans Texas Rangers last Wednesday). Prior to the Iowa caucuses, Karl-T worked in the Dean HQ in Manchester, NH. for about a week.
Karl-T was in the crowd when Gov Dean gave the Monday speech, rallying his supporters. This evening (Fri.), I saw a digital video of Dean giving the speech that was taken by a volunteer in the audience, close to the stage. This video was electric! Kids, and old farts like me, were waving flags, cheering, chanting, and generally vividly showing their support for Dean's candidacy. The speech I saw Dean give was not the "scream" as portrayed on the major TV networks. There was no loss of control. In fact, I could barely hear the "scream' at the end of his pep talk (but it was there.)
This guy was having fun! He was rallying his troops, many of whom were young people who came into Iowa from across the United States. If you listen to the content of the speech, Dr. Dean just says he will continue to wage his election campaign, in the states of all the Democratic (and Republican) contenders, and he would compete in every state that had a primary or election caucus.
In no way do I believe that he was "out of control," as so many network political pundits were so quick to say. I respect the American media. For the most part, I believe that they do a good job of keeping the public informed about issues of the day.
This is my take on this whole situation. I believe the news media does not know what to think about Gov. Dean's campaign! This campaign has electrified so many people on the grass roots level that the media does not know how to respond. Dean was touted as the frontrunner because of his fundraising and organizational abilities and because of his ability to connect with voters as a down to earth person on a personal level. Of course, he also worked Iowa for quite some time.
I like Howard Dean, warts and all. I think it's about time that we had a leader that had warts.
I cannot remember that last time that there was such genuine enthusiasm for a political candidate. (in my political experience,1972 comes to mind.) In no way did I believe that the Iowa rally was a "Muskie moment." Howard Dean is GENUINE! I heartily approve of his position on many issues that I hold quite dear, such as social security, social spending, and especially education.
He is the same man we wholeheartedly offered our support to at the House Parties on December 31st. When you lead from the front, you have to expect to get beaten upon, even if it is unwarranted. Gosh, he came in third in 2004. In 2002, NO ONE thought he would even be a contender. Clinton was third in Iowa, and second in New Hampshire, and look what eventually happened.
If we keep the faith, and spread the message, we will prevail- on Jan. 27th, Feb. 3rd, 7th, & 10th, and March 2nd and 9th! This wound is in no way fatal, although some other Democrats and FOX News Network, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk would have you believe so. George W. Bush's political career should be mortally wounded for his handling of the economy, his Iraq policy, and his outright LIES concerning Saddam's purported weapons of mass destruction!
Dean 'Scream'. Bush 'Record'. Which does the media make the big news story?
It didn't take long. Someone from the crowd at Dean's Post-Caucus Rally has a video from the crowd available for watching. This is what really happened. That's why many of us were mystified by the 'scream'. You can hardly hear it. From where I was (directly in front of Dean, halfway between him and the cameras) I didn't even hear it because the crowd was so loud; I would say even more than the following clip sounds.
Sometimes I get lost in all the media and I never would have thought that talking to my mother would be just what I needed. I called her the other day, after feeling quite foolish for my pre-Iowa comments about how good everything looked from the inside of the Dean Campaign. I thought that I was going to have to reassure her about what was going on.
How wrong I was. She was the one telling me to not lose faith. My just over 40 year old mother, and independent liberal who voted for Perot, Gore, and soon for Dean was telling me about how the media was being so unfair and that now was the time to work harder. She tells me how she just had to give another $100 donation.
It spurred me to give a little more and I will be leaving for Arizona next weekend because this isn't over by a long shot.
But what surprised me was that my normally 'scared of technology' mother and father are now writing letters with the Dean campaign tools, using the online fundraising page (House Party in Fredericksburg- 40 people, $1000+ raised. Fredericksburg is like 85% Republican), and now is even started to comment on the Blog.
This was her post. And remember, this isn't from the stereotypical teenage commenter...
Dr. Judith Dean is for real! Humble, sincere, honest. I love the fact that she doesn't put a show on for the media, no "Washington Wife" here, what you see is what you get. Her family and patients are the most important things in her life, and Howard obviously respects and loves this woman for her beliefs and values (which he also shares).
Howard Dean rocks! Finally, an honest candidate who isn't afraid to show who he is. The reason the media keeps focusing on him, is that they don't know how to deal with a "real" person with honest feelings and emotions. The media is trained that if you don't understand something, attack it. They just don't get it. Howard Dean is the real deal, not some blow-dried pre-packaged politician like Kerry.
Howard and Judith are down-to-earth, practical people. (Yes, a flowering bush for a gift makes perfect sense- pay for it once and reap the benefits of its beauty for years to come- this is a man who can balance our budget.)
Support Dean! Vote Dean! Go, Dean, Go!
Love your parents. Never feel as if they can't surprise you.
So I just watched Howard and Judy Dean on ABC's Primetime Live. It was a good interview, I would imagine that it will help to stem some of Dean's freefall in New Hampshire if it was widely watched and it might help him salvage a second place finish there. I missed the debate so I'll either watch it online or watch a rerun of it later.
Dean explained the "I Have a Scream" speech quite well and having Judy with him helped to humanize him a bit. I think that it might help assuage the "Dean is Angry" meme. There are things that are worse to be than angry- remember that at this point in the 1992 campaign Bill Clinton was a draft-dodging, dope smoking adulterer who had been the "failed governor of a small state." Still, Dean- love him or hate him- probably doesn't have 1/10th of the charisma and political instinct of Bill Clinton and George Bush the Younger is a much more astute politician than his father.
Still, according to Political Wire, Dean will do a self-depricating "Top 10 List" tonight, and that plus the interview, plus his new ads, plus the debate performance might add up to better than expected (within 5 points I'd say) in NH and could put him right back on track. Dean has to finish better than expected in NH, win 2-3 states on February 3, win Washington, Maine, finish higher than Kerry in Virginia and probably most importantly (if he lasts through all of that) win Wisconsin if he wants to be the nominee. If he screws up on any of these he's on life support, if he screws up in 2 or more, he's finished. It's a tough task but we'll see if he can do it.
Update: So I just watched the condensed debate on ABC. Dean wasn't so hot actually, but it seemed like Kerry barely got a word in edgewise between all the others. I think that Lieberman really looked good, Clark answered some questions, Edwards dodged some bullets, Kerry managed to look presidential and while Dean didn't lose any ground, it seemed like an awkward rehashing of his stump over and over again. I think he stays down in NH and he might struggle on February 3. I really don't know if he'll last beyond February 10 and I don't know if he can beat George W. Bush in November. I know that Clark probably could (btw- awesome shout out to Charlie Stenholm), Edwards probably could, Lieberman might be able to, Kerry maybe but probably not. We'll see- if he can come back, he'll be formidible.
I'm responding to what Karl-Thomas wrote below, but for now, I'm going to watch the FOX News debate. I've probably watched less than half of the Democratic Presidential debates this cycle. Frankly, they've been boring. But, I have a feeling that tonight will be different. Everyone has something to prove. John Kerry has to prove he's the real deal. John Edwards has to prove that Iowa wasn't a fluke. Howard Dean has to prove that he can laugh at himself without looking too silly. Wesley Clark has to prove that he's not a Republican. Joe Lieberman has to prove that he's got a chance in hell and Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton get to do what they can to keep things entertaining.
I have waited for a couple of days before posting my thoughts on Iowa here. I wanted to see what others outside of the Iowa operation thought, and what the feelings were of other Dean supporters. I have done my looking and listening and I am thoroughly ashamed by what I see, even here on this blog, and I intend to get to that in just a moment.
Over this break, I was in New Hampshire. I was in Iowa. I experienced the campaign as a volunteer and later as the Fort Dodge, Iowa Storm Center captain. I would give up nothing, absolutely nothing to lose the experiences I was a part of these last two weeks.
I went because of the Dean campaign, not because of my natural interest in politics. I didnt think that volunteering for the caucus, for any state operation was something that normal people could do, and I am not alone in that thinking. I saw people excited and in awe when it finally hit them that they we ordinary citizens truly can have a voice again in what has become of our democracy. We need this. Democracy needs this. The future needs this and I believe we have reached a critical point in our history that requires us to take part in this type awakening.
Since when has over 3,000 Americans coming together because they feel like they can make a difference once again, been something we can dismiss, even if their guy didnt win first? Since when has bringing people back into the process and truly being powered by the grassroots been something to overlook?
I dont know how much energy I would have left for some of these other Democrats because I am not simply anti-Bush, but pro-Dean at this point. A lot of people are as well, and these are people new to the process, new to politics. If we lose the Dean campaign, I feel that we are losing something much more than a candidate, we are losing the inspiration that has called to the other half of America.
Change is what helped Democrats come back in 1992. But now we are in 2004 and we need to change again because the last four years have shown us that old-politics alone hasnt given us much. Our party has so much potential if only it would be willing to risk change. That is what should make us stronger than Republicans, the ability to accept new ideas. Deep in all our hearts, we know that type of America we want to see in the future. We cannot get there if we keep compromising ourselves.
Simply being against someone as Democrats will get us nowhere. Being for someone and what they stand up for and what they believe in yes, that takes commitment and no, it is not easy, but it something that we can respect.
Now, to those who have posted about their teeter-tottering support for Dean because of Iowa-
It is my opinion that they have trouble standing up for what they believe in and why they were for Dean in the first place. It is my opinion that they have let themselves be swayed and influenced by the media, one of the very things that Deans campaign of change has focused on. It is my opinion that some have let the thinking of old-politics claim victory to the very purpose that has differentiated this campaign, this movement from the others.
Think outside of the box. What all has changed?
Do you think that Kerry will be able to escape the pigeon-holing of yet another elitist, Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Liberal by the GOP? No number of motorcycle rides, pheasant shooting, or guitar playing has been, or will be able to kill that one. Outside of New Hampshire, where is he supposed to win considering his Iowa win was a last minute consolidation of resources and concentration on old-politics structure? Those non-existent volunteers are not going to help this party. We cannot afford to pay people $100 a day to phone bank which is what was happening in Iowa, honest to God. Has Iowa changed that?
Is John Edwards our savior? He may be a charming young man but his win was only because everyone ignored him and he benefited from Gephardts suicide run that drug Dean right down with him. Will this war-voting, Patriot Act-authoring, public finance limiting, son of a mill worker even have enough money to keep winning primaries after February 3? Remember, any nominee will have to last until late July before cash comes back. And Texans, remember that good old frivolous lawsuit limiting Proposition 12? Did you listen to the State of the Union? Combine that Republican issue with a multi-millionaire lawyer, turned politician with an Al Gore-esque populism, once again lacking the people part of the power to the people equation Has Iowa changed that?
General Clark, probably the man I can somewhat admire because he has that something called grassroots support, might not even see the light of day now that Dean, Kerry, and Edwards are all still in the picture after his Iowa skipping. But he too succumbed to insider top-down campaign management when he had the opportunity to let the grassroots have a larger voice. He has done a wonderful job at mimicking the Dean campaign and would be my choice should Dean never had entered the race. But Dean did enter the race and is by all means very much quite in it still. Iowa hasnt changed that.
So, in conclusion, I have to say that while I was in disbelief, I was depressed, and I was upset- I am not jumping ship because I believe in something bigger than Howard Dean. It is in our most critical hour of need that we, as a campaign and as Americans (because we are more than just Democrats anymore) remember why we got into all this in the first place and stand by our man and what we have built together.
There has been, on this blog and elsewhere, some hesitancy to get behind Howard Dean after the (admittedly) stunningly awful performance the good doctor gave in Iowa on Monday. Although plenty of candidates have lost and Iowa and gone on to win the presidency (to name a few, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton), rarely has the loss been so stunning; and in the past the time-table has been a little more generous; there's little less than a week to fix the Dean Machine before the New Hampshire primaries next Tuesday.
It's my strongest conviction that now is not the time to flee. Indeed, it's time to support Howard Dean -- now more than ever.
It's easy to rattle off a list of the mistakes that the Dean campaign made in the closing days of the Iowa campaign. For example, the campaign's ads were terrible and uninspired. The message got muddled by a barrage of bad press and a candidate who was blissfully unaware of the fact that his position "on the ground" was slowly going to hell (trust me on this one; if you counted the number of supposed Dean supporters on my walk list who had Edwards or Kerry signs in their front yards - signs apparently put out in the closing weeks of the campaign -- you could see that things were going badly for Dean). Moreover, the ground organization was not capable of putting the thousands of volunteers that showed up for Dean to good use. Even veteran blockwalkers, such as myself, spent about half of the time trying to figure out where in the Lord's name we were (instead of knocking on doors). Better maps -- or even better, a local liaison, would have greatly improved the ground game.
But that's all spilled milk now, and it's time to move on. That was the tone of Dean's victory/concession speech on Monday night, and nobody at the Val Air ballroom there in Des Moines thought it was a joke.
In order to understand what really happened in Iowa, you have to look beyond the mistakes Dean made and recognize that Sens. Kerry and Edwards essentially had to "reinvent" themselves to make themselves palatable to Iowa voters.
Edwards pushed himself as the White Knight candidate who was above the fray. Moreover, Edwards seems to have drawn away much of Gephardt's support after Gephardt's "suicide bomber" strategy blew up in his face. Edwards simply managed to appeal to the Genteel Wing of the Democratic Party. And yet, Edwards' criticisms of the Bush administration seems to have ramped up considerably throughout the course of the campaign.
Kerry, in so many ways, attempted to co-opt Dean's message of reform while undermining Dean personally by pushing the story that Dean was a walking-time bomb. Kerry's ads called him a "fighter". Now where have we heard that before?
(Additionally, Kerry seems to have drawn the lions' share of the vote which might have otherwise gone to Wesley Clark. Should Kerry and Dean push Clark into third place - or worse - next week in New Hampshire, Clark's decision not to compete in Iowa should probably be considered to be one of the worst political blunders in modern history).
In short, Kerry out-Deaned Dean, in a sort of contrived, establishmentarian way. And the result was that the Good Doctor lost, in the eyes of so many voters, that edge of distinctiveness that had so marked his past success.
I support Howard Dean because I still recognize the difference between Dean and the rest of the pack; to wit, that the Good Doctor is a leader. While the Dean Machine was caught flat-footed by the repositioning of the Democratic field in the closing weeks of the Iowa campaign, let's not forget the fundamental relevance of that fact.
Luckily, it appears that Dean's ad folks have clued into this, with their newest ad.
I have to agree with Byron that the fallout from Iowa could be just what the doctor ordered for Howard Dean's campaign. In many ways, I think the campaign will benefit from a week of lowered expectations (and we can hope, lessened media scrutiny).
At any rate, for those doubters out there -- why is it that Dean is so bad, when all the other candidates are trying to be Howard Dean?
The new theme is A Doctor Who's Delivered. The slogan reminds me of George Bush's slogan change after he lost New Hampshire to "reformer" John McCain. Afterwards, going into South Carolina, he (well Karen Hughes and Karl Rove) proclaimed himself to be a "Reformer with Results". As for Dean, his new theme (like Bush's SC theme) is heavy on biographical detail and focused on policy. It's an improvement, to say the least, but I don't think it's enough. We'll see..
Update: Howard Dean has a new ad in New Hampshire. It focuses on leadership, civil unions and standing up for what's right (opposing the war, again). I think that the idea for the ad is right - Howard Dean is a leader and he's a "Doctor that has Delivered", but the focus is off. He should focus on issues that more people can resonate with. The anti-war ads backfired in Iowa, and while this is a softer version of those, it's nothing new, and will likely have the same effect. The "Democrats were Silent" text at the end of the ad is more of the negativity that didn't work for Dean in Iowa. Does the Dean campaign get it? While signing the civil unions law was courageous, Dean would probably get more traction with an ad touting his work for health care for Vermont and focusing on his personal biography and family.
Update 2: Jim likes Dean's new ad. I don't really think that it does the trick. My thoughts aren't as negative as what Maura in VA says in a kos diary, but I agree with her more than I agree with Jim on this.
Some Dean supporters claim that they did. I met Anna of Annatopia this summer in Dallas at some Dean events. She writes that John Kerry was push polling and that the John Edwards campaign instucted their precinct captains to spread negative attacks against Dean and Kerry at their precinct caucuses. Anna was on the ground in Iowa, so these charges could very well be true, but then again, they could just be spin from the Dean campaign. Has anyone else heard of these?
Update: Ok, well ABC News confirms the Edwards negativity, but it's nothing that I really have a big problem with. Some people might, but Edwards doesn't say anything dishonest or inappropriate in my opinion. I don't think that it has any legs, but I could be wrong.
Anyone have more info on the claims against John Kerry's push polling?
Okay, so its well known that up until now I have supported Howard Dean for President and that while I am tentatively still aligned with him I am moving towards John Edwards or just a general ABB position. Still, I am dismayed at the Lieberman-bashing that I see around the web. To wit, Daily Kos has a poll up asking if you will support the Dem candidate no matter what. While "Any Democrat" is leading with 72% of the vote, "Anybody but Lieberman" is second with 17%, the only other choice with more than 2%. Many of the posts here and elsewhere savagely bash Lieberman for various positions.
So what's the big deal? Why do people hate Lieberman so much? His lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 20%, maybe a little high but fairly average for a Democrat. Dennis Kucinich had a rating of 19% before his election year switch on abortion. John Edwards is at 15%, meaning on average he votes liberal on a single additonal vote than Lieberman each year. Dick Gephardt is at 12%, meaning he's better on 2 votes. Bob Graham, who many seem to want for Vice President, is at 18%. Furthermore, 20% is better than any Republican in the US Senate by a longshot. Jim Jeffords (a former Republican) is at 26%, Olympia Snowe is at 52%, Lincoln Chafee is at 47% and John McCain is at a whopping 84%. More importantly, the liberal activist organization Americans for Democratic Action gives Lieberman an 85% on issues important to liberals in 2002, identical to John Kerry and a solid 15% higher than John Edwards.
Furthermore, Lieberman is right where it counts. The AFL-CIO gives him a lifetime rating of 82%, 113 pro-union votes to 24 non-union votes. John Kerry is only at 90%, meaning that he is only a couple of votes a year on average away from Lieberman land. The only reason he isn't much higher is because he votes right on trade issues- not selling out international capitalism to appease union bosses. Jeffords is at 46% in this rating, Chafee at 53%. Lieberman votes with the NAACP 94% of the time, the Human Rights Campaign (the largest gay rights group in the country) 100% of the time, Planned Parenthood 100% of the time, the National Right to Life Committee 0% of the time, NARAL 100% of the time, the League of Conservation Voters 88% of the time, the American Medical Association 100% of the time, the Concord Coalition 77% of the time and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform only 5% of the time. I think that someone who is pro-environment, staunchly pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-entitlement, pro-gay, pro-labor, pro-health care reform and votes liberal 80-85% of the time can be called a solid Democrat.
So why the resistance? Is it because he talks about values and thus sounds like a Republican? I think that it is pretty foolish that we would reject such a qualified and staunchly progressive candidate because he sounds different from most Democrats. There was a time when Democrats led this country in every meaningful way and it was because people believed we were right. They believed this because we told them that we sought better jobs, better health care, a cleaner environment, a safer world and greater opportunity for all of them not because we wanted their votes or because it would make life "easy" but because we have a moral obligation to do so. Really, values are necessary to make sense of our policies. If we aren't doing the things we want to do because they fit into some greater moral purpose, then why are we doing them? Joe Lieberman is providing a sense of where we are supposed to go and what we are supposed to do and that is valuable.
I think that his hawkishness might make some people uneasy, but Lieberman is a Kennedy Democrat. John Kennedy was a well known anti-communist and military hawk and it almost cost him the nomination. His religion and his identification as a moderate almost handed the nomination to Hubert Humphrey or Lyndon Johnson in 1960. Lieberman faces a similar task but the outcome is sure to be different because the thing he lacks that Kennedy had in great supply is gravitas. Lieberman does not excite and inspire like his ideological forebear did and that's why I don't particularly support him though I'd back him 100% if he somehow wins the nomination. If Lieberman was just slightly more engaging and if I thought he had even a slight chance at the nomination I'd probably be leaning his way rather than towards Edwards for my backup plan. As it stands, I still don't understand why a man that stands for the same things that I do and passionately fights for the core values of our party and makes sens of them in a larger context would be facing so much deep opposition.
Kerry Taking the Lead in National, NH Tracking Polls
By Byron LaMasters
Expect John Kerry to be leading most New Hampshire tracking polls by tomorrow, and definitely by Friday. While Dean leads Kerry by two points currently in three major tracking polls in NH, Kerry overtook Dean yesterday in each of the three.
For example, in the three day (1/18-1/20) tracking poll by the American Research Group, Dean leads Kerry 26% to 24%. However, I expect that by tomorrow, Kerry will have a lead. Of those polled yesterday, Kerry led by five points:
While Howard Dean has a 2 percentage-point lead over John Kerry in the 3-day average, Kerry has a 1 percentage-point lead in the 2-day average (sample size of 508 likely Democratic primary voters) and Kerry has a 5 percentage-point lead in the one-day sample on January 20 (the sample size of 302 likely Democratic voters, theoretical margin of error ą 6 percentage points).
Dean also leads the Zogby three day Tracking Poll in NH by two points - 25% to 23%. But again, yesterday's poll numbers had Kerry ahead.
Pollster John Zogby: In the one night of polling (Tuesday) after the Iowa caucus, Kerry actually led Dean by 2 points. Clark has slid a point a day, since Sunday, significantly. As Dean drops, undecided jumped to 20 points on Tuesday alone. This is not unusual, as voters re-think their support for a candidate; they often shift to undecided first.
Also, the Suffolk University poll gives Dean a 22% to 20% lead over Kerry in its two-day tracking poll. However, yesterday's polling showed Kerry leading by three points:
In calls made just on Tuesday, January 20th, Kerry actually led Dean by a 24%-21% margin. However, the error rate on the one-day 200 interview sub sample is +/- 6.93%.
Finally, Rasmussen Reports National Tracking Poll shows Dean leading Kerry 20% to 18%, but with Kerry surging Tuesday:
the single night of tracking on Tuesday, the day after Iowa, Kerry leads Dean 25% to 15%. North Carolina Senator John Edwards is essentially even with Dean at 14% and retired General Wesley Clark is in fourth at 12%.
Certainly a trend here. If Dean doesn't get a bounce out of New Hampshire, he's going to have a hard time finding victories on February 3rd. Assuming Kerry's lead over Dean holds past the initial post-Iowa surge, we'll soon be looking to see if Clark or Edwards makes a surge in NH to possibly overtake Dean. Dean needs a makeover. He needs to do something new and big and he needs to do it now, because he's in trouble.
I promised to write on Iowa last night on my Dick Gephardt post. Dick Gephardt's withdraw was about the only thing that I called before last night. I was tempted to put Kerry 1st (I called Dean beating Kerry by two points), but I convinced myself that Dean's organization would carry him through. My projections were slightly better than Andrew's, but I'm sufficiently embarrassed about my own predictions, I don't think I'll brag about it.
Anyway, last night has left me rethinking my support for Howard Dean. I worked until 11 PM or so, so I missed the caucus night television coverage, but I flipped through channels when I got home and eventually settled on C-SPAN for awhile. They replayed the speeches of the major candidates on the Iowa results. I tuned in a few minutes into John Edwards speech, then proceeded to watch Howard Dean's, Dick Gephardt's and John Kerry's speeches. My thoughts?
John Edwards was impressive. He repeated his campaign themes, thanked everyone he needed to thank. He congratulated John Kerry, noted that he had talked to Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich and then praised Dick Gephardt.
Dick Gephardt had a speech that almost brought me to tears. I never supported the man for president, but it's sad to see someone who has fought so hard for so long for working people get trounced the way he did. His speech was so classy, thanking friends and family, offering whoever was the Democratic nominee anything and everything that he could offer, and just embracing his supporters even as his political career was ending. Such poise.
John Kerry did the typical John Kerry speech. It was very long. He came across as a New England elitist, but he had a good message. He looked like a winner, though, and was full of praise for Dick Gephardt as well. Did I mention his speech was long?
Howard Dean. Well, he came in third. Not a close third, but a third that was less than half of Kerry's total. And he was 14% behind Edwards. Ouch. Now, unlike Gephardt, such results did not spell the end to his campaign, however, it was definitely not a good night. So, when I watched Dean's speech I was perplexed. Why is he acting like he won? He looked like he was on speed, the way he came out and high fived Tom Harkin and took off this jacket and rolled up his sleeves. The way he grabbed the American flag and started waving it and started shouting to the point in which it became shrill. While I'm not a fan of Drudge's politics most of the time, he called this one right (audio file). Dean went nuts. He acted as if he were the winner when he was anything but. Sure, he wanted to fire up his supporters and volunteers, but when you're on national television and a lot of people are hearing you for the first time - you look silly acting like you won when you got your butt kicked, especially when just a week or two everyone thought you would win. Finally, I felt that the way that he called out the states of his opponents, and said how he would take his campaign there was just... unprofessional, and more importantly unpresidential.
So why did Dean lose... bad? Dean had it all. He had spent millions of dollars on television ads, and had thousands of volunteers to get out the vote. How did he lose so bad? Dean did a lot of things wrong. Most significant of all is his attack ad in the last week of the campaign against "Washington Democrats" like Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards. While he attacked "Washington Democrats" for supporting the war, he campaigned with one (who voted for the war resolution) - Tom Harkin. That's pretty hypocritical. And to add to that, his ad wasn't very good. Dean's had a few good ads, such as the one responding to first Club for Growth ad attacking him as someone who would raise taxes and all. That was well done. But the Dean ads having him just talk into the camera with a blank background are pretty pathetic. On a broader scale, Dean never really adjusted to the role of frontrunner. He was great as the insurgent underdog. He had grassroots support, and lots of money, but as a frontrunner, every move he made was scrutinized. Every gaffe was reported. And he never shifted his campaign to be one of a frontrunner. He continued to run as an insurgent outsider even as he won the support of Al Gore, Tom Harken, dozens of congressmen and won the blessing of Jimmy Carter. Well, that's a problem. On one hand, Dean embraced the establishment. On the other, he ran from "Washington Democrats". That left his message muddled. Finally, he got caught up in negative attacks in Iowa. Instead of projecting a positive message for Iowans as John Kerry and John Edwards did in the closing days of the Iowa battle, Dean attacked and got angry - and in doing so reinforced the negative images that people have about him. And he did it again last night.
Will Dean rebound? Maybe. I don't know. I took off my Dean bumber sticker today for the second time (the first time was when I thought I might support Clark a few months ago). I'm honestly not sure who I'll support now. I'm still probably more likely to support Howard Dean than anyone else, but I'm going to wait and see.
My feelings last night were mixed. I was disappointed to see Dean lose, but in retrospect, I'm almost glad that he did. If Dean wins the nomination, he'll be a much stronger candidate because he will have fought back, found his message, won over the doubters and will have found a way to unite the Democratic Party. If Dean doesn't win the nomination, we'll have a nominee who fought back when everyone counted him out, be in Kerry, Edwards or Clark. I'd happily support any of those four, as one of them will be our nominee.
I want to apologize to the readers about not blogging from Iowa. I simply had too much to do and the signal quality from Camp Texas was not sufficient for me to do much besides make a quick note over on dailykos.com.
Dean coming in third was something of a surprise; although walking around suggested that Kerry and Edwards late surge was definitely real.
Nonetheless, I'm pretty darn proud of Gov. Dean and our campaign for doing as well as we did, and I've got to say this is one of the most fulfilling experiences I have ever had.
We're outside of Denton now. I got some close up shots of the governor last night, and hopefully I can get them posted soon.
I have many thoughts on the returns of the Iowa Cacauses tonight, but right now I want to focus on Dick Gephardt. I never supported his candidacy for the Presidency, however, when I watched his concession speech tonight when I got home, I almost cried. I remember watching Dick Gephardt in the impeachment debate in 1998 and i was inspired. It was the first time that I had heard Richard Gephardt speak, and he inspired me. He's a great American, and he has been a great fighter for our party. This inspired me in 1998:
Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., the House minority leader, said men were imperfect, and he asked Livingston not to resign, for a moment drawing a bipartisan standing ovation. "Our founding fathers created a system of government of men, not of angels," Gephardt said, his face reddening with emotion as he spoke. "No one standing in this House today can pass a puritanical test of purity that some are demanding that our elected leaders take. If we demand that mere mortals live up to this standard, we will see our seats of government lay empty and we will see the best, most able people unfairly cast out of public service."
Thank you, Dick Gephardt, and thank you for your service to America. You've been a great leader and a great fighter and we'll contine the fight.
Well color me wrong... final tally (or close to it) will be:
Kerry 38
Edwards 32
Dean 18
Gephardt 11
Kucinich 1
Jeez... what a bad night for me. Well, Dean isn't done yet but New Hampshire is going to be a dog fight. Remember though that New Hampshire is pretty stubborn and rarely goes for the same guy as Iowa. In 2000 the GOP saw Bush in IA and McCain in NH, in 1992 for the Dems we saw Harkin in the uncontested IA and Tsongas in NH. In 1988 we saw Gephardt in IA and Dukakis in NH for the Dems and Dole in IA and Bush in NH for the GOP. I think that the Edwards and Kerry rises really puts a dent in the Clark phantom rally which I think came from being one of only two guys in NH. Perhaps the three of them are enough to split the vote and hand the Granite State to Dean. Still, things are not nearly as rosy for the governor as they were 2 weeks ago.
Prognosis:
Gephardt, of course, is done. It's a shame. I didn't support him but he's a good man and served his country admirably. I hope that he is around still in some capacity, as I suspect he will be.
Kerry is flying high but remember that the only reason he had enough money for IA is because he mortgaged his home and took other dramatic measures. If he wins NH (increasingly likely) next week, his fundraising problems will be unimportant- he will be on the fast track to the nomination.
Edwards might even be flying higher because he so stunningly outperformed his expectations. I think he'll take a pass on New Hampshire and focus on South Carolina, Missouri and Oklahoma. If Kerry doesn't win NH and Edwards can win SC and one other come in 2nd in the other of these three and have consistent top 3 finishes everywhere else (AZ, NM, ND and DE), he'll be the front runner I believe.
Dean is struggling pretty hardcore- like I said he is still alive, but if he doesn't win NH, I'd say he's finished. It hurts me to say it but this race will boil down to that. If he does win NH, it will then be a Dean/Kerry/Edwards race and after February 3 I suspect a Dean/Edwards race. If he loses to Kerry it'll be Kerry's to lose with Edwards nipping at his heels, if he loses to Clark it will be Kerry/Clark/Edwards. You'll notice that the common denominator is Edwards, who suddenly is in this thing again.
Clark is really in trouble- Kerry's surge will cut into his growth in New Hampshire and Edwards' surge will cut into him in South Carolina and elsewhere. Clark has to win New Hampshire and South Carolina to be viable and I think he can't win either now.
Lieberman is still a longshot and I think that his position is neither strengthened nor weakened which is to say he'll be done either January 29th or February 4th.
Kucinich will probably be done but might go through the motions just to get a good speaking spot at the convention.
Ditto with Sharpton.
Having said all that I'd given up looking for a second place choice a while ago. It'd change every week. But now, having seen all these candidates in action and having thought about who would make a good candidate and a good president, I think that if Dean loses New Hampshire and thus drops out I will become a committed supporter of John Edwards. He is positive, intelligent, well-spoken, attractive and a very good candidate to hold up next to Bush. I would hope that perhaps Gov. Dean would be considered for his running mate but barring that, I hope for either Wes Clark, Phil Bredesen, Mark Warner or Mary Landrieu. I still think that we are in this thing (Dean that is) but I have to start making some back up plans.
Politicians should really just not talk about diapers. It only gets them in trouble. Ask John Cooksey. Now, ask John Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth with a failed diaper swipe. CNN reports:
Sen. John Kerry took a swipe Sunday at rival presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, painting himself as more mature and experienced -- in exaggerated terms.
Asked by a young woman at an event at Des Moines Area Community College why she should vote for him and not for Edwards, the 60-year-old Vietnam War veteran from Massachusetts talked about his experience and then said, "When I came home from Vietnam in 1969, I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers then yet or not, I'm totally not sure. I don't know." Kerry then appeared to rethink the issue, and said, "He was by then, it was earlier."
A few minutes later, Kerry appeared to regret the initial comment, saying, "I think the difference [between the candidates] is the level of preparedness and experience to be able to get the job done, and I truly don't want to be negative about anybody. That comment I made was not meant to be negative. I don't want to go that road.
It would be one thing if John Edwards really was in diapers in 1969. But, no:
FOX News just interviewed a Kucinich spokesman who said that Dennis Kucinich was asking his supporters in Iowa caucuses where Kucinich was not viable (meaning he receives less than 15% of the preliminary support in the caucus) to support John Edwards. In turn, Edwards supporters in caucuses where Kucinich is viable and Edwards are not would back Kucinich. I can't find anything on FOX News or Google on the web yet, but according to a kos diary, it's also been reported on MSNBC.
At first glance this makes little sense. John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich probably have the least in common ideologically of the five candidates competing in Iowa. The official reason given by the Kucinich campaign was that Edwards and Kucinich were the only candidates running positive campaigns in Iowa and that they both had a lot of respect for each other. Strategically, however, this move makes sense for both candidates.
First of all, Edwards and Kucinich have different bases in Iowa. This is significant because there are likely to be a number of places in Iowa where both candidates can benefit from this deal. Kucinich will probably meet the 15% viability threshhold in caucuses in the university towns such as Ames and Iowa City, where Edwards may have trouble reaching 15%. In Edwards strongholds, said to be in the rural, more conservative and western parts of the state, Kucinich is very unlikely to meet the 15% creditability threshhold, but a few votes in individual caucuses will help Edwards.
Second, while Kucinich has no realistic shot of winning the Democratic nomination, he knows that his support will increase (and he can win more delegates and influence at the convention) if the more liberal candidates are knocked out. Many people who would be inclined to support Dennis Kucinich because of his opposition to the war in Iraq instead supported Dean. If for some reason Dean is knocked out of the race, Dennis Kucinich would be the only candidate in the race who actively opposed the war in Iraq last Spring, and some of Dean's anti-war supporters would gravitate towards Kucinich. While politically it makes more sense for Kucinich supporters to support Dean where Kucinich doesn't meet the viability threshhold, strategically, at least from the perspective of the Kucinich campaign, it does not. Likewise, it's in Kucinich's interest to knock out Dick Gephardt, as Gephardt is the only other candidate who has a long and consistent pro-labor and anti-NAFTA record. The same thing goes for Gephardt. If he is knocked out of the race, Dennis Kucinich would be the only candidate in the race who actively opposed NAFTA and the WTO, and some of Gephardt's labor supporters would gravitate towards Kucinich. As for Kerry, he has a consistently liberal record in the Senate and it is in Dennis Kucinich's strategic interests to knock him out of the race, because Kucinich has a better chance of racking up votes and delegates if he is in a race in the late primaries with a more conservative candidate such as Joe Lieberman or John Edwards.
Will this be a factor? Or will Kucinich supporters just go ahead and move to Dean? Who knows. We'll find out tonight.
1. Howard Dean 30%
2. Dick Gephardt 25%
3. John Edwards 23%
4. John Kerry 22%
Turnout will be record- 140,000
Why? Dean and Gephardt have the best ground organizations and have good hard counts to work from. This means that they are already at a huge advantage that polls simply can't show. Three factors contribute to Dean having such a substantial lead over Gep. First, he is outpolling him in almost all of the public polls by at least a couple of poins. Second, he will almost certainly get at least 2/3 of the Kucinich and Sharpton realigners and a significant number of Clark supporters- those numbers add up quickly. Thirdly, he will be bringing in a huge number of unidentified voters- his people say that they have probably 60% first time Caucus-goers for their hard count and these people are skipped by pollsters. This puts Dean on top.
Gephardt is next simply because he is the only other candidate that has made good use of the voter file, has a strong hard count and good mobilization. Strong on his heels though are Edwards and Kerry. I wanted to put Kerry third because of his strong poll numbers and his stronger organization but essentially both the Johns have the same strategy- Election Day flying blind vs. Longterm Nose Counting (Dean and Gep). Edwards is surging and has become an inspiring candidate. Hell, I like the guy a lot now and if he'd been doing this well 2-3 months ago I might be on a different side now. He'll get most of the Clarkers I think and probably the majority of the Lieberman supporters. All of this makes him a close third and the second biggest story of the night. After Dean's surprisingly easy victory it'll be Edwards out-doing his own expectations. Expect to hear the oft-related statistic that no one who finished lower than 3rd in Iowa has ever gone on to the nomination since their rise to prominence in 1972 and expect Edwards' place among the Iowa 3 to be a big boost for him.
So what will it mean? Gephardt will be finito and Kerry will be on life support. Dean will regain the "front-runner" title but Edwards now becomes the leading insurgent and will most likely cut into Clark's momentum in New Hampshire. This sews up the Granite State for Dean and then February 3 becomes the battleground. Dean will struggle through this day, probably picking up North Dakota, Delaware and maybe Arizona, Missouri and New Mexico while Clark and Edwards battle for South Carolina and Oklahoma. Whoever comes out on top between the two of them- 1st place finishes in SC and OK, 2nd place finishes in ND and DE and surprise victories or better than expected finishes everywhere else- will survive, the other will be finished. Dean and the Southerner trudge through the next several states but it'll either be over on February 17 when Wisconsin goes for Dean or March 2nd when Dean kicks butt on Super Tuesday. Either way, Dean is the nominee, the Southerner would do well to unite the party and run for VP and we'll be off to the races against Bush!
If I knew the answer, I'd be a genius. But I don't, which explains why I haven't done too much posting on the caucuses up there, despite the fact that I've been totally fascinated by the race in Iowa. I've been addicted to Google News on Iowa and I've read several dozen articles on the race everyday for the past few days (in addition to the blogs, etc.). I frankly haven't known what to say. This is one of these races where the only way to really be able to understand what's going on would be to be there in the state. A week ago everything seemed pretty clear. Howard Dean had a narrow lead over Dick Gephardt, who had a narrow lead over John Kerry who had a narrow lead over John Edwards. That's where we stood on January 8th where those candidates polled 29-25-18-8 in the KCCI poll and 25-23-15-14 in the Zogby Tracking Poll two days later. The dynamics of the race have completely changed since then. Then, the race was not one, but two races. The race between Gephardt and Dean for first and the race between Kerry and Edwards for third. Then, the buzz was about whether Gephardt would be able to consolidate the anti-Dean vote and ride it to victory. Would Kerry and Edwards all but throw in the towel to deny Dean? Or would Dean work to help Edwards secure third place. After all, a Dean-Gephardt-Edwards-Kerry (or Dean-Edwards-Gephardt-Kerry) finish is, in my opinion, the best possible scenario for Dean. Such a showing would be a knock out blow (or close to one) to both Gephardt and Kerry. Meanwhile, an Edwards finish of second or third would prop Edwards up for a strong showing in the February 3rd primaries, likely taking votes away from Dean's most feared rival - Wesley Clark. So, what now? Throw it all out the window.
I'm smart enough not to make any predictions for Iowa. Ok, I lied. I still think that a Dean-Gephardt-Kerry-Edwards finish is the most likely. But I'm much less sure of that guess than I am of my prediction that all four will be within several thousand votes, and the margins between the first and second, second and third, or third and fourth could easily be in the hundreds.
Perhaps the most interesting question, however is how has Howard Dean fallen 5-7 points and seen his lead evaporate in the same week that he scored the endorsements of Tom Harkin, Ann Richards and Carol Moseley Braun? On the surface, that would be considered one hell of a week. Beneath that, however, has been other problems. While I think that Dean's comments about Iowa four years ago hurt him, I think the most significant problem was the fact that both Dean and Gephardt were perceived as running highly negative campaigns, something that both realized today were hurting them, as both Gephardt and Dean have agreed to pull their attack ads. The Gephardt-Dean negative ads appear to have driven the undecides towards Kerry and Edwards. The endorsement of Edwards by the Des Moines Register certainly helped him as well. Still, even if Zogby is giving Kerry a 5-point lead, Dean and Gephardt have much more extensive ground opperations than the surging Edwards and Kerry do. Even more significant is Dean's support that probably hasn't been identified in traditional polling. Students that use cell phones (yeah, there's a lot of us out there) are undercounted, and Dean has heavily courted them. Of course the big question is if these young people and students will actually vote. But if they do - they'll be a sizeable force. Just look at what's happened in Johnson County:
Polk County, the state's most populous, has seen the number of people registering or switching parties in the past six months increase 10 percent over such activity four years ago. Johnson County has seen its new registrations in the last six months jump 300 percent from the same period four years ago - largely attributed to students at the University of Iowa.
Those new voters could help former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, one of the leading Democratic candidates, a U of I political scientist said.
"We've been speculating that Dean was more active in bringing new people into the process than any of the other candidates," said Peverill Squire. "That would seem to bode well for Dean."
Overall voter registration numbers are inconclusive. More than 90,000 Iowans registered to vote in the past 10 months, according to Culver's office.
The increase in voter registration is unusual at this stage, according to election observers. They say that most new registrations in a caucus year typically occur on the night of the precinct gatherings.
So what's your prediction? I'd love to hear from Karl and Jim (both of whom are in Iowa as Dean Texas Rangers) on this...
I'm here right now in Houston where we're I'm sitting in a big, mostly empty charter bus headed to Des Moines, Iowa. This is, after all, the first stop -- there are lots of folks to pick up in Spring and Dallas -- of the 14 hour trip. So it'll be pretty tight once we get to Iowa tomorrow morning.
Once again, the Texas Dean campaign is sending up volunteers to get-out-the-vote for Howard Dean in next week's Iowa caucuses.
In addition to blogging the trip for burnorangereport.com, I've been appointed by my little sister's first grade class to show their travelling teddy bear (a teddy bear which is sent with the kids' family members on interesting trips) about how a presidential campaign works. "Island Bear" is also going to learn about the great state of Iowa.
As part of that, I've packed some ham radio gear which will allow my computer to automatically report our position (presuming the thing works, of course). If it does, you can look up Island Bear's current latitude and longitude via APRSWorld.Net.
Greetings all back in the Lone Star State. I am currently in Des Moines, Iowa in the hub of state activity for the Dean campaign, awaiting the arrival of the 200+ Texas Rangers coming in the next couple of days.
I actually was in Manchester, New Hampshire for some time last week and it has been an experience to canvass and work in both states to see the different styles of operation.
NH- Slower paced, methodical, colder.
IA- Fast paced, hectic, 5 days to caucus fever.
The pollsters and the pundits are talking it up about how the race is tightening in Iowa. I'm not sure that I see that reflected here and I get the feeling it's all based off of Zogby's tracking poll. I just don't see how someone drops 7-9 points in two days when there hasn't been any major events to shift the political landscape. The Braun news and Carter on Sunday, combined with the All Star Bus tour, Harkin endorsing ads on the radio, and 3000 volunteers coming into the state is going to make a difference that the polls are not picking up soon enough.
It is my feeling, being on the inside but not too far in, that the actual vote is not reflective of the polls. Polling for caucuses is harder than for primaries. In this contest, there are many new voters going to caucus that have not before. I know, I've seen it first hand and keep hearing it from the field. These people are not your "likely Democratic Caucus goers". Many of them are Independents as well, not being targeted by pollsters or most of the other candidates.
In addition the polls don't take into account all the work that is going in this weekend. We have Dean people everywhere...
Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Dubuque, Ottumwa, Waterloo, Ames, Boone, Mason City, Burlington, Sioux City, Fort Dodge... and there are of course lower level places where people are being forwarded to. No other campaign is matching that canvassing power.
Being conservative, if even 2,500 volunteers knock on 150 doors each for the weekend (I knocked on 100 a day in my experience), that is 375,000 doors. If we get the 35% contact rate that is typical, that is just over 130,000 people. Then, if we even get a measly 10% of them to be IDed as Dean supporters, in addition to getting many to become leaning Dean going into the caucus, that's over 10,000 new people this weekend alone.
The most Democrats that have ever shown up are estimated to be 125,000 in 1988 (which are claimed to be inflated as well). So a 10% bounce on the weekend is not entirely impossible. The other candidates do not have that capability; Gephardt is the only one who comes close with his Union support (though it seems to end at that).
Yes, these numbers seem like the usual overblown expectations. But this time, the people and the estimates are based on facts from reality. I could be wrong, but I will say now that I think that the eventual Caucus delegate results are not going to reflect what the polls and pundits are now chattering about.
Via the AP, Carol Moseley Braun is dropping out of the presidential race to endorse Howard Dean.
Officials close to Dean's campaign confirmed that they expected Braun to officially endorse the former Vermont governor Thursday in Carroll. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.
Dean's campaign spokeswoman declined to comment when asked about the report.
What impact does this have on the race? Well, its not like Braun was pulling a lot of support in IA or NH or raising a whole lot of money. Still, it adds to Dean's credibility among black voters and it frees up NOW and Braun campaign manager, former NOW president Patricia Ireland to try and up Dean's numbers among women. Is it enough to end it outright? No, but it will go a long way to making Dean look increasingly inevitable in the eyes of the media.
U.S. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz. said Thursday that he will endorse Wesley Clark for the presidency in the democratic primary.
"I think we need a strong leader like General Clark," Ortiz said. "And I think we need somebody that can win."
Ortiz said that current Democratic Party front-runner Howard Dean has become increasingly vulnerable to attacks from his own party. This, along with Dean's fiery temperament, is eroding the electronic-fundraising dynamo's ability to win the general election, Ortiz said.
"At least with him (Clark), we will give the Republicans a good run."
Ortiz said that he decided to endorse Clark after several weeks of conversation with the retired general. Ortiz described Clark as even-tempered and a good listener with the right qualifications .
"I think he is capable in many ways," Ortiz said. "It think he understands the problems we face, the atmosphere of the world today. I mean, we have so many hotspots. We are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq and (Clark) was involved in the mission in Bosnia."
Ortiz become the eighth Texas Democratic Congressman to make an endorsement in the Presidential race. Max Sandlin, Chet Edwards, Silvestre Reyes, Gene Green and Chris Bell have endorsed Dick Gephardt. Eddie Bernice Johnson has endorsed John Edwards, and Shelia Jackson-Lee has endorsed Howard Dean.
How so, you ask? Well, as Taegan noted on Political Wire, the Houston Chronicle reports that John Kerry is aiming for second in Iowa.
The spot of runner-up is never highly coveted in beauty or other contests, but in the upcoming Iowa caucuses, second place is looking pretty good to Sen. John Kerry...
Polls have shown Kerry running third in Iowa, behind former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Missouri U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt -- a stark reversal from the same time last year, when Kerry was leading and Dean was polling in the single digits.
But last month, after Kerry mortgaged his home to fund the campaign, diverted staff and spending from New Hampshire to Iowa and intensified his advertising in Iowa, internal polls by the Dean campaign showed Kerry overtaking Gephardt among likely caucus participants.
With such a crowded field it is likely that in Iowa there will be only 1 or 2 candidates at most that can break the 15%. Furthermore, all of those Kucinich people (who are unlikely to have 15% and are a force to be reckoned with in dovish, pro-labor, populist Iowa), all of those Sharpton and Braun people and have to go somewhere- most of them will go to Dean. As a result, Dean probably now has 40% of the vote or so. If 2 candidates are fighting a knockdown dragout for the other 60%, neither is likely to beat Dean. Sure, if Kerry gets second that'll be a big story, but Dean will still walk away the winner.
The best way to stop Dean would be for Kerry to lower expectations publicly- "I'm hoping for a top 3 finish and then we can focus on NH"- and then try a half-hearted attempt at second and then throw his support to Gephardt. Instead, he's gunning for Gephardt and the two of them might split the vote enough that Dean wins big. Now, the story isn't "Look- Kerry finished second" it's "Howard Dean blew them out of the water." Going into NH, Clark is currently in second. If Kerry comes in 2nd in IA that'll hurt Clark, but if Dean wins big there, it'll bolster his "inevitability" and strengthen his NH finish, killing Kerry's chances. This will play into his hand and by January 28 both Gephardt and Kerry's gooses will be cooked with Howard Dean walking away with a big advantage in delegates.
All of this is to say that after January 28 it will be a 4 man race- Dean, Clark, Edwards and Lieberman- and after February 3 it'll be at most a two man race- Dean and Clark. Get ready for a bloody February and early March as they fight it out for the nomination, but hopefully when the dust clears they'll both be on the ticket despite declarations to the contrary.
The American Research Group has started tracking polls of New Hampshire and has found that while Howard Dean holds a dominating lead with 37% of the vote, John Kerry and Wes Clark are in a neck-and-neck race for second- 16% to 13% respectively. Furthermore, Kerry's numbers are trending down and Clark's trending up. Clark also will have about $13 million to blow after this quarter. If Clark beats Kerry out for second in New Hampshire you can stick JFK with a fork- he'll be done. If you'd told anyone a year ago that Kerry would be a distant second and dropping down to third place in New Hampshire they'd have thought you were nuts. Now its a fact. Additionally, some observers (most notably James Carville) believe that Kerry could pull out a second place finish in Iowa, upsetting Gephardt, a real coup. If Kerry even gets close enough to make it a nail-biter for second in Iowa and opens first up for Dean Gep will be done and then the next week Kerry will be done with Clark's place two finish. Finally, the thing is- with so many people bunched up together as "anti-Dean" candidates there's an excellent chance that they'll each get less than 15% in these states- making them ineligible for any delegates. Dean will have a commanding lead in delegates going into February 3rd and a first place finish in Arizona, Missouri, Delaware and perhaps even South Carolina and solid second place finishes everywhere else will mean that Edwards and Lieberman will be done with few if any delegates to their names. Dean will lead Clark by a very large margin meaning that if he can coast and keep from getting blown out anywhere and win where he ought to and he'll have a big lead going into Super Tuesday. After big wins in NY, CA and other delegate rich states Clark's goose will be cooked.
So what does this all mean? Its essentially a two-man race: Clark and Dean. If Gephardt wins in Iowa he gets nothing- he was supposed to win it easy and the story will be how hard it was for him to win there- and Dean has New Hampshire on lockdown barring any big missteps meaning that John Kerry lost the state that was his to lose. Gephardt has sunk so much money and effort into Iowa that he's a non-starter everywhere else. Dean and Clark are the only candidates with real money- the nomination will be a contest between the two of them.
This contest will create a fissure in the party and the only solution to it will be for them to run together after the order of their finish is decided. They balance well- Dean is the Northeastern "liberal" Clark a Southern moderate. Dean was very vocally anti-Iraq from the beginning, Clark was pro-Iraq with some caveats. They both have great grassroots campaigns, great fundraising and they are both fresh faces. If they can win Gore's states plus Arkansas (Clark's home) they'll be only one state- West Virginia, Ohio, Arizona, Missouri- from winning the whole shebang. Clark's military record and Dean's independent streak will serve them well in all of those places. As remote as the possibility seemed a year ago Howard Dean might be elected president in November of this year.
Who is Howard Dean? He's been compared to Bill Clinton, John McCain, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Bill Bradley, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot, Harry Truman, Josiah Bartlett, Barry Goldwater, Steve Forbes, Jerry Brown, William Jennings Bryan and George W. Bush.
Thought you heard them all? In a column yesterday in the Dallas Morning News, William McKenzie makes the case for John Anderson:
Mr. Dean is galvanizing young people. They are dropping everything and setting out to his headquarters. Deaniacs are bonded together by their passion for doing what they think is right. The Bushites shouldn't scoff at that. Idealism will make Dean supporters fight until the last.
Mr. Anderson had a similar effect on young people in 1980. They saw the centrist as the alternative to Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Doonesbury loved pricking our idealism, depicting rookie aides as running the Anderson campaign asunder. Still, there was a band-of-brothers feel, much like the Dean campaign possesses.
Mr. Dean is filled with righteous anger. The man is convinced, I mean convinced, that Mr. Bush is part of the axis of evil. There is nothing like a little moral clarity to get your juices going and to keep those checks coming in.
Mr. Anderson's angry-man performance in Iowa's January 1980 debate turned our headquarters topsy-turvy. Phone calls came in like machine-gun fire after he soared in that debate. So did the money, as he became the Republican who didn't want the GOP to head into kookdom.
Mr. Dean is popular among suburban professionals in the Northern half of the country. When the Vermont doctor rolls up those sleeves and starts going after the right wing, he is talking the language of suburban boomers from Westchester County to Seattle.
Mr. Anderson also found a ready audience there. Suburban professionals around Boston, San Francisco and Chicago loved him.
Mr. Dean is seen as a liberal star, although his gubernatorial credentials are fairly centrist.
Mr. Anderson also became the darling of liberals, when he actually had a moderate voting record. He represented blue-collar Rockford, Ill., for 20 years, for heaven's sake.
Interesting points, interesting comparisons, but I think that it just proves the bigger point that you can basically compare Howard Dean to anyone. Ultimately, Roger Simin has it right on target. The candidate that Howard Dean most resembles is Howard Dean. For better or for worse...
You know it's an election year when you start to see shoddy smear-jobs against candidates.
The absolute worst so far this season has been John Solomon's AP story which magically transforms Howard Dean into a "hypocrite" using old quotes taken out of context, bad analogies, and the selective use of facts.
John Solomon's AP story is a travesty. If it ran in your newspaper today, I strongly urge you as an American to write a letter to the editor and tell the whole story.
The lead paragraph pretty much sets the tone --
Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, who has criticized the Bush administration for refusing to release the deliberations of its energy policy task force, as governor of Vermont convened a similar panel that met in secret and angered state lawmakers.
Much is made in the story about how "similar" the two task forces were. Solomon makes a point of beating the idea into the readers' head in the 9th-to-last paragraph, in which he writes "The parallels between the Cheney and Dean task forces are many."
And while the story does make a cursory run through the facts, which in totality show that the "parallels" are few, the empasis remains on the claim that the task forces are somehow equal.
True, both task forces held secret sessions and talked about energy, but that's about as far as the comparison goes.
Moreover, many of the facts of the story are buried so far down that most small papers, like the Galveston County Daily News, cut them out entirely. Here is the letter to the editor that I just wrote about this --
Your snippet on Howard Dean (Monday, A4) is lamentable. The AP story from which it was cut is a biased piece of "gotcha" journalism, using a lot of old quotes, flimsy analogies, and over-reaching generalizations to imply hypocrisy on Gov. Dean's part, when none exists.
Howard Deans energy task force in Vermont was not comparable to Dick Cheneys energy task force in Washington.
First, the Vermont task force held a public hearing (Cheney did not). Second, the Vermont task force had balanced input from a number of citizens' groups, not just "liberal" ones like the AP story implies.
Third, the Vermont group listed the participants publicly in their final report. To this day, Vice President Cheney formally refuses to even say who he talked to, and is fighting in the Supreme Court to prevent the people from finding out. The Daily News left this out.
There is no comparison.
That pretty much sums it up, although I'm leaving out another detail (but, heck, so did John Solomon).
The reason why Democrats want to get their hands on the Cheney task forces' deliberations is a little complicated. Under one interpretation of Federal Advisory Committee Act, secret task forces aren't supposed to exist on the federal level at all. The Vermont task force, was, of course, governed by Vermont's open-meeting law, so there's your number one difference.
The thing about FACA, though, is that it only bans secret meetings if non-government personnel are involved.
Although the White House claims the only participants were government officials (and hence, not covered by FACA but by other, more generous acts), there has always been a pretty deep suspicion that energy industry lobbyists were participating within the definition of FACA. If they did, then the Vice President may very well have broken the law.
The only way to know whether the energy task force was operating within the law is to look through the deliberations.
That is why Cheney is stone-walling the Sierra Club, Justice Watch, and others. It's not political, it's legal. Much as Richard Nixon sought to block access to the Watergate tapes to prevent people from finding out what he knew about CREEP's illegal activities, Cheney may very well be blocking this to save his own hide.
What happened in Washington may have been a crime, and essentially the White House is trying to obstruct justice, in the broadest, non-legal sense of the term.
Now, my understanding is that the secret meetings of the Vermont task force were fully within the laws of the state of Vermont. While it would be nice if the task force unveiled their records (as a matter of public curiousity), there aren't any legal ramifications.
At any rate, John Solomon's AP story about Howard Dean leaves all of this out, instead blurring the story as if it were solely about "secrecy." Secrecy has a place in government -- if it's within the law and handled professionally, as Howard Dean's task force handled it.
My gut feeling is that this story probably came out of a "blast fax" from either the Republicans or a Democratic rival. Too many of the points made in the story seem like they were dug out of Lexis-Nexis by an over-eager oppo researcher.
Again, please write your newspaper editor and kill this story. Do not let ignorance and Below-The-Beltway sophistry taint a good man!
Good News, and a special thanks to everyone who told Nader not to run. Without Nader, the Greens don't have a high profile, highly recognizable candidate, and they'll take less votes. Without the Green Party Nader will have more trouble attaining ballot access and money. It's a win-win situation for Democrats.
First let me say that it is votes that win elections. This post is simply a statement that money helps the previous sentence to become a reality for candidates. Consider the following comments from today's Chicago Tribune...
When Al Gore endorsed Dean's candidacy, supporters contributed $695,658.75. After a group of fellow Democrats aired attack ads, donors defended him by pledging $552,214.62. Even on Halloween, Dean admirers gave $354,891.48.....
The loose change accounts for only a sliver of Dean's record-setting Internet fundraising, which in a recent 17-day period generated nearly $3 million...
Dean's money has allowed him to launch a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign in a half-dozen states and deploy workers to 18 more. Why devote such time and attention to a national effort while most candidates still are focused on January's contests in Iowa and New Hampshire? Because he can.
And then a few paragraphs down comes the following nugget (even after both Lieberman and Gephardt both reached half million dollar fundraising goals on their websites this past month).
Last week, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts lent $850,000 of his personal wealth to his campaign and prepared to take out a far larger loan against the value of his Boston home. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut urged his staff to voluntarily delay one of their January paychecks for a month. And Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri asked his top aides to cut their salaries so he could keep running television ads.
And the sad thing? Sharpton who has about zero money and doesn't even campaign as hard as these guys is leading them in South Carolina and other state polls in the South. So once he beats them, will the media write them off. Either that or Sharpton could become the coveted "anti-Dean".
I was going to post something about the Democratic Texas Ballot yesterday but I see that Byron was thinking some of the same things. So far, filing for a spot as a 2004 Presidential Candidate are four people.
Howard Dean, who was first to file for the spot.
Joe Lieberman, who apparently fairs well in the few Texas polls I have seen but I'm not sure he will even survive to our March 9 Primary.
Lyndon LaRouche, Jr., who I believe we have already covered.
and
Randy Crow, who likes to spell some words with s's in them with $'s instead.
Frankly, with half of the candidates filing so far being, um, not entirely normal, I would quite like to see some of the candidates filed for the DC Primary try to get on our ballot. I think Vermin Supreme would really shake up the race.
Perennial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, an economist making his eighth consecutive bid for the White House, has filed for a place on the Texas Democratic primary ballot.
[...]
After LaRouche filed Thursday, Texas Democratic Party spokesman Sean Michael Byrne said his name will appear on the March 9 ballot, but the party contends LaRouche isn't qualified to be the nominee because he is not a registered voter.
Byrne said LaRouche also will be ineligible to win delegates at the national convention because he is not qualified under the party's rules.
When will LaRouche stop? I received a call from his scheduler last year when LaRouche was planning a speech at UT and I was president of the University Democrats. He asked if we would be willing to sponsor the event. I politely told him that I'd get in touch with my officer board and call him back. I never called him back. I've always felt like the best strategy in dealing with LaRouche is to ignore him. Let him on the ballot, sure, but other than that, just ignore him. He's harmless as long as we don't give him any attention (which I guess I'm doing here... oh well).
Well, John Kerry's using the F-word, and Wesley Clark said that he'll beat the shit out of anyone who questions his military record:
Moments after praising his opponents in the Democratic presidential race as worthy running mates, Wesley Clark said, in no uncertain terms, how he would respond if they or anyone else criticized his patriotism or military record.
"I'll beat the s--- out of them," Clark told a questioner as he walked through the crowd after a town hall meeting Saturday. "I hope that's not on television," he added.
It was, live, on C-SPAN.
Good for Clark. It's time that more Democrats get tough and don't take shit.
Yeah, President Bush has cut federal income taxes, but with the vast amount of those cuts going to the wealthiest Americans, the burden has fallen on everyone else. Sure, the middle and working class federal income tax brackets were cut, but the effect of that was the raising of local property taxes and other taxes to make up for the budget shortfalls across the country. The net effect is a new tax on working families.
Learn more at Bush Tax.com (it's run by the Dean campaign).
First it was the Club for Growth, now its Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values. Check out their ad with Osama and Dean. Who the heck are they?
Dean has his response, here.
I argued in a Kos Diaries thread earlier tonight that Dean shouldn't be coronated. A fight is good for Dean and good for Democrats. Here's what I wrote:
Ya know what? I'll disagree. I support Dean, but I don't want him coronated. I mean I want him to be able to have to go toe to toe with Gephardt or Clark or Kerry or Edwards or whoever for a few weeks before he secures the nomination. As much as we hate to see our guy get beat up on, you got to admit, in the long run, it's a good thing. Bill Bradley made Al Gore a stronger candidate. John McCain made George W. Bush a stronger candidate. A little adversity can make a candidate stronger. Obviously, I don't want to see Dean make any gaffes or mistakes that will hurt him in the general election, but I would like to see him be asked tough questions and be forced to defend his record. It will make him stronger.
Fine, but comparing Dean to Osama? Please. We can do better than that. Worse, is that the people behind this look to be folks working for Kerry and Gephardt. It's a shame to see it, but it's something that Dean will have to learn to fight off.
Update: My apologies to Jim. I guess we both saw this at about the same time. Look below for his take on this story.
In the last few days, an organization billing itself as the "Americans for Jobs, Health Care, and Progressive Values" has put together $200,000+ worth of political hit jobs on Howard Dean.
The WaPo tells all:
SOME HARD-HITTING ADS have been running in Iowa. One compares former Vermont governor Howard Dean to President Bush, citing both men's "top grades" from the National Rifle Association. The latest notes that "Howard Dean and George Bush stood together and supported the unfair NAFTA trade agreement." At the end, the announcer intones, "So if you thought Howard Dean had a progressive record, check the facts. And please, think again." But it's not any of Mr. Dean's rivals who are seeking this reconsideration. nstead, it's a new entity that calls itself "Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values."
Values that don't include letting voters know who's footing the bill. The group has spent $230,000 for the first week of ads, but it won't say where the money is coming from. Under the out-of-sync reporting schedule that governs such groups, donors' names don't have to be revealed until early February, after the caucuses are safely over. Meanwhile, its identity is getting more and more mysterious: Early last week, its president was Timothy L. Raftis, a former aide to Sen. Tom Harkin; now, a new president has suddenly appeared on the group's Web site: former representative Edward Feighan (D-Ohio). The group's treasurer is fundraiser David Jones, who has worked for one of Mr. Dean's chief rivals, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri -- but suddenly, it has a new spokesman, John Kerry's former press secretary, Robert Gibbs, which might suggest, to the conspiracy-minded, an effort to deflect attention from a possible Gephardt connection. (The Gephardt campaign says it knows nothing about the group.)
So is the money from unions that back Mr. Gephardt but don't want to be publicly connected to this anti-Dean campaign? At least some such unions have been solicited. Or is it from a few wealthy donors who don't like Mr. Dean -- and perhaps are backing another one of the trailing Democratic candidates? From Republicans who want to take Mr. Dean down a few notches? There's no way for a voter in Iowa to know, not in time for that information to make a difference. The group could voluntarily disclose its backers before the legal deadline, but it won't. "The reason is that's what we've chosen to do. . . . We want to ensure that we have full disclosure rather than piecemeal," Mr. Raftis told us.
We've seen this kind of stealth group before. During the 2000 primary campaign, a mystery group calling itself "Republicans for Clean Air" suddenly appeared with more than $2 million in advertising supporting then-candidate George W. Bush. Brothers Charles and Sam Wyly, Dallas investors, came forward to claim responsibility, but their exploit underscored a dangerous loophole in the campaign finance system that allowed groups to avoid disclosing their activities unless they called explicitly for a candidate's election or defeat. Congress responded with a law requiring such groups to report their donations and expenditures. But it didn't think through the consequences of the reporting schedule it chose: Until the election year, groups are required to file reports only twice a year. (Disclosure is required if the groups run broadcast ads naming a candidate within 30 days of the caucus or primary, but even that rule doesn't apply to other forms of campaign activity, such as direct mail or phone calls.)
We don't really know who is doing this (and that's the problem), so it would be wrong to blame any other candidate -- or even he Republicans, although we know they're the ultimate beneficiaries.
Speak out! You can e-mail this group at info@progressivevalues.com. Tell them to stop hiding behind a wall of secrecy.
Moreover, when they put out ads like this one... well, regardless of which candidate you support, the only way to describe this is disgusting. At the very least because it implies that Bush knows something about foreign policy.
(Let's not kid ourselves -- a mentally-deficient chimpanzee would be a more effective leader than Bush is).
Normally, I don't concern myself with what Kucinich is doing because I don't care. That is my prerogative as a voter and a human being.
Perhaps it's also within their rights for ABC to pull their "embedded reporter" from the Kucinich campaign at will, but they can't exactly claim to be objective when they do it.
I thought the voters picked the candidates, not the media networks... silly me.
Via DailyKOS poster ECH, the Scripps-Howard Texas Poll shows Bush's approval rating falling to 58 percent in Texas. While healthy, it does suggest that independent Texas voters are beginning to sour on the President.
The poll also shows vulnerabilities for Gov. Perry (who placed behind Sen. Hutchison in a hypothetical matchup in 2006) and House Speaker Craddick.
Among Democrats, the poll shows Gov. Dean with 16 percent, Gen. Clark with 14 percent, and Sen. Lieberman with 14 percent.
Poll internals are not available, yet.
Meanwhile, Bush filed for the Texas presidential primary (actually, Perry filed Bush's paperwork, but the two are like peas-and-carrots, so what's the difference?). The only major Democrat to file for the Texas primary, so far, has been Gov. Dean, whose campaign filed a week ago.
CNN's Morning Grind suggests that Gore's endorsement of Dean may go back to dealings the two had over six years ago --
So, how did this friendship and/or alliance develop? After all, wasn't it Dean who once openly entertained the notion of challenging Gore in '00?
Hmmm .... Gosh, it seems like just yesterday that ..... (Cue the flashback sequence effect) ....
Dean and then-VP Gore, both with darker hair and more of it, met at the White House on December 3, 1997, almost six years ago to the day, to discuss Dean's possible bid against Gore in 2000. Gore/Kerry strategist Michael Whouley confirmed in the book "Campaign for President: the Managers Look at 2000," that the purpose of the meeting was specifically to discuss Dean's aspirations.
Dean was in DC at the time for a Democratic Governors Association meeting and had been publicly mulling a bid for the White House. He had said he wouldn't make a decision about running until about February 1999. Dean met with Gore the following day in the White House, and not only told Gore that he was considering a run, but that he was definitely going to run for the nomination in 2000.
According to the AP's Ron Fournier, Gephardt tested his presidential campaign rhetoric with a speech that harshly criticized the administration's politics and policy. It deepened a rift between the White House and Gephardt, prompting Bill Clinton and the Missourian to seek peace in a late-night telephone call.
After smoothing things over with Gephardt, Clinton shared some political gossip: Dean had warned Gore that he was running for president. Word leaked out and Dean, fearing voter backlash at home, quickly told the AP: "I have not stated in any conversation with anyone that I'm going to run for the presidential nomination."
Dean's supporters say the governor, acting on the recommendation of his political team, met with Gore only to let the vice president know in person that he was considering a presidential race. But White House and Democratic officials in Washington said Dean left no doubt he was running.
About a month later, Dean announced on January 4, 1998 that he wouldn't run. "I'm not running," he said at his announcement. Dean said he had discussed the decision over the holidays with his family, and that his wife and kids were reluctant about a White House bid.
Dean eventually backed Gore over Bill Bradley on January 19, 2000, in Lebanon, New Hampshire, and was immediately touted as a possible secretary of Health and Human Services in a Gore administration.
Which leads one to wonder if there was ever a "if I lose I'll back you in '04" deal ever cut. No evidence of that really, but it at least adds a little bit of texture to the biggest political story of the week (so far).
Generally, most analysis thus far of the endorsement has been either:
(A) What I would call the "naive" standpoint, Dean is the upstart outsider who must come and prostrate himself before the mighty Gore; or
(B) The "machiavellian" standpoint -- Gore is trying to bounce off of Dean to fuel a future bid.
While both of these may contain a grain of truth, it tends to overlook the possibility that Gore may simply owe Dean a favor, or even may have been impressed by Dean's influence as chair of the Democratic Governors Association (before this year, Dean was hardly a nobody, even if he was an outsider).
More likely (applying Occam's Razor), Gore just happens to like Dean and his campaign. Either way it's certainly a turnaround from 2000, when then-candidate Gore had to seek out the endorsement of Howard Dean (popular neighboring-state goveror) in order to just-barely beat Bill Bradley in New Hampshire.
I'd say that there's about a 90% chance that Howard Dean will win the Democratic nomination for President. Al Gore has been shut out of the Democratic establishment in Washington D.C. since his loss in 2000. Terry McAuliffe is a Clinton guy, as are most of the D.C. establishment types. Gore may be shut out in Washington D.C., but he has something else that is much more powerful. While he'll never be a hero to liberals, Al Gore brings about a feeling of nostalgia among Democrats of all stripes all across the country. We, along with the plurality of American voters, voted for him in 2000. We believe he should be our President today. He may have little sway in D.C. Democratic establishment circles, but Al Gore is an icon to the Democratic primary voters across America.
And this is the point. Al Gore may have been shut out of Washington D.C establishment, but he's smart enough to know that he has a following among the Democratic rank and file. And he's using it. Because unless Howard Dean manages to lose the Democratic nomination (something I see as highly unlikely) it's a win-win situation for Al Gore. Sure, he pisses off Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, etc., but that's irrelevent. If Dean beats Bush next November, Al Gore was the kingmaker. Heck, even if he doesn't he's the kingmaker and he'll get credit for Dean's nomination and people will pay attention when he speaks. If Dean wins, Gore can be wherever he wants. If he wants to be Secretary of State, or anything else, it's his. Then if Dean loses to Bush, Gore wins, too. Gore can inherit Dean's support and set himself up to be the Democratic nominee in 2008. Yeah, Hillary may run, and she'd be formidable, but by endorsing Dean, Gore gives himself a base that could counter Hillary's. The only downside for endorsing Dean is if Dean doesn't win the Democratic nomination, and that's very unlikely. Gore's a smart guy, and he's done what's in his best political interest.
At first I thought it might be a random fluke. Last week, I received an e-mail from the John Kerry Campaign concerning his HIV/AIDS platform including links back to his website. The e-mail was an official campaign e-mail and I had to reply to opt out being added to their campaign. Now of course, I have visited his site before, but never have I signed up or asked for any material about HIV/AIDS. I wrote it off just as an oddball occurrence.
But today things changed. I got in my e-mail to the same address, official e-mails from the Dick Gephardt and Wesley Clark Campaigns concerning their stances on HIV/AIDS issues. The Gephardt e-mail makes it very clear that if I don't unsubscribe I will continue to receive e-mails, just like the Kerry one. The Clark one encourages me to explore their site and join but makes no mention of whether or not I am actually on their e-mail list now.
I am trying to figure out what is up here. Either some gay advocacy group has sold their e-mail distribution lists without my knowing, or these campaigns are running some software to gather e-mail addresses related to particular interest groups. In any case, I am not pleased if this is not an isolated case. I have not signed up for these campaigns and wonder how many of these campaigns "supporters" are involuntarily in their databases.
Did you feel you were blindsided by Dean's success?
Well, not blindsided. I mean, when I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, "I'm against everything"? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did.
And thats not all. Kerry's making shit up in regards to poll numbers. I like John Kerry. He's a good Senator. But he failed on the Iraq vote. And he's failed to show leadership when we've needed it. Howard Dean has shown that leadership, and that's why he'll win the nomination. In a way I feel bad for John Kerry. As the Rolling Stone article demonstrates, he has the perfect profile to run for president. But he's failed to test of inspiring people that he can change the culture of Washington D.C. under President Bush. Howard Dean has.
The White House is launching an attack on Sen. John Kerry because he used the f-word in an interview:
In a rare White House rebuke of a Democratic presidential candidate, chief of staff Andrew Card called on U.S. Sen. John Kerry on Sunday to apologize for using a four-letter expletive in an interview lambasting President Bush's Iraq policy.
Kerry was quoted by Rolling Stone magazine as saying, "Did I expect George Bush to f..k it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did."
Card criticized Kerry for the using the expletive.
"I've known John Kerry for a long time and I'm very disappointed that he would use that kind of language," Card said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"That's beneath John Kerry. ... I'm hoping that he's apologizing, at least to himself, because that's not the John Kerry that I know," Card added.
Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter scoffed at the suggestion the senator apologize.
"I could think of a lot of words to add to the one John Kerry used that would be equally appropriate," she said.
"I think the American people would rather Card and the rest of the White House staff spend more time on fixing Bush's flawed policy in Iraq than on Senator Kerry's language."
I for one feel there aren't enough expletives to describe just how badly things are going in Iraq.
But at the very least, it ought to show you where the President's priorities lie. In the words of Kyle's Mom in the South Park movie, "Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!"
Some random updates and commentary from out there on the World Wide Web...
Though it isn't from Dave McNeely's Blog, his latest column has an interesting tidbit instead. (I sat in on this interview the other day and waited for it to show up in print.)
It's a stark departure from the tactics of the past, depending on television ads and targeted direct mail aimed at known voters. And it's attracting new people. Of the 15,000 signed up for Dean in Travis County, for instance, 52 percent did not vote in the last three Democratic primary elections.
Eighty percent attending a Dallas meeting said they had never been political organizers before because they'd never been asked.
And that last bit about the Dallas meeting (with Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi) is quite true. While there were some seasoned political veterans, most of the people were getting involved in their very first campaign or came back after 30 years of inaction.
And while this next tidbit is quite old, I have been waiting for someone to report it.
Black leaders largely dismissed the flap over Dean's comment about appealing to whites with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks, saying he has won some admiration in the black community for his willingness to speak out.
I made the comment a while back that the whole issue was blown up by those that had the most to gain- other white presidential candidates. If you look at Dean's negatives in polls, they didn't sustain any major increase after it either, leading me to believe that everyone wanted to talk about it, but no one really cared all that much. (besides those that had something to gain or hate Dean anyways)
And my last sighting, which Byron might have more to actually comment on...
Longtime state Rep. Steve Wolens, half of a high-profile husband-wife political team, said Wednesday that he will not seek re-election next year.
"It's time for a new adventure," said Wolens, D-Dallas and husband of Dallas Mayor Laura Miller.
Wolens, a House member since 1981, declined to speculate about what the next adventure might be.
"We'll see," he said, declining to rule out future races. "I love public service, and I love the Legislature."
If Bush were serious about these ideas, I might just have an ounce of respect for the man. They're all just re-election ploys:
President Bush's aides are considering a new lunar exploration program and other unifying national goals like a campaign to promote longevity or fight childhood illness or hunger, as they sift ideas for a fresh agenda for the final year of his term, administration officials said Thursday.
And we'll pay for it with what? The tax cuts? Heck, I'd love to see more money pumped into the space program or fighting hunger, but untill we repeal Bush's tax cuts and end our neocon foreign policy there's no chance. I wonder what the libertarians / budget hawks think about it?
Bloggers Unite: George W. Bush Is A Miserable Failure
By Byron LaMasters
It works. Bush rewrites history. We can make it. Turquoise Waffle Irons in the Back Yard has a great idea. Call George W. Bush a miserable failure every day. Blah 3 was in on the idea as well. Why, you ask?
Check out Google.com. What's the number one search subject for miserable failure? Why! It's the White House biography of George W. Bush.
Mark Shields, liberal columnist and moderator of The Capital Gang has a very interesting column this week, suggesting that the eventual Democratic nominee choose New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer as their running mate.
If the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004 dares to go macro, then his running mate could be the one public man who has shown the guts, the brains and the will to take on the Class War Criminals who have fleeced millions of Mom and Pop investors.
He has exposed the secretive and sleazy practices of Wall Street investment houses and the sleazy and secretive practices of major mutual fund companies. With manifest courage, he has time and again taken on the richest, the most influential and the most politically connected white men in America.
It could be said of him, as Gen. Edward Bragg said in nominating President Grover Cleveland, " (T)hey love him most for the enemies he has made."
To run for national leadership, you should first have a compelling personal story to tell. New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, 44, has one great story.
He has been the lone cop on the beat, the Sheriff of Wall Street.
While Spitzer is a rising star in the party having already been featured in a cover story in The New Republic and touted by every body from here to kingdom come as a great leader, he needs a few more notches on his belt before seeking national office. As his site implies, he is almost certain to be a candidate for Governor in 2006 when George Pataki has said he will step down. Unfortunately his opponent is likely to be Rudy Giuliani, one of the few politicians in the state more popular than the AG (Spitzer recieved more votes than any other candidate statewide in 2002- even more than Pataki). Still, he has a fighting chance and if Giuliani doesn't run the election is his to lose. If he is elected to the Governor's office in 2006 and reelected in 2010 he could easily run for President or VP in 2012. He'd make a good one.
The problem with him running this year, in addition to his relative obscurity, is that he won't work with the probable candidates. If the nominee is Dean (as is increasingly likely) another Northeasterner with no foreign policy experience is dead in the water. Furthermore, Spitzer has been publicly critical of Dean, saying that he's unelectable yada yada yada. Kerry has the same regional problem but Clark or Gephardt could probably work with him. I doubt he'd be chosen, but the mere mention of his name for the position by a man with a big stage to speak from is an indication of where this guy is going.
A former Clinton Cabinet secretary is expected to endorse Dean this week, and one friend of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said the former first lady sounds increasingly intrigued by Dean. Clinton did not want to discuss her relationship with the candidates, her spokesman said.
Now I have no idea about who this Clinton Cabinet Secretary is but I do find something interesting about Clinton.
First off, she is randomly coming to Texas for two book signings, one in Dallas, the other here in Austin. But I find the timing interesting. Her Dallas one is on the same day that Dean will be in Dallas for his fundraiser. In Austin, she is meeting some select people including upper level Dean Organizers that "the Senator is looking forward to see." Now I thought that was a bunch of nothing until I saw that WashPost article which gives it all just enough oomph to be politically juicy enough to post about.
The Onion has the scoop (link courtesy of Kicking Ass).
And for those of you who want to show your appreciation for the President's efforts in creating quality $7/hour McJobs (after all, people losing $50,000 a year manufacturing and tech jobs have to do something!), the Burnt Orange Report is pleased to give you the official "Fast Food Drive-Thru Employees for Bush-Cheney" button, created by me (with apologies to the McDonalds Corporation and the DailyKOS reader who coined the "Billions of Whoppers" slogan).
(As a former drive-thru employee, I will not be supporting the President, but I understand some of my comrades might).
This is just smart, and again shows why Dean's going to win the nomination. Boswell might not endorse Dean, but he certainly won't endorse anyone else. Dean is the only candidate that has the resources to basically start buying endorsements by asking his supporters to give to the campaigns of congressmen and others. It's a brilliant idea. It helps Dean and it helps us prepare to take back congress.
So Jim put up a funny little post about Michael Badnarik, a Buda, TX resident and frontrunner for the Libertarian Party nomination for President. This post was rather timely in that I've been doing a little research into Libertarianism, seeing if I can find something there to convince myself of because the CATO Institute pays interns $700 a month. What I found is a party that's dominated by a handful of intellectuals, a handful of small businessmen and a whole holy mess of whackjobs. Interestingly enough, most people who actually do believe in Libertarianism have found the same thing and vote for the GOP. But Pat Buchanan's magazine, The American Conservative has a really interesting article this week about the cracks forming between the GOP and Libertarians.
(A) growing number of libertarians no longer think they are getting much out of the fusionist bargain. Liberty magazine editor R.W. Bradford called upon his fellow libertarians to cease thinking of themselves as operationally part of the Right. Writing in the September/October issue of that magazine, he argued that the mainstream conservative movement has abandoned its claimed love of liberty and opposition to ever more powerful government and instead have become the greatest advocates of an imperial foreign policy, of massive defense spending and of invading peoples homes in the names of the Wars on Crime, Drugs and Terrorism....
FoxNews.coms Balko normally votes Republican and cast his ballot for George W. Bush in 2000 but now says hes 90 percent certain he wont be voting for President Bush in 2004. He further argues that the right now poses a greater threat to freedom than the left. Jim Henley, a noted libertarian blogger, put it even more bluntly: Having abandoned the substance of limited government since early in the Gingrich revolution, conservatives increasingly eschew even the rhetoric of limited government. Animosity aside, theyre just no use to libertarians any more.
It seems as though an administration that has spend a couple hundred billion dollars fighting an elective war, that has increased government spending, ballooned the deficit, infringed on a woman's right to choose, expanded the war on drugs, suggested federal interferences in marriage laws, treated the First Amendment like so much toilet paper and has created billions of dollars in unfunded mandates for the states just doesn't appeal to those laissez faire types. Now we are seeing more and more Libertarian GOPers say that they won't vote for the GOP, but might *gasp* vote for a Democrat.
Libertarians have not limited their support to third-party efforts. Some have begun contemplating support for a Democratic presidential candidate to oust the Bush-Ashcroft Republicans. The antiwar Howard Dean appears to be the favorite. Already a Libertarians for Dean blog site debating the merits of libertarian support for his candidacy has been set up on the Web. While a Libertarians for Clark Web site appeared and quickly dissipated following Wesley Clarks declaration of candidacy, the Dean site is still going strong with those posting on it inclined to support him. The liberal American Prospect ran a piece by Noah Shachtman on its Web site citing several prominent libertarians, including Reason assistant editor Julian Sanchez and Cato Institute senior editor Gene Healy, at least willing to contemplate a vote for Dean over Bush.
I got wind of this article in an email from a regular reader, my 9th grade World History teacher Mr. Marvin Keene. Mr. Keene is a Libertarian who usually votes Republican and he's the best teacher I ever had. He sent an email with the subject "I'm Looking at Dean" which is a bit like Bill O'Reilly politely admitting he misspoke- it is so out of the ordinary and unexpected it takes you aback. If Marvin Keene would vote for Howard Dean over George Bush or Michael Badnarik or whoever then there's gotta be a lot of other people saying the same thing.
The best thing is that unlike the Green Party, which tries its damndest to pretend that it doesn't cost Democrats elections, the Libertarian Party actually relishes screwing with Republicans and makes it a focal point of their campaigns:
Although third party candidates rarely win statewide or Congressional office, in many cases they can control which of the major parties does win by purposefully siphoning off votes from one of the major-party candidates. The media has tagged this ability of third-party candidates to control elections the "spoiler effect," although a better name for it might be "incumbent killer," as the person being defeated is typically an incumbent evildoer.
Don Gorman has called the "spoiler effect" the "biggest stick the LP has," and Libertarian Party candidates have been credited with controlling the outcome of numerous Congressional and statewide elections.
In the past, the LP's use of the spoiler effect has been essentially random, and often unintentional. This year, for the first time, we made an effort to use the spoiler effect intentionally, in an orchestrated effort to defeat some of the worst drug warriors in Congress...
In a State Assembly race in California, Democratic organizations spent $147,000 to promote Libertarian candidate David Eaton. In New Hampshire, the Democrats mailed three full-color brochures highlighting Libertarian candidate Dan Belforti's positions on gun control and taxes in an effort to lure voters away from the Republican.
Democrats can use this group as a sort of reverse Green Party in 2004. Why not put up fliers in West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee and Arkansas that say something to the effect of "Bush has not overturned any gun control laws- Vote Libertarian" or in Nevada, New Hampshire and New Mexico- "George W. Bush has kept fighting a War on Drugs that costs billions and robs Americans of their freedom- Vote Libertarian" or in New Hampshire and Arizona: "George W. Bush has increased the size of the federal government and created the biggest deficits in US History- Vote Libertarian." Now is Howard Dean or whoever going to repeal some gun laws, end the drug war or decrease the size of the federal government? Unfortunately no. But we aren't saying Vote Dem, we are saying Vote Libertarian. By stripping the GOP of these votes for a candidate that can't win we can take a few states- New Hampshire, Nevada, Arizona, West Virginia, etc. Any one of those would win the election for us most likely.
In 2000 a crackpot no chance candidate kept Al Gore out of the White House. It's time to turn the tables in 2004.
No, I'm not talking about Byron or I, I'm talking about the Queens Democratic Party which looks set to endorse Howard Dean tomorrow...
via CRAIN'S
The Queens Democratic Party is preparing to endorse Howard Dean for president on Tuesday, insiders say.
With one of the strongest party organizations in the state, the Queens Democrats' endorsement will carry with it the support of 45 elected officials.
The move is a blow to supporters of Gen. Wesley Clark, who have been soliciting Queens district leaders, without success, to run as delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Mr. Clark visited party headquarters early this month, when party boss Thomas Manton hosted a breakfast for him.
This should not be underestimated, as this article gives a hint to how this group gets behind their endorsements and delivers the votes for them.
This news comes fresh off the other news that the Dean Campaign picked up the endorsements of yet two more Congressonial Representatives, Congresswoman Nydia M. Velázquez, from the tri-boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan, and Congressman Joseph Crowley, from New York's 7th district. That would bring up the total of Congressonial endorsements to 14, with a number of them in just the last two weeks.
One other note, Gwen Graham daughter of Sen. Bob Graham who dropped out of the 2004 race months ago, has now joined the Dean campaign as "National Surrogate and Southern Regional Advisor".
This type of action may be fortelling the possibility that others are seeing Dean as being more than just a frontrunner, and more or less the presumptive nominee. That's also why the other 8 running have been picking up in their attacks on every issue as shown in the Iowa debate tonight. Granted, there are many questions that remain and Iowa is still 2 months away, but one must not discount recent happenings.
A friend of mine brought to my attention the Internet Movie Database's listing for "Howard Dean", which include the governor's September appearance on Jay Leno as well as a minor role in a "B" grade ninja movie from the 1980s.
That was certainly news to us, as we were under the impression that Dean was a doctor in Vermont in 1984, not a B-movie star. It's possible it's another Howard Dean, after all -- there are at least 41 men named Howard Dean in California alone (according to Yahoo!), and at least 40 other listed Howard Deans throughout the entire country (per Switchboard).
Due to the awesome amount of data it collects, IMDB often makes mistakes, and perhaps its referring to another Howard Dean. I called the Dean for America national headquarters this morning, and while I was thanked for bringing it to their attention, I got no comment as to whether Dean was into ninjitsu.
(Movies.com also lists a Howard Dean as an actor in this movie).
Still, that didn't keep the usual band of rogues and misfits from having a little fun with this, including suggesting a new campaign slogan for the Dean campaign that might woo the crucial ninja vote:
Howard Dean is a mammal.
Howard Dean fights ALL the time.
The purpose of the Howard Dean is to flip out and kill people [metaphorically].
Still, this isn't the first time that the "Dean as Ninja" meme has floated around. Consider for example the "Dean Karate School" comic that Internet Weekly Report put out a while back.
In any case, I am waiting patiently for the Dean staffers in Vermont to address the ninja issue, now that they are aware of it. Just imagine the other candidates responses to this --
Joe Lieberman: "Al Gore and I fought to get ninjas off of television."
Wesley Clark: "If he wanted to play with nun-chuks, he should have joined the Army."
John Edwards: "Not every Southerner likes ninjas. Did I mention I am the son of a mill worker?"
And so on. This could in fact be the defining issue of this election.
Money doesn't win you a presidential nomination, having enough delegates does. Money helps you win those delegates, so an outsider to the political system might think that wherever the delegates are, that's where the money would go. But this is not the case. Because of the media and the traditions of holding certain primaries and caucuses for certain states early, this is skewed. Money is disproportionately spent on the order of state primaries, regardless of delegate votes.
I thought I might spend my Saturday night investigating this some.
Some candidates in the 2004 Democratic Primary do not have enough money to mount campaigns except in one or two early states. For the purpose of the type of analysis that I wanted to do, this would not work as I need a nation-wide campaign. This, of course, can be easily found in the Howard Dean campaign.
First I found a state spending distribution table from FEC filings. I then found a listing of the Total Pledged Delegate Votes for each state here, along with their election dates. I then divided dollars spent in each state, by the delegates that could be awarded based upon the election returns that night and created a "Dollars/Delegate" ratio. This excel table is posted here.
(Super delegates and unpledged persons that are not derived from the voting of each state's normal Democratic voters were not counted in my delegate totals as there is no direct relationship between state spending and congressional endorsements, for example)
The result is as follows...
Analysis in extended entry....
With Dark Green representing the most money per delegate and Dark Red representing the lowest spending per delegate one can see right off the bat (if they knew nothing about the election dates) that spending in states does not follow the logic of using money to get delegates to win the nomination.
But since we know that there exists the primary process and the media, there is an explanation for this otherwise odd behavior.
Some comments....
(note: Media State means a state is useful for generating buzz and headlines rather than any actual useful number of delegates towards the nomination and thus is the driving force. Delegate State means a state useful for gaining delegates towards the nomination and thus is the driving force for any spending.)
ANALYSIS OF TOP 15 TOTAL DOLLAR STATE SPENDING
In order, Iowa, South Carolina, Arizona, New Hampshire....all make sense due to being earliest primary states. Media States.
Next, Massachusetts and New York....large delegate states that also happen to have nearby media markets. Super Tuesday states.
Washington, Oklahoma, New Mexico....few delegates, but second wave February primaries. Media States (Washington, slightly less so)
California, Texas...huge delegate states, March primaries. Here is an example of the Dean Campaign spending money for delegates since it has the resources to do so. It is a smart move to create a delegate safety net in case 'media states' are being lost in February.
Wisconsin, Illinois...the latest primary states to date, moderate delegate size. Proximity to Iowa makes me think that some spending here is related more to nearby markets as these two are too far down the line to be used as safety nets.
D.C....totally for media concerns and Dean Campaign efforts to prove viability among Black voters.
Nebraska...spending here is Iowa related. It's May primary and small delegate share warrant no spending this early otherwise.
Rhode Island...Super Tuesday state, easy to cover with minimal spending. This is probably cheap window dressing.
SHORT ANALYSIS ON DOLLARS/DELGATE RATIOS
The top six Dollar/Delegate Ratios are New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Not a big surprise since these are the earliest that it gets. They also are Media States and combined have only 230 delegates, as much as New York has by itself.
Next are Massachusetts and Washington, early and more delegate rich.
Wisconsin is an oddball to me. It is late (April) and not a huge delegate state. Only explanation is that this is Iowa related being that it is next door. If not, this seems to be a waste of money here.
SHORT ANALYSIS ON PRIMARY ORDER
Unless the campaign isn't reporting all their numbers, there is virtually no spending in the early Feb. 3 states of Missouri, North Dakota, and Delaware. The latter two could be explained by their very low delegate totals, 14 and 15 respectively. Missouri would normally be a target, but as this will be a showdown with Gephardt, the money had to be spent first in Iowa. If he's knocked out there, no sense in worrying about Missouri then. If he survives, look to see money shift here quickly. In addition, of the Feb 3 states, Dean is spending in all the Southern ones and none of the northern ones. This could be related to proving that he is viable in the south as well as the fact they are worth more delegate wise.
Michigan, Feb. 7, is the same case as Missouri in my opinion. Same circumstances.
The rest of February has been given up upon. Likely money is being divided into the first half of the Media States pre-March, and then the big delegate states in March (which contains a boatload of the delegate share with California, New York, Texas, and Florida all residing there). Even though the campaign has money, it can't spend it everywhere, and later Media State are not important if you lose early Media States. And since they aren't delegate states, there is no other possible reason to be spending in them early.
Explicit race baiting doesn't really work any more, abortion is getting old, so gay marriage is likely to emerge as the wedge issue Republicans will use in 2004 to take middle America's attention off of the failed Republican economic and foreign policy:
Under pressure from social conservatives who want President Bush to campaign against gay marriage in 2004, GOP officials say they are studying battleground states where same-sex unions could be a wedge issue in national and state races, and they are weighing endorsement of a proposed federal constitutional amendment sanctioning only heterosexual marriage.
Meanwhile, here's what the White House has to say about it:
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Eh. No surprise there. Then again, most Democrats aren't embracing gay marriage either. Fine, call me a hypocrite, but that doesn't bother me too much. I don't ask Democratic candidates to embrace gay civil marriage right now. It's not a smart thing to do politically (in most places). However, it is critical that we muster up the 34 votes in the U.S. Senate to block the Federal Marriage Amendment. That legislation would be disasterous for equal rights in America.
Update: Ok, I don't think that I made myself as clear as I intended. I strongly support gay civil marriage. I strongly oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment on both principal (amendments should never, in my opinion be used to restrict the rights of American citizens - the one time it was done - prohibition - it was a complete failure) and on substance (I support gay marriage). Now, having said that, we are not yet at the point in the gay rights movement where the majority really understand the issue of gay civil marriage (and no I'm not talking about people who have fundamental moral objections to homosexuality, but rather (mostly) older people who have not been exposed to gay and lesbian couples). I am fully convinced that if the current cultural and political trends continue, gay marriage will be a reality in America within ten to twenty years. Look at the polls. The most recent national poll with an age breakdown on the subject (the CBS News/New York Times Poll. July 13-27, 2003. N=3,092 adults nationwide. MoE ą 2 (total sample)) showed that Americans 18-29 support gay civil marriage rights 61-35% whereas those over 65 oppose gay civil marriage by a margin of 18 to 73%. You can see where I'm going with this... In 10 years or so, this is an issue in which I will expect Democrats to embrace. But I consider myself a political pragmatist and now, with polls showing that up to 60% of Americans oppose gay marriage, I can respectfully understand if Democrats oppose it. I'd rather elect a Democrat who I agree with 90% of the time than a Republican who I agree with less than 5% of the time. So, I won't really be too critical of either Democrats or Republicans opposing gay civil marriage.
The best approach for the gay rights lobby now is to continue to educate Americans about gay civil marriage. First, call it gay civil marriage. Marriage is both a religious and a secular / government / legal institution. The fight for gay marriage by the Human Rights Campaign and other gay political activist organizations is a political and secular fight. What one religion or another wants to do regarding gay civil marriage is irrelevent. Next, we must help people understand that gay civil marriage does nothing to harm or change anyone's heterosexual marriage. We need to ask right-wing hypocrites the question HRC executive director Elizabeth Birch asked former U.S. Rep. Bob Bar during the 1996 Defense of Marriage debate:
I see that the bill itself, and I must say that I think Rep. Barr is completely disingenuous, because if he was telling the truth, they would amend the bill and add, you know, notions of procreation, only people who can procreate, maybe second and third marriages. We've always been unclear about which marriage of his he's defending, his first, his second, or his third.
We need to educate Americans that gay civil marriage only grants the same rights such as inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc. that married heterosexual Americans take for granted. For now, I'll be fine with Civil Unions. America isn't ready in 2003 for the word "gay marriage" or even "gay civil marriage". Give us 10 years.
On the other hand, a Federal Marriage Amendment would set back the gay rights movement for a decade, if not a generation. It would replace the sodomy laws as justification for discrimination against gays and lesbians at every level. I will harshly criticize any Democrat or Republicans who supports or advocates such an ammendment. I hope that this clarifies my position.
Ralph Nader, who in 2000 was the worst thing to happen to civil liberties and poor people in quite a while, is winding up to do them another favor. The former Green candidate for president is traveling the college circuit, coyly hinting that he'll decide about his political plans later, but few people think he'll sit it out.
Even though even fewer think his running again would be a good idea.
This week, at the University of Wisconsin, Nader again dismissed his effect on the outcome in 2000, saying, "I think the Democrats can fairly be charged with chronic whining, and they ought to look to themselves first and foremost."
Nader not only elects Republicans, he's starting to sound like them.
Bingo. I've been saying this for the last three years. Greens and Republicans? Same thing...
Here's another decision by the Clark campaign that makes little sense
Wesley Clark, who bypassed Iowa to focus on New Hampshire and other primary states, will skip a Democratic presidential debate in the Granite State next month to attend a fund-raiser in New York.
The debate is slated for Dec. 9 and the eight other candidates have changed their schedules to attend. Clark, however, will be taking part in a previously scheduled fund-raiser in which the campaign hopes to collect $1.5 million.
"I hope the people of New Hampshire will understand," Clark told reporters Friday. "I certainly mean no disrespect. You make obligations. You can't move them. You can't get out of them. People have to respect that."
Clark said he asked the Democratic National Committee to reschedule the debate or hold it at a different time that day, but the DNC could not. "We have not moved any of the debates and there have been other scheduling conflicts" from other candidates, said Josh Wachs, the DNC's chief operating officer.
[...]
Still, Clark's move gave some New Hampshire Democrats pause and drew criticism from his rivals.
"There's going to be a lot of attention on this event because it's the big DNC-sanctioned debate in New Hampshire," said Rich Sigel, a Democratic activist from Concord, N.H. "Fairly or unfairly, it may raise questions for some as to how seriously General Clark takes New Hampshire."
Several candidates, including Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and Howard Dean, shifted fund-raisers to attend the debate, aides said.
A candidate can change the time of his or her fundraiser easily. Yeah, it might be a little bit of trouble, but much less problematic than pissing off a lot of people in a critical primary state. For Clark the problem is compounded by the fact that New Hampshire is the first state in which he is competing. He needs to do well there, and this doesn't help.
To be honest, I really wanted to support Clark, but I've found myself back pretty solidly in the Dean camp at this point. From not utilizing their grassroots support, to passing on Iowa and missing the AFSCME nod, Clark's missed his opportunity with me.
By now everyone has probably heard as much as they want to about the twin endorsements of the SEIU and AFSCME. But I found an interesting tidbit today that I hadn't seen in print anywhere else before. Here's a taste.
The SEIU and AFSCME leaders said they hoped their move would be viewed as a sign that Democratic constituencies should coalesce around the Dean campaign.
"We would hope that by what we did today that maybe this begins to winnow the field," McEntee told reporters.
AFSCME, whose members hold a range of jobs at all levels of government, plans on spending about $7.5 million on an independent campaign to promote Dean's candidacy during the nomination process, including $1 million in Iowa. The union will spend another $3 million on a separate communication to its members, according to political director Larry Scanlon.
The most tangible effect of the union's endorsement may be the sheer number of people it can deliver to the polls. Scanlon said that polling has shown that about 70% of union members have voted for the candidate the union endorses.
In Iowa, AFSCME's 20,000 members include many longtime caucus-goers with familiarity with the process, Scanlon said. "They know how to run the operations when you get to the gymnasium or the church or whatever," he said. "That's a very valuable asset."
In addition, AFSCME will make a rare appeal for political donations and send an e-mail soon to its members asking them to contribute $100 to Dean's campaign, he added.
And the SEIU...
The SEIU, meanwhile, is poised to play a key role for Dean in the opening primary on Jan. 27 in New Hampshire, where it is the largest union with 7,500 members.
The union can also play a critical role in mobilizing voters for the March 2 contests in California and New York, where it represents a combined 880,000 members.
Dean will also get the benefit of the union's organizational skills many of SEIU's veteran organizers will lend their expertise to the campaign, according to union official Gina Glantz.
Glantz said the union will not directly ask for contributions to Dean from its members, almost half of whom work in the health-care industry. But she said that she expected many would donate on their own.
Located in other news reports is this funny quip...
In other news, the RNC quickly distributed a press release asking if Gephardt was a miserable failure for losing out on the SEIU and AFSCME endorsements to Dean.
Granted, the DLC has had it's part in history and of course there have been calls to render it to history. I have been highly upset with Democrats caving in to Republicans, and I have been upset with the DLC for attacking candidates like Dean when they choose to stand up for some traditional Democratic values. Talk about not being constructive.
That aside, I found this flash bit against the DLC. Funny and even a bit inspirational depending on who you support. (Warning, it's over a Meg in size).
It looks as if the John Kerry blog has shut down comments on it's blog. Hmmm... Sounds like something that the Bush Blog would do. Wait... it does. Heh.
Kudos to Dean and Clark for keeping their official blogs open for comments.
The right-wing message/think tank system has been bankrolled for years by shadowy billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Now, the Democrats have someone even richer on our side- the man who broke the Bank of England, George Soros.
The Washington Post reports:
George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush.
"It is the central focus of my life," Soros said, his blue eyes settled on an unseen target. The 2004 presidential race, he said in an interview, is "a matter of life and death."...
Overnight, Soros, 74, has become the major financial player of the left. He has elicited cries of foul play from the right. And with a tight nod, he pledged: "If necessary, I would give more money."
"America, under Bush, is a danger to the world," Soros said. Then he smiled: "And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."
Soros gave $5 million to internet activists MoveOn.org this week, bringing his total contributions against Bush to $15.5 million, one year before the election. This includes $10 million to mobilize voters in 17 swing states, $3 million for the new Center for American Progress, a left-wing think tank that hopes to match the GOP success seen in the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute. He also raised $115,000 for Howard Dean, though he says he also supports Kerry, Clark and Gephardt.
The GOP is upset and frankly, I wish we didn't have to do this. I wish we had a system that was fair and equitable and kept special interests out of it and made sure that everyone had a fair shot. But the GOP has huge coffers and we have to do something. Its like nuclear weapons- the peacenik in me says that they are awful and wishes we didn't have to have them, but the pragmatist tells me that they prevent much more harm than they cause. I wish we didn't have to be bankrolled by some financier. But if the GOP wants to play hard ball, we'll play hard ball.
To end it all, this quote is the kind of thing that gets my heart pounding, ready for this fight to get underway:
Asked whether he would trade his $7 billion fortune to unseat Bush, Soros opened his mouth. Then he closed it. The proposal hung in the air: Would he become poor to beat Bush?
Via Kos Diaries I found an invitation by the Council of Conservative Citizens (the racist, neo-confederate organization which has connections to Trent Lott, Haley Barbour, Bob Barr and others) asking Howard Dean to speak at their upcoming board meeting:
Dear Governor Dean:
We wish to commend you for your recent statements in your campaign expressing sympathy for "white folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back." We also wish to deplore the racial demagoguery with which your remarks have been unjustly denounced by your fellow Democrats.
While we disagree with you on many other issues (including your comments that the Confederate flag is "loathsome" and "racist"), we believe you are entirely right that the Democratic Party (as well as the Republicans) have ignored the kind of Americans you are talking about -- the very kind who make up the backbone of America as well as the majority of the Council of Conservative Citizens.
We urge you and all other candidates who understand the importance of such Americans to national politics and to nation itself to make a new appeal to them and their needs, values, and interests. These needs go far beyond such matters as "health insurance."
While health care is certainly of major importance, such issues as the deliberate destruction and demonization of our culture -- the Confederate flag and similar symbols in particular -- and the disappearance of our jobs through irresponsible free trade policies also need to be addressed. The dispossession of white Americans through the mass immigration that political leaders have permitted and encouraged is also a major threat that white Americans of all regions and conditions confront.
In the Council of Conservative Citizens, we have been trying to speak to these issues for years, and we have made an increasing number of Americans aware of their importance.
We would like to invite you, Gov. Dean, to attend the National Board of Directors meeting we are holding in Nashville, Tennessee next week (November 14-15th) and to address our group briefly along the lines you mentioned in Boston. We would like to make you better acquainted with us and our concerns and activities and to make ourselves better acquainted with you.
If you are indeed serious that you wish to be the candidate of "white folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back," then the Council of Conservative Citizens is the group to whom you need to speak.
Hoping to see you in Nashville next weekend, we thank you for your attention.
Thomas Dover
President
Council of Conservative Citizens
Hmm.... so what should Dean do? If Dean really has some balls, he'd go speak there, bash the Confederate flag to their face, talk about racial inclusion etc, but reach out to them on guns, jobs, health care, taxes and trade. Then again, it could turn out disasterous and only perpetuate the problems that Dean had in the last debate and open himself to more critisism, especially from Blacks. What should he do?
Via Kos and Yahoo News John Kerry has fired longtime campaign manager Jim Jordan. This, coupled with the earlier defection of Chris Lehane suggests that Kerry's campaign is what we always knew it to be- a bunch of incompetent beltway types who think that they are better than everyone else.
Kerry has been running for president since he was in the womb and he knows that 2004 is his last chance. His whole career has been a series of calculations moving him towards this job. Its surprising that for someone who has been preparing for this chance his entire life that he fouled up so bad when was finally offered to him. Rather than ignoring Howard Dean and letting him stew in anonymity he rose his profile by attacking him in a way that seemed desparate and cynical. Rather than spending his money on building a grassroots movement he tried a top down structure and was undercut by Dean again. He is very far down in New Hampshire and this shakeup suggests that chaos is reigning at Kerry Campaign HQ. NH has always been must-win for Kerry and it looks like Kerry's lifelong dream is over for good.
Its a shame- he'd make a fine president and he's a good Senator. But people have never wanted a patrician, New England liberal Washington insider. Only once did such a candidate win- Kerry's archetype JFK in 1960- but Kerry is no Kennedy and America has lost its innocence and hero worship since then. Kerry's lofty rhetoric is looked at suspiciously while a hard-headed pragmatist like Howard Dean is favored. This new development is yet another nail in Kerry's presidential coffin.
With Kerry's collapse, Clark's disorganization, the two biggest unions behind Dean (thus killing Gep's chances for an AFL-CIO endorsement), Edward's inability to move out of the cellar and Lieberman's disconnect with the party's activist base Dean is well on his way to winning the nom. He needs to fend off the attacks, avoid making stupid mistakes and he can coast into the primaries. Its time to train our guns at GWB and find a way to win in November.
So lets talk about what I think ought to be one of the biggest campaign issues against Bush next year. We have the war and his other foreign policy issues which have cost American lives and lessened the credibility of America in the world. We have the economy, which might be picking up but nonetheless has hemorrhaged 2.6 million jobs. But what is our social wedge going to be? How about racism.
Last night, former Big Tobacco lobbyist and Gingrich-era RNC chair Haley Barbour was elected governor of Mississippi. Earlier in the campaign, Barbour was in a prominently placed picture on the website for well-known hate group the Council of Conservative Citizens. It sounds like just another GOP operation, but this group goes quite a bit further out there. On their main page, just below Barbours picture is a link to an article entitled In Defense of Racism which talks about how God made some races inferior, they have an ad supporting one Ernst Zundel about whom the Anti-Defamation League says:
Since the late 1970s, Ernst Zundel has run Samisdat Publishers, one of the largest distributors of Nazi and neo-Nazi propaganda and memorabilia in the world. He is also the inspiration for and key content provider of www.zundelsite.org, since 1995 a leading online repository of Holocaust-denial propaganda. His activities have led to numerous trials in Canada and made him subject to probable arrest should he ever attempt to return to Germany.
They sell a C of CCs pamphlet with this description:
The Sixth Law of God is a book that will stun even fundamentalist Christians! Pastor V. S. Harrell has researched the oldest available Greek Septuagint texts to prove that the Commandment against adultery is a law against race mixing! Read this book and believe!
They have an article by an author named simply Angry White Female entitled Walking While White which says that minorities rape white women because they hate white people. Furthermore, the ADL weighs in on the C of CCs by saying:
The St. Louis-based Council of Conservative Citizens traces its roots directly to the racist, anti-integrationist White Citizens' Councils of the 1950s and 1960s. Its current leader, attorney Gordon Lee Baum, was an organizer for the WCC and built the Council of Conservative Citizens in part from the old group's mailing lists Like its predecessor, the CCC inflames fears and resentments, particularly among Southern whites, with regard to black-on-white crime, nonwhite immigration, attacks on the Confederate flag and other issues related to "traditional" Southern culture. Although its leadership claims that the group is not racist, its publications, Web sites and actions all promote the purportedly innate superiority of white people and bias against nonwhites.
So this group is a nasty white supremacist organization, the GOP candidate for governor was pictured on their website, at an event they hosted. He was asked if he wanted his picture and name removed from their site, and he declined. Essentially, he attended their events, he was supported by the same group that produced the murderer of Medgar Evers and when asked if he wanted to distance himself from them he declined. Furthermore, on Election Day the New York Times reported that:
Racial issues flared Election Day brought claims of intimidation at largely black precincts.
Haley Barbour is affiliated with hate groups, he worked to intimidate black voters, he is a racist. George W. Bush made a high-profile campaign appearance, Dick Cheney appeared at at lest one Barbour fundraiser, the entire GOP establishment stood behind their ol boy- Haley Barbour.
This should be a HUGE Democrat campaign issue next year. MTV, BET, UPN, every hip hop, R&B, Soul or Gospel station, every black magazine and every billboard and bus stop in black neighborhoods, everywhere young people spend time should have the message George W. Bush spent time and money working to get a racist elected in Mississippi. George W. Bush stood by a man who is associated with a group that says that Martin Luther King was a traitor and that his holiday should not exist. Dick Cheney raised money for a man that scared elderly black men and women away from the polls. Thought Jim Crow went away in the 60s? Think Again. If we can put Bush on the defense on this issue it could be the straw that breaks the camels back. Not only will it spur higher black turnout, itll mean less support from moderate whites and independents in the northern suburbs and more educated households- two of the largest constituencies out there.
George Bush chose to support a man who stands with those who have supported lynching, who represent the worst parts of our country and it is time the country knew about it so they could do something about it.
So Howard Dean is reported in the AP as saying "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," and has an "A" rating from the NRA and John Kerry, Dick Gephardt and other elitists who have shown a solid track record of alienating Americans and costing the Democrats every important post in the federal government jump out to attack him. Could we really expect anything less?
Frankly, I line up for the most part with the NRA. I think that blustering about a so-called "gun show loophole" is just politicking, I think that the assault weapons ban isn't really necessary and certain aspects of it (the ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for all guns) are just idiotic- 9 shots will kill you as easily as 11. I suppose growing up the son of a gun collector who works now as a professional firearms instructor and having shot guns of all shapes and sizes since I was about 2 or 3 years old makes me different from most liberals, but I will say that gun control is an issue of incredible importance to millions of Americans and that it likely cost us West Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas and enough states to make the difference in 2000. If we want to win in 2004 we can't be seen as the party of Coastal Liberal Elitists. Interestingly enough the only candidates with a decent position on the issue are both New Englanders- Howard Dean (Mr. Liberal Elite himself) and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is too honest with the Democratic base (i.e. free trade is good, etc.) to win the nomination so Dean it is.
Furthermore, it shows how out of touch with rural Southern voters the establishment is that they say things like "I don't want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks... who disagree with us on bedrock Democratic values like civil rights" (Gephardt). To millions of Southerners the Stars and Bars do not represent hate for any group of people, but pride for the other aspects of Southern Heritage. The view that Southerners are by necessity racist and that racism is the defining characteristic of our region is one that is sorely mistaken and represents the kind of Yankee elitism that has cost the Democratic Party the South.
But the best response of all comes from the Governor himself:
In response to the criticism, Dean released a statement saying: "I want people with Confederate flags on their trucks to put down those flags and vote Democratic -- because the need for quality health care, jobs and a good education knows no racial boundaries.
"We have working white families in the South voting for tax cuts for the richest 1 percent while their children remain with no health care," Dean said. "The dividing of working people by race has been a cornerstone of Republican politics for the last three decades -- starting with Richard Nixon. ... The only way we're going to beat George Bush is if southern white working families and African-American working families come together under the Democratic tent, as they did under FDR."
The contempt held for people of the South by Washington elites and Northern Liberals is the root of our recent inability to get anywhere in this part of the country. Furthermore, gun control is an intellectually lazy and fundamentally anti-liberal stance: crime and violence are created by desperation, poverty, ignorance, not guns. Taking guns away from people won't stop violence- educating them, getting them good jobs and reviving our communities will. We need to move away from these ignorant, lazy viewpoints and open our party up to the South again and it seems that only Howard Dean, the most yankee of them all (with the exception of Kerry perhaps) is the only one talking that way.
Sometimes a little cold shower is in order. For me, it involved looking up the estimated allocation of delegates to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
To put it mildly, it's going to be a long, hard slog for any candidate to reach 2170-ish votes on the convention floor for a majority, if more than a handful of candidates remain in the race past February 3.
Perhaps it's just that it's been since, oh, 1992 when we've had a competitive cycle. Or maybe it's just me.
But as I continue to see a string of national and state polls that put 3 or 4 or 5 candidates all in striking distance of each other, the more I tend to think that we're gonna have an old fashioned, rip-roaring, knock-down-drag out convention in Boston next year...
Not at all shocking, but Instapundit and the Weekly Standard report that Sen. Zell Miller ("D?"- Georgia) will endorse President Bush.
I wish Senator Miller didn't have a driving need to make himself the bęte noire of Democrats generally and Southern Democrats specifically (despite Zell's insistence that the DNC has told "a third of the country to go to hell", upwards of 80 percent of the Democrats in the South have been moderate-to-liberal for years) before riding off into the sunset.
Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton launched a blistering attack on Howard Dean yesterday, accusing his rival of promoting an "anti-black agenda."
"Howard Dean's opposition to affirmative action, his current support for the death penalty and historic support of the NRA's [National Rifle Association's] agenda amounts to an anti-black agenda that will not sell in communities of color in this country," Sharpton said in a statement.
This seems odd of him, but is explained in the next line.
He said his comments were in response to a news report yesterday that Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) plans to endorse Dean, the former Vermont governor and presumed front-runner for the 2004 Democratic nomination. Sharpton has had a long-standing rivalry with the congressman's father, Jesse L. Jackson, who twice ran for president.
"Any so-called African American leader that would endorse Dean despite his anti-black record is mortgaging the future of our struggle for civil rights and social justice," Sharpton said.
This is more about Sharpton fearing the loss of support from the only quarters where he had it, the black community via the black community's leaders. Of course, the fact that it was Rep. Jackson probably only made him more angry.
He was a real firebrand in the last debate. He sounded like a southern community preacher calling for the condemnation of the white house and proposing a reclamation of the nation.
These comments just reaffirm the thoughts of those people who think he is a rabble-rouser and a race baiter. I now realize this (being that I wasn't aware of his past actions, being the young'n that I am).
SIDENOTE: So Kuchinch did carry through with his big threat to take Dean to task about his new ads in the Sunday debate. Yeah. Did everyone see those big headlines screaming KUCINICH DEFLATES DEAN: POINTED QUESTIONS SLOW FRONTRUNNER'S BIG "MO"
Financial Times: Bush seeks re-election on 'world peace' ticket
US President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he will campaign for re-election next year by arguing that "the world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership".
But, even as he did so, he conceded that "Iraq's a dangerous place" and shuffled back from his triumphant declaration on board the USS Abraham Lincoln seven months ago that America had achieved its mission in the Gulf.
Would it be trite or cliched to quote Orwell ("War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength") right about now?
After reading about President Bush's frayed press conference today, and now that it seems patently obvious that the media are going to crucify Bush over Iraq, it seemed reasonable to construct a more optimistic prediction than the one I offered last week, which was based on a Sept. 2004 job approval rating in the low-to-mid 50s.
Assuming a presidential approval of 40 percent on Labor Day 2004 (which would put Dubya down in the range of his father in 1992, Carter in 1980, and Johnson in early 1968), the previously discussed model would suggest a comfortable Democratic win of about 374 Electoral Votes to 161 EVs for the President. With 331 solid/lean Democratic EVs, 118 solid/lean Republican EVs, and 86 tossups.
All the qualifications, cautions, warnings, and dissuasions from the last post notwithstanding, of course.
The big question mark about next year is how the president's job approval tracks. Despite the likelihood of slightly better economic conditions (albeit still a jobless recovery -- the economic consensus still pegs unemployment at or around 6 percent on Election Day), it seems that President Bush is simply losing the trust of the American people over Iraq (with Bush's situation being compared more and more to the "credibility gap" politics of Lyndon Johnson every day).
If it weren't for Bush's stratospheric approval among self-declared Republicans, his approval rating would be in negative territory (and its already darn close, with the latest polls this week showing a drop back down to about 50).
(The latest CNN/USA-Today/Gallup Poll)
Ironically, it may make more sense for Democrats to run a Dubya-style "honor and integrity" campaign instead of a Clintonian "it's the economy stupid" campaign next year.
(Of course, that's been conventional wisdom for sometime, but it's more relevant now than ever).
I almost put this one under the Burnt Orange Report Humor listing. Read and see.
HEADLINE: Kucinich wants Dean ads pulled from TV in NH
Why do you ask? Oh let me tell you!
Dean began airing two 30-second spots in New Hampshire earlier this week, criticizing his opponents' records on the war in Iraq and prescription drug benefits. The former Vermont governor does not name his rivals, but highlights his opposition to the war and says "the best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war."
Kucinich, the Ohio congressman and the only candidate who voted against the resolution authorizing the war, took exception to the spots.
"I am proud of my record of opposition to the war on Iraq and the occupation of Iraq, and I will not stand by while a fellow Democrat distorts my record and his own," Kucinich said Friday. "I'm calling upon Dr. Dean to take these false and misleading ads off the airwaves before they do further damage to his own campaign as well as to the campaigns of other Democrats."
Thanks for being concerned Dennis. It's almost touching.
The Dean campaign responds.
"We're focusing most of our attention on those candidates who are attacking us, and those are candidates at the top of the polls. We're not focusing on Dennis so we're not attacking Dennis."
Some days, I just can't wait to see the latest polls. The anticipation, the suspense one must endure in waiting to find out who is in 8th place this week almost KILLS me!
But the entertainment doesn't stop there!
Kucinich's lawyer, Donald McTigue, sent a letter to New Hampshire television stations earlier in the day, asking them to pull the ad and give Kucinich's campaign free air time to respond.
Puh-lease.
"I think trust may in fact emerge as the major issue in this race," Kucinich said.
Trust will be an issue Dennis. But I'd be more worried about Bush's Iraqi mistruths than NH ads that aren't focused at you. Puh-lease.
The campaign also plans to petition the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communication Commission about the ads.
...
But Kucinich said he would not let the issue drop, and planned to confront Dean about it Saturday when both planned to attend an AFL-CIO convention in Whitefield.
Wow, I can't WAIT for the political fireworks from this one!
I'm sorry, as much as I can somewhat respect Kucinich for bringing some real issues to the table, the guy is giving the Progressive Caucus a bad reputation. I'm unsure if he makes the Democratic Party seem Liberal and out-of-touch or if he just makes the other challengers seem that much more moderate and mainstream...
One of the most contentious debates in the field of political science today is over the "predictability" of elections. This question necessarily leads to some questions which grate at our moral conscience as Americans. If an election is predictable based upon economic conditions and "political time", then how much impact can one individual truly make? Are we controlled by fate or destiny?
On the other hand, one could argue that, if voters are really rational, then it's pretty simple to figure out what they are going to do given objective preconditions. Rational choice theory then encourages us to see electoral predictability as fairly flattering evidence that Americans really know what's best for them, and what could be more moral than that?
In either case, I'm not a very moral person, but I did think it would be cool to try and take a stab at divining - just about a year ahead of time - who has the inside track in the race for the White House. I
(In part I did this in the hopes that I could create a reasonably realistic computer game, so I'm not without some pragmatic motive).
Read ahead for the gruesome details.
The Burnt Orange Political Weather Forecast
This month's forecast for the 2004 Election -- still 54 weeks away -- suggests a somewhat competitive election in which President Bush has a slight Electoral College advantage.
The overall forecast suggests an election similar to that of 2000, with probably battleground states being:
(Leaning Slightly to the Democrats)
Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania
(Leaning Slightly to the Republicans)
New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, and Florida
In these states, both parties have a better than one-in-three chance of winning.
Other possibly competitive states - where the chance of an upset falls to one-in-ten, are:
(Leaning to the Democrats)
California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Delaware
(Leaning to the Republicans)
Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Ohio, and New Hampshire
Should all of these predictions all come to pass, President Bush will be re-elected with 285 electoral votes, with the as-yet unnamed Democrat receiving 250 electoral votes.
Bush has 235 EVs "solid" or "leaning", with the Democrat having 196 EVs "solid" or "leaning". Slight Lean/Tossup states comprise 104 EVs.
This prediction assumes a presidential approval rating of 55 percent in the Gallup Poll on or about Labor Day of next year. It also assumes an approximate 3 percent increase in real disposable income in the third quarter of 2004.
It does not add in the likely impact of the Democratic candidates's home state advantage (since we do not know who the Democratic candidate will be). Expect about a four-point bounce in the state tally for whomever the candidate is.
Here is a table with the projected two-party vote shares and the probabilities of a Democratic win:
State Share Prob. Rank
AL 41.7% 3.0% 38
AK 32.4% 0.0% 48
AZ 44.9% 13.2% 31
AR 47.9% 31.3% 25
CA 55.1% 84.3% 12
CO 45.8% 17.8% 29
CT 59.1% 96.9% 6
DE 53.9% 77.2% 13
DC 82.8% 100.0% 1
FL 48.3% 34.4% 24
GA 43.2% 6.6% 35
HI 60.4% 98.5% 5
ID 30.4% 0.0% 50
IL 55.3% 85.4% 10
IN 41.5% 2.7% 39
IA 48.9% 38.3% 22
KS 38.4% 0.4% 45
KY 41.4% 3.1% 37
LA 44.3% 10.6% 32
ME 54.8% 85.1% 11
MD 58.9% 96.7% 7
MA 64.1% 99.9% 3
MI 52.3% 67.2% 15
MN 52.3% 67.7% 14
MS 38.8% 0.7% 42
MO 48.3% 34.6% 23
MT 38.8% 0.7% 43
NE 34.9% 0.1% 47
NV 47.1% 25.8% 27
NH 45.8% 17.1% 30
NJ 56.9% 91.8% 9
NM 49.4% 42.9% 21
NY 62.6% 99.6% 4
NC 43.9% 8.3% 34
ND 39.2% 0.8% 41
OH 47.7% 29.9% 26
OK 37.3% 0.3% 46
OR 51.1% 57.8% 18
PA 52.1% 65.5% 16
RI 64.7% 99.9% 2
SC 42.2% 3.6% 36
SD 39.8% 1.1% 40
TN 46.2% 19.9% 28
TX 38.4% 0.5% 44
UT 30.4% 0.0% 51
VT 57.3% 94.3% 8
VA 44.1% 9.7% 33
WA 51.9% 63.4% 17
WV 50.3% 52.5% 20
WI 50.8% 55.4% 19
WY 31.0% 0.0% 49
The validity of this forecast
The model is based on data from 1964 through 2000. Although perfect data for 1956 or 1960 was not available (as I shall explain below), the model was able to make reasonably good guesses as to which states the Democrats would carry in those years.
The 1960 Retrocast --
The model achieved roughly 75 percent accuracy for this election. While it predicted a Kennedy victory over Richard Nixon (345 EVs to 186 EVs; 6 EVs from Alaska and Hawaii not counted), it missed several important states; it mistakenly called Washington, Oregon, Montana Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida for Kennedy, while calling Connecticut, New Jersey, and Nevada for Nixon. Nor could the model foresee that Democratic electors in Mississippi and Alabama would vote for conservative Harry Byrd instead of the official Kennedy/Johnson ticket, which won by a total Electoral College vote of 303-219-15.
Kennedy's unforseen success in Nevada, New Mexico, Louisiana, and New Jersey may likely have been caused by Catholic voters (and perhaps the reverse is true in Tennessee and Kentucky).
Alaska and Hawaii were omitted from this retrocast as it was the first election in those new states, and the model is heavily dependent on past performance.
The 1956 Retrocast --
The model successfully predicted an overwhelming landslide by President Dwight Eisenhower over Democratic challenger Adlai Stevenson, missing only Missouri (which it called as a "solid" Eisenhower state), North Carolina, and Louisiana (which had a "slight lean" towards Stevenson/Kefauver). Overall this yielded 45 correct calls and 3 incorrect calls, a 93.7 percent correct-call rate.
Within-sample retrocasts (as opposed to these out-of-sample retrocasts) showed a consistent error rate of between 5 and 10 percent. So it is possible that 5 states (or even more) in the 2004 forecast could "flip." Generally, though, this "objective" forecast is roughly in line with the widely-regarded predictions made by Larry Sabato as well as the more subjective ones at PresidentElect.org. Ron Faucheux at Campaigns & Elections, perhaps the world's foremost political oddsmaker, also gives Bush a slight advantage (54.5%) heading into next year.
Factors weighing into this forecast
This forecast was created using a pool of six models, namely --
Two linear regression models (one with a constant, the other with an intercept of zero) estimating the Democratic share of the two-party vote;
Two probability models gauging the probability of a Democratic win (1) or loss (0) -- one model uses LOGIT, the other uses PROBIT (rhymes with "hobbit");
Two probability models gauging the probability of an individual voter voting Democratic (1) or not (0) -- again, using both LOGIT and PROBIT.
All six models use the following variables:
Democratic share of the two-party vote in the last election;
Average Democratic share of the two-party vote in elections t-2 through t-4 (that is, the last three elections prior to the previous election; in 2004 that means 1996,1992, and 1988);
The ideological position of the median voter in that state, ranked on a scale of -3 (most conservative) to 3 (most liberal). This is based on a moving average of the annual scores derived by Fording, Rinquist, Hanson, Berry (1998), who use congressional voting scorecards from Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO to estimate the ideological leanings of constituents. Since the three-year moving average for 2001-2003 can not yet be calculated (and won't be until early next year), ideology scores for 2000 (the moving average of 1997-1999) are used currently;
A dummy variable (1 for Democratic presidents, -1 for Republican presidents) denoting whether the Democratic presidential nominee is the incumbent president;
A dummy variable (1 for Democratic presidents, -1 for Republican presidents) denoting whether the Democratic presidential nominee is the incumbent vice president;
A dummy variable marking the home state of the incumbent president (1 for Democratic presidents, -1 for Republican presidents);
A dummy variable marking the home state of the Democratic presidential nominee (which in all cases is zero for this forecast, since we don't know who the candidate is yet);
The incumbent president's job approval rating, as measured by the Gallup organization on or about Labor Day (via David Burbach at MIT for many of the data points). This is positive if the incumbent is a Democrat and negative if it is a Republican;
and the natural logarithm of the percent change in per-capita real personal disposable income in the third quarter of the election year (what a mouthful!).
Two additional dummy variables were used to account for unusually poor Democratic performance in the Deep South in 1964, as well as unusually good Democratic performance in the South in 1976. Generally, accounting for the whims of the Southern white bloc vote was the hardest part of producing this forecast -- the Southern tide which propelled Kennedy and Carter was not present for Johnson and Clinton. Moreover, accounting for George Wallace's vote in 1968 created headaches; eventually, I decided to count Wallace votes as Republican votes (since, presumably, the same voters who went for Wallace earlier voted for Republican Goldwater in 1964 and later voted for Republican Nixon in 1972).
Overall the models use 503 datapoints (every state and D.C. since 1976; ever state in 1972; and every state except Alaska and Hawaii in 1968 and 1964). The two linear models have R-square statistics of .86 and .84, respectively; and global F statistics of 264 and 241, with 491 and 492 degrees of freedom. Both voter-probability models have maximum ln-likelihoods approaching -336, and both state-probability models have maximum ln-likelihoods of about -103.
In the future I intend to update this prediction using better data, including the "true" ideological scores for 2001-2003 and more accurate estimates of 2004 Q3 RDI growth. I also would like to experiment using congressional support for the president as a variable (the logic behind that being that a state congressional delegation's support of presidential initiatives is driven, in large part, by the president's popularity back home among the contituents).
The entire Excel spreadsheet will be found here. Criticisms of a strictly mathematical sense (as this was the first time I have applied LOGIT/PROBIT analysis) are very welcome. Be warned, the spreadsheet is about 31 megs large. A non-interactive, HTML version will be found here.
Finally, I am deeply indebted to the prior works of Steven Rosenstone, Douglas Hibbs, Ray Fair, John Zaller and Larry Bartels. I am also grateful for Charles Annis's Web tutorial on implementing generalized linear models like LOGIT and PROBIT on his Web site, statisticalengineering.com. Major sources of data are Dave Leip's Election Atlas, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I've written before that my support of Dean was with full knowledge that Howard Dean will likely fare very poorly in many areas of the south.
Full Disclosure: I'm no longer involved with the Dean campaign, but as of this time I'm not moving to another candidate, nor have I contributed to any candidate other than Dean. I've been waiting a little bit for Clark to grab me, but while his campaign has momentum, it's certainly made more than its share of missteps (Most recently, I disagree with his decision to skip Iowa, while for Lieberman, it makes perfect sense). I want to be able to say "Clark's the one", but at this point, I'm still not sure. I'm waiting to when I'll feel comfortable sending $50 his way, but not yet (I've donated $40 total to the Dean campaign in three seperate donations). Still, I think it's unfair to write Clark off. Dean and Clark are the only two candidates that really excite me (Edwards to a lesser extent), so I'm frankly waiting to see what happens for now.
Anyway, but stories like this from The Hill are what really have turned me from a hardcore Deaniac this Spring and Summer to now seriously considering supporting Clark.
Vulnerable House Democrats are worried that Howard Deans negative coattails will whisk them out of office in 2004.
The incumbent lawmakers especially those from culturally conservative Southern states are concerned that if he is nominated, the former Vermont governors antiwar, pro-gay positions will create a national mood that will make it more difficult for Democratic incumbents to keep their seats, let alone win back the House.
While many of these Democrats have proved their ability to win in seats that Republican presidential nominees typically carry by 10 or more percentage points, they are beginning to wonder how much of a point spread theyll need to cover to retain their seats should Deans campaign for the presidential nomination succeed.
[...]
If Dean were the nominee, it would make it a lot tougher on me, said Rep. Rodney Alexander (D-La.), who hasnt endorsed a candidate.
Alexander argued that President Bush has established a connection with many of his constituents, who drive around his rural, sprawling district in pickup trucks with gun racks.
I cant find many of them with Dean stickers on their trucks, said Alexander, who will run for reelection in a district that Bush carried 57-40. General Clark would make it easier to win. For sure.
Alexander estimated that he will have to do 10 points better than the nominee.
He added, I am not going to be out there waving the banner for Dean.
Another Frontline Democrat, one from the Midwest, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said: It matters whos at the top of the ticket, and no matter how independent we think we are, our fates are tied to his.
I could see both Dean and [Sen. John] Kerry [Mass.] creating real problems in my district, especially on the cultural issues.
Not so much the war, but more on the gay marriage stuff, with Dean. I dont need it any harder.
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), who ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in 2000, confirmed that many of the vulnerable Democrats are getting nervous about how Dean will influence tight congressional races.
Rodney speaks for a lot of people, Kennedy said, adding, Thats the reason I support Gephardt, because he plays well in all sections of the country, not just the Northeast or the West.
[...]
Some Republicans seemed to relish the possible effect a Dean candidacy and his presumed negative coattails could have on down-ballot races.
Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), a former head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said that if Dean is the nominee, that may create a national atmospherics that is very favorable in House races, especially on the cultural issues in the south.
[...]
The Dean campaign did not return a request for comment by press time.
Sure, here in Austin, both coasts, urban areas, northern suburbs, etc. Dean will probably help the Democratic vote. He'll motivate dissaffected Democrats, Independents and previous nonvoters to get out, organize and bring their friends to vote. It'll help the ticket... in Blue states. But winning the "Blue states" won't beat Bush. Winning the "Blue states" won't help us win back the senate where the battleground states will be places like Alaska, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Louisiana (if Breaux resigns). Take a look at an analysis of the meetup.com statistics of Dean and Clark. 65% of Howard Dean's meetup.com supporters come from the 20 "Blue States" carried by Al Gore in 2000. Only 35% come from the 30 "Red States" carried by Bush. On the other hand, Wesley Clark has 43% of his meetup.com supporters from "Red States".
I've said before that if Dean were the nominee, Democrats should expect to lose big in most areas of the south, however, areas like the southwest (Red states like Arizona, Colorado and Nevada) along with Florida, West Virginia, Ohia and New Hampshire would be on the table for Dean (of course this is all dependent upon the situation in Iraq and the economy. If Dean is the nominee and Iraq is going badly still and the economy sucks, I'd say Dean wins with all the Blue states and most of the aforementioned states. If the opposite is true, my guess is a safe Bush victory to Bush landslide. Most likely is something in between). As for Clark or Edwards, I'd see them competetive in places like Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, as well as many of the previously mentioned states. In The Hill article, however, Rep. Rodney Alexander (D-LA) makes an important point. Bush has established a connection with rural voters with pickups and gun racks. Yeah, Dean is pro-gun (which gives him a good chance in Ohio and West Virginia), but not so much in districts that send bigots like John Cooksey (as recently as 2000) to Congress (not to mention Civil Unions and abortion rights).
So is all this a reason not to vote for Dean? No. But it is important to discuss and understand the implications of nominating Dean (good and bad), just as we should do the same for every viable candidate. Thoughts anyone?
In the money race for the Democratic Nomination, Carol Moseley Braun seems to be having trouble even leaving the gate, raising ~$125,000 this last quarter, beating only Rev. Sharpton who came in at about $121,000.
"Obviously, we would like to have more money, but we're just going to keep plugging along," Braun said after a candidates forum in Des Moines. "We're a struggling campaign, but I hope we don't ever get to the point where money equals your ability to get votes."
Braun said in May she would have to "fold my tent" if her political comeback bid did not receive greater financial support. She raised about $72,000 in the first three months of the year and $217,000 in the second quarter.
Asked how she intended to continue running in the crucial stretch leading to the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses, she threw up her hands and said with a trademark smile: "Magic."
Braun, who served one term in the Senate after her historic election in 1992, is lagging behind the top Democratic candidates."
No kidding. When compared to Howard Dean's $14.83 Million, her campaign looks like it is lacking some serious "Magic". Even the endorsement of NOW isn't having any effect.
As sad as it is, I really like Carol and even Al Sharpton who are both lacking in financial Magic but not charisma. In every debate so far, I have looked forward to their comments. Braun always makes me smile; she is such a happy person who knows she can't win but is in the race because she really believes in Hope. Sharpton has the best zingers by far, and is like a Democratic Peacemaker and Cheerleader.
They should seriously consider exiting the race (as should others- a different discussion) but I would be sad to see them go when they do because of the above.
Daily KOS has all the gruesome details about Chris "loser with a capital L" Lehane getting on board the Clark campaign.
I once said that Lehane needs to be dragged out and shot. My opinion remains the same, especially after the negativity of the California Recall Election.
I'm almsot starting to feel sorry for John Kerry.
Let me be clear about this -- Wesley Clark is too good of a man to be saddled with this assclown. And unfortunately, it's getting even more strikingly obvious that the Clark campaign is "running the Gore campaign with a 'better' candidate." .
Bob Graham is the only presidential candidate other than Howard Dean I have ever met. On July 4 a bunch of people from the Dean campaign traveled to New Hampshire to march in two parades- one in Concord and another in Merrimack- that featured several of the presidential candidates. I saw John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Sen. Graham but after the Merrimack parade we were sitting in a parking lot when Bob Graham came along the route. A few friends and I went up to him to introduce ourselves.
Graham asked each of us our names, where we were from, where we went to school, what we studied and shook our hand. I said "You are a good man, Sen. Graham and we are all on the same side in the end." He then said "Well you work for a good man and I'm glad to see you out here." Truly classy.
I knew then that he didn't have a chance- Kerry had probably 200 ppl, Lieberman at least 100, we had a couple hundred ourselves in our parade. Graham had maybe 10 people, all employees. Still, he had a sense of humor and an honesty and character about him that was refreshing. In the end, Bob Graham was probably too nice to run for president but here's hoping that someday a man as good as Bob Graham becomes our President.
That's the nickname Taegan Goddard suggests Wesley Clark could be tagged with for his dalliance with space-time apostasy.
Clark, in a forum on the future of NASA, made a remark about faster-than-light travel last week (NY Times | Wired.com), and caught a lot of flak for it:
Admittedly, the newest Democratic presidential candidate could use a health care proposal. And he has struggled to secure such basics as hiring a poster printer in New Hampshire (see Exhibit A: Campaign poster from a recent Clark appearance).
But Clark is the first presidential candidate this year -- and the first ever, with the possible exception of Jerry Brown -- to come up with a policy on time travel.
"I still believe in E-equals-mc-squared," the candidate announced at a gathering in New Hampshire last week, "but I can't believe that in all of human history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go." According to Wired.com, which reported this bold stand, Clark continued: "It's my only faith-based initiative."
His remarks caught the attention of late-night host David Letterman, who said Clark is already pursuing his initiative. "As a matter of fact, earlier today he went back in time to remove his foot from his mouth," Letterman said.
I took an astronomy class last year that included discussions of the relevant physics, and frankly I think the media are being harsh on Wesley Clark. And of course, if the idea of faster-than-light travel is so far out, why did NASA spend money on researching it?
Taking on Einstein might sound quixotic, at best. Surprisingly, though, a sprinkling of physicists around the world are doing it... Some are down-fight conventional, even highly regarded by the generally conservative physics community. These tamer rebels are taking on just a slice of relativity--the part that says nothing can go faster than the speed of light.
A decade ago that would have been heresy. But now there appear to be several plausible approaches to breaking--or at least bending--that most hallowed of natural laws, and some of them are being demonstrated in the laboratory. Perhaps the universe's ultimate speed limit might someday go the way of the national 55-miles-per-hour statute. Even NASA has jumped on the bandwagon, providing encouragement and a certain amount of funding to a growing band of relativistic scofflaws. After all, who else really needs to get anywhere faster than 186,000 miles per second?
...
[Marc] Millis runs NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion program. Now that astronomers seem to be on the verge of finding potential life-supporting planets in distant solar systems, it's only natural to start thinking about visiting them. Unfortunately, the prospects for interstellar travel are not cheery. The distances between stars are so vast that a spacecraft moving at the speed at which Apollo capsules journeyed to the moon would take almost a million years just to reach our nearest neighbor. Even at the speed of light, a round-trip to one of the more interesting stars in our neighborhood could take centuries. That's where faster-than-light travel--and Millis's program--comes in.
The program, which consists essentially of Millis, isn't the agency's sole effort to explore strange new technologies for getting us to the stars. An "exotic propulsion" group at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, for example, is studying new types of rocket engines to that end. But compared with the ideas Millis is looking at, the JPL group is dealing with pretty tame stuff; after all, it is restricting itself to designs that obey the known laws of physics. Even Star Trek seems mundane to Millis. "I get really horrified when people talk about the Enterprise's impulse engines being based on fusion-drive rockets," he says. "Why would they need rockets? They have artificial gravity. All they have to do is turn that sideways and they've got propulsion."
...
Meanwhile, on the side, Millis once again pulled brainstorming sessions together, this time with NASA engineers and scientists interested in speculating on entirely new forms of spacecraft propulsion and the physics that might underlie them. By 1984, NASA had authorized Millis to use up to a fifth of his salaried time on the brainstorming. By 1990 that was extended to half his time. Last year the agency made it his full-time job and even gave him a $50,000-a-year budget...
...
But Millis has managed to use his modest resources to become a sort of Oprah of faster-than-light travel. He conducts interviews, holds surprisingly well attended workshops, and his Web site, Warp Drive, When? (www.lerc.nasa.gov/www/pao/warp.htm), fielded over 50,000 visits in December 1997, its first month. Despite his fervency, Millis insists his expectations are realistic. "I'm prepared to accept the idea that we can't go faster than light," he says. "But that's no reason not to try to look for loopholes. searching for a good foot in the door is where we're at right now."
-- from "Faster than a Speeding Photon", Discover Magazine, August 1998.
(Millis's program at NASA had its funding cut last year, but Millis is still working as an aerospace engineer at Glenn Research Center).
In any case, after Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush the lesser, should Americans be shocked by a politician wanting to turn back time? I think not.
Indeed, while this is certainly off-the-beaten path, the willingness of Clark to insert himself into a scientific controversy tends to exhibit courage as well as establish his credentials as a Renaissance Man. It fits into Clark's overall theme of long-term vision. And as such, I think what Clark did by mentioning warp drives was really cool.
(Disclosure Number One: I'm a real big Star Trek fan.)
(Disclosure Number Two: I'm still on the Dean bandwagon.)
His official statement is here. We all sort of knew that this was coming. It was just a matter of time. So who does this help? Well, Graham was only in the low single digits. I think that his withdraw helps Dean, Clark and Edwards the most. Like Dean and Clark, Graham is anti-war, like Dean, Graham was a former governor, and like Edwards and Clark, Graham is a southernor. Still, the effect of his withdraw is rather minimal, since Graham was polling poorly anyway. Most of the support that would have naturally gravitated towards Graham was absorbed by Dean and Edwards before Graham got in the race. Clarks entry into the race made things even more difficult for Graham, and he knew it. Regardless, lets all hope that Graham runs for re-election to the US Senate so we won't have to worry about defending his seat.
Howard Dean has a good statement about Graham's withdraw.
Update: John Edwards and John Kerry have also issued statements on Graham's withdraw.
Texas Democratic State Party Chair Molly Beth Malcolm has endorsed Wesley Clark.
Update: And Clark raised $3.5 Million in two weeks. It will be interesting to see how much Dean and Clark raise next quarter. There's little doubt in my mind that the two of them will be #1 and #2 in money next quarter.
Can't We All Just Get Along (And more thoughts on Clark)?
By Byron LaMasters
This kind of stuff really pisses me off. Now it's on Clark's Blog:
I just saw an article in USA today about this "Is Clark a Democrat" crap. Lots of off the mark quotes from Dean.
I have to say, I haven't been this angry since Bush smeared McCain.
I am registered Independent and I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HOWARD DEAN now, even if he wins the nomination.
Posted by: Indie at October 2, 2003 07:16 AM
[...]
Indie: I am with you, Dean is a bitter man and I will sooner leap into the Ohio river than vote for him.
Henry: If the links to the Henniker c-span don't work, try going to C-span site and link from there. Could be your media player.
Posted by: Kramer at October 2, 2003 07:51 AM
Although, to be honest, most of the comments over on Clark's blog are positive. It's also filled with a lot of former Dean supporters. I found this comment to be a very interesting look at the Dean / Clark dynamic. I find myself agreeing with a lot of it:
The Dean dynamic seems to me to be a little bit more complicated. What Dean has is a team that's really, really committed to him but that is probably going to max out at its online support plus a few percent. These people really feel involved in the Dean campaign, because Dean has made them feel so (I spent some time on the Dean blogs and even gave the man a bit of money when I was thinking "Wesley Clark? Too good to be true, so it will never happen.") "You have the power" really energizes his base.
But it stops there.
What we have over here is the same level of commitment among committed supporters but a candidate who comes off much better than Dean does, if only because he has the credentials to say what he's saying without the "raving left-wing liberal from New England" label sticking. The substance of what Clark and Dean say, as has been pointed out numerous times, is quite similar, though Clark brings a better national perspective to it. I'll explain that more later if people want to hear the rationale. But Dean probably doesn't know what the PNAC is, let alone "having their number."
To put it more briefly (hard for a political scientist), Clark has a broader appeal. People will consider voting for Clark who would never consider voting for Dean. These people are the so-called "Reagan Democrats," the people who normally vote Democratic but who put Reagan in office; who came home in '92 and '96 and put Clinton in office. In short, they're the swing voters, the ones who are essential to winning an election.
That's why we've got to get behind Clark and push him through the convention. If he makes it through the convention, he'll mop up the floor with the Shrub. But in the primary process, it's the committed folks who show up to vote in many states. We need to get more folks firmly committed. And we need to get independents to the polls in those states in which they can vote in the Democratic primary, like McCain did with the Republican primary in 2000. We need to get independent Democrat-leaners to reregister in closed primary states (those in which you have to be registered with a party to vote in its primary).
This takes a lot of foresight, and it takes a lot of commitment. Clark can do his part by being who he is -- the ideal candidate to beat Bush. But we also have to do ours, which is reaching out to the people whom we need to pull off the nomination.
This isn't just about getting General Clark elected. It's about saving the country from four more years of the far right. No other candidate, I'm convinced, will do this.
A quick read of Woodward and Bernstein's "All the President's Men" and "The Final Days" is instructive. In 1972, the Republicans bumped off Edmund Muskie with a falsely-planted letter which contained an ethnic slur against (of all people) French-Canadians. It resonated in New Hampshire, and he dropped out. They wanted to run against the weakest possible candidate -- George McGovern. So they got him nominated.
You've heard, as much as I have, that the Republicans would love to run against Howard Dean. They're sure they can bump him off in the general election. Sadly (because I really like the man), I'm afraid they're right. That's why we've got to get a candidate nominated whom they CAN'T bump off in the general election.
And Wes Clark is that candidate.
Posted by: DC Pol Sci at October 3, 2003 09:54 AM
Generally, the Clark Blog (get the pun? Heh.) commenters have been pretty respectful, though. I think that most of his supporters admire the grassroots and fundraising success of Howard Dean, but simply don't see him as the candidate to beat Bush. My main point is simply to remind everyone that Clark, Dean and Kerry are all three good Democrats, old or new. Whoever wins the nomination among them (or Edwards of Gephardt) will need the supporters of everyone else to beat Bush. Nothing annoys me more than seeing Dean supporters say they won't vote for any Democrat other than Dean, and likewise for the Kerry and Clark folks.
Well last time I made one, I was right (mostly). This on isn't very bold, actually. But, I'm personally betting that Bob Graham will drop out of the race by the end of the month. For one, his his spokesman resigned today, and further staff cuts are going to be made. Graham just hasn't caught fire at all. He's a good senator with a good profile, but he just doesn't have the fire. The St. Petersburg Times best articulates Graham's problems:
Along the way, Graham's campaign has had its difficulties:
Mistakes and poor planning. Graham's press releases and e-mails to supporters include an unusual number of grammatical errors and typos. For example, a release Monday criticized the Bush administration's "wreckless" drilling policy. In July, the campaign e-mailed reporters about a new state political director but did not say which state.
The campaign has often seemed out of synch with Graham, issuing blistering statements that don't sound like the senator.
Lack of identity. Graham tried to position himself as the antiwar candidate and the one who can beat President Bush. But Dean has often been identified as the antiwar candidate and retired Gen. Wesley Clark is now being called the most "electable" candidate.
Missed opportunities. Graham met dozens of voters at the college football game in Columbia, S.C., on Saturday, but campaign workers made little effort to follow up. They had no literature to give voters, nor did they keep a list of names for future mailings.
Internal troubles. Crawford said Graham's family has been playing too big a role in directing the campaign. Crawford said Graham "has got some hired guns around him, but if they've got to take orders from the wife and kids, you've got a problem."
Lack of pizzazz. Graham's speeches have often failed to inspire voters.
It's here. And it's good, too. Josh Marshall has a good interview with Clark over on Talking Points Memo. I found it very interesting. It really highlights Clark's knowledge and brilliance on foreign policy / national security issues / history, as well as his need to catch up on domestic issues quickly and his current tendency to speak in vastly broad generalities on domestic issues. Clearly, he'd make a terrific Vice President or Secretary of State for anyone. As for President? We'll get to wait and see...
Like Byron, I really truly dislike George Bush. I think that he has been an awful president and I think that these 4 years have been terribly destructive to our country. I also believe that another term would harm America irreparably and be devastating to the Democratic Party. I also believe that we must be practical and look at who will best unseat this president and enliven our party for the sake of taking back the Congress in 2004. There are 7 candidates that have some reasonable shot at winning the nomination and they'd all be better than Bush by a longshot. But one has the best shot of winning and only one can create a movement to dramatically change our country for the better in the process. That man is Howard Dean.
Let's be realistic here. No matter what Bush's poll numbers are like right now, he is incredibly strong going into 2004. Reagan and Clinton both had much lower poll numbers at this point in their terms. Clinton was written off as a one term president through most of his term until the very end when the economy turned up and the GOP nominated a weak and uninspiring candidate. Right now the GOP is at its strongest and the Democratic Party at its weakest since the McKinley era and Bush will have more money than any candidate in history, by a long shot. If employment takes a big jump (he almost certainly won't erase all the job losses, but a few quarters of stunning growth in the GDP and job market will make that point moot) and Iraq and Afghanistan are going swimingly by the time November 2, 2004 rolls around, no Democrat can beat him probably. If, on the other hand, we continue on our current course (as I suspect we will) a candidate that can run the right kind of campaign with the right kind of message can have a real shot against him.
That kind of campaign will not be a Carter/Mondale/Dukakis/Clinton/Gore, traditional, top down, ad heavy, style over substance type of campaign- Bush plays that game much better. He has all the advantages in that kind of battle- he has 100% name ID, the world's biggest bully pulpit, more money than God and a unified, incredibly well-organized party behind him. Thats why we must be guerilla warriors- striking the mighty where they are weak and feeding off of and fanning popular discontent. We must develop a sort of political Judo- using our opponent's strength against him. Howard Dean is the man for the job.
Dean has nearly 450,000 online supporters- nearly half a million people have read what he has to say, gone to his website and filled out a form saying that they want to be connected with his cause. That is more than the number of voters in the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses combined. Of that 450,000 nearly 120,000 are actively involved in the Meet Up process- meaning that more people say that they are going to go to an organized meeting of Dean volunteers every month than there are participants in the Iowa caucuses. If only a third show up that is still 40,000 active, organized, committed supporters nationwide a year before the elction. This is at a time when 2/3 of all Democrats can't even name one candidate and he already has nearly 500 times as many active supporters as the margin in Florida in 2000. Finally, Dean has raised $12.6 million this quarter from 150,000 donors. Dean has convinced 150,000 people to put their hard earned money towards getting him elected president. That is unprecedented in modern history and is the kind of fundraising operation that is going to beat Bush's pioneers and rangers and his $200 million. Where Bush is mass produced, Dean is grass roots, where Bush is top heavy Dean is populist, where Bush is funded and fueled by powerful interests Dean is supported by average Americans willing to work, organize, donate and support him through thick and thin. That is a powerful advantage over Bush that not another Democrat has anything resembling.
Additionally, Dean has the Judo needed to knock Bush out. Bush has a slick, carefully orchestrated image- Dean is real, unprocessed. Bush has sound-bite policy proposals, Dean has meat and potatoes, something substantive to say. Bush smirks while 3 million people lose their jobs and 6000 families are devasted by having a family member killed or injured in Iraq and Dean is mad as hell. Bush is conservative where he shouldn't be- on issues of fairness and equality- Dean is liberal on those issues. Bush is a bleeding heart where he ought not be- on fiscal issues- Dean has balanced more government budgets than anyone else in this race. Bush is viewed as a slightly dumb cowboy, Dean is a doctor- an expert who knows how to fix things most Americans don't. Dean can take Bush on where he is weak and take advantage of him like no other candidate can.
Finally, Dean will win the Democratic nomination. Really, there are only four candidates with any chance at the nomination- Dean, Kerry, Gephardt and Clark. The three irrelevants are, well, irrelevant; Graham can't raise money and his numbers are dismal, his organization next to non-existant; Edwards is mired in obscurity in the polls and his campaign seems to be populated by people intent on losing and Lieberman brags about getting booed at all the forums- he is a step to the right of the party. Dean will take out Kerry in New Hampshire unless something important happens soon for John and Gephardt is increasingly weak in Iowa. If he loses there, he is done. Other than that, his trendlines are down nationally and Clark and Dean's are up. I believe that the race boils down to Clark v. Dean and Dean has more money, better organization and taps into the visceral anger of rank and file Dems right now. Clark can gain ground before the nomination is locked up but I doubt that he can surpass Dean. Clark is the only other candidate with a shot as far as I'm concerned and I think his vacillation hurts him badly. Dean is what Democrats want- an electable, angry, exciting liberal with a great organization and a commitment to what he says. Dean wins the nomination unless Clark gets some solid ideas and some fire in his belly, Kerry does something new in New Hampshire or Gephardt has a radical change in fortunes. I see Dean winning this race and choosing a moderate southerner with foreign policy credentials, i.e. Wesley Clark, as his running mate. His organization, message, image and the intensity of his supporters leads him to victory. No one else can do it.
Paul Wellstone wrote a book called The Conscience of a Liberal shortly before he passed away in which he described the future of America as he saw it. It was an America where the government becomes a force for change, fairness, prosperity and hope for our people. It was an America where people with the intensity, intelligence, compassion and passion of Paul Wellstone were in charge. He talks about how this country will not be created by sound-bite politicians with $2,000 a plate dinners and wishy-washy positions on everything, but by a mass movement of grassroot progressive activism. Howard Dean adopted his signature tagline "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" from Sen. Wellstone and it seems he's adopted his vision and organization from the late professor as well. I believe in that kind of America and no other person running now, or ever in the last 35 years has fought for that like Howard Dean has. The less we worry about electability and the more we worry about who has the best plan for making America the country we all know deep down inside that it can be the clearer it becomes- Howard Dean is the man for America.
Here's a picture from my trip this weekend to Iowa as part of Dean's Texas Rangers (BOR | DFA | Statesman). It was taken Sunday morning outside of Adel, in Dallas County.
I spent Saturday in Council Bluffs, which is across the river from Omaha, Nebraska; and yesterday in Dallas County. a rural county about 30 miles west of Des Moines.
I did surprise a couple of people with this post where I wrote that while I am still "leaning Dean, [...] my support is much softer than before". I got a few emails over it. Basically, this story from the Washington Post basically echos my feelings about Dean:
Peter Lehmen and his wife, Theresa, of Keene, N.H., attended Clark's town hall meeting late Friday. Lehmen has given money to Dean and credits the scrappy Vermonter with having the courage to take on Bush and start a dialogue among the Democrats that has shaped both the tone and the substance of the debate. "He was talking about things that other people were afraid to talk about," Lehmen said.
Lately, however, both Lehmens have begun to question whether Dean is the best Democrat to beat Bush. Peter said he finds Dean inconsistent in some of his views. Theresa said Dean is "coming across as a little more abrasive" and appears to let his ego get in his way. Clark, she said, impressed her as someone who could successfully negotiate with foreign leaders. "He certainly presented himself in a very diplomatic but forceful way that I would call presidential," she said.
I hate Bush. I HATE him. I hate everything about him. There's lots of people that I can disagree with, but respect. I highly respect a lot of Republicans like John McCain, Bill Ratliff, Ron Paul, Colin Powell and Carole Keyton Strayhorn. I even respect conservatives like Tom McClintock and some others (there's a good number of them out there) because they're honest about what they believe in, and they don't play games. Bush isn't one of them. Why do we hate Bush? This piece summarizes a lot of the reasons. That Bush hatred is what led us to Howard Dean. When everyone else was being a wimp, Howard Dean was firing back. Now that Bush is less popular, Howard Dean has emerged as the frontrunner because he was critical of Bush when it wasn't popular. But I do think that there are serious issues about Dean's ego, about his abrasiveness, about his issue positions, about his ideas for Iraq that his harecore supporters would like to ignore (or just pretend that it's DLC propaganda). Can Dean win the nomination? Yes. Can he be elected President? Yes. But he still has a lot of maturing as a candidate to do (although you could say the same about any of the other candidates, especially Wesley Clark). Back to Bush. I don't just want to beat him, I want to beat him bad. I don't want it to be close enough for their to be any doubt. And I want to bring a Democratic Congress in with our Democratic president. I'll support the candidate in which I think could best do that. If after a few months, it become clear that Wesley Clark is in the best position to bring us that victory, then I'll endorse him. If Howard Dean remains that candidate, then I'll stick with him. We'll see.
Well, I'm not, but BOR poster Jim D. is. He's one of several hundred Texans who is going to Iowa or New Hampshire for the weekend to be a "Dean Texas Ranger". And no, being a "Dean Ranger" doesn't require bundling $200,000. All it requires is sacrificing a weekend to support the good doctor. I'm not able to make it for the weekend, because I'll be working tonight, and to be perfectly honest, I'm a little less enthusiastic about the Dean campaign than I was several months ago. I think that Dean had the right message for the Spring of 2003, but I'm not quite sure if it's the right message to win next November. Unfortunately, there's no candidate out there that just grabs me, though, and I'm not longing for Al Gore or Hillary Clinton to jump in the race either. Of the other candidates, the only other candidate that I'm really drawn to is Wesley Clark, but things like this and this obviously concern me. So, basically you can put me on the record as currently leaning Dean, but my support is much softer than before. I've officially resigned from various volunteer roles (Students for Dean, Longhorns for Dean, etc.) that I've held with the campaign, although the Dean campaign still lists me as the UT contact (even though I've emailed them and told them I am no longer the UT contact). I'm sure that it will be worked out eventually. Anyway, I look forward to hearing Jim's comments on the Iowa / New Hampshire trip. Whether you're a Dean supporter or not, you have to like the contrast Dean makes between his grassroots Rangers and Bush's Enron / Worldcom / Halliburton millionaire cash-bundling Rangers.
Update: Dean Texas Ranger Melissa Taylor will be blogging her trip to New Hampshire this weekend.
Update: A bunch of other friends of mine will be in Iowa this weekend. I'm sure that Karl will blog on the trip when he returns. You can help Karl raise money for Howard Dean, here.
One poll might be a fluke, but take a look at this:
Among registered Democrats polled, Clark led in the race for the nomination with 22%, followed by Dean with 13%, Kerry and Gephardt with 11% and Lieberman with 10% Other Democrats got 4% or less.
And there's this:
If retired General Wesley Clark were the Democratic Party's candidate and George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for Wesley Clark, the Democrat or George W. Bush, the Republican?
All: Clark 48, Bush 46
Registered Voters: Clark 49, Bush 46.
Okay, things were going well with Clark in my opinion until I saw this article in the New York Times.
Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race...
General Clark said he was conflicted. He offered the case on both sides of the argument, as he appeared to struggle to stake out positions on issues that have bedeviled four members of Congress who supported the war and are now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination...
A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position on balance, I probably would have voted for it."...
A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position on balance, I probably would have voted for it."
The general's remarks in a free-rolling 90-minute airborne interview suggested the extent of the adjustment he faces in becoming a presidential candidate.
"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."
At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.
"I want to clarify we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."
"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."
Okay, so in addition to being much further to the right on the issue of the war (later in the article he specifically says that he sees his opinion being closer to that of Lieberman and Gephardt than Dean) he also seems to be unable to articulate an opinion without the help of his handler. Perhaps I'm being too tough on the guy after one day of campaigning, but the way I see it he lost his biggest political assets- being an independent comentator, not being a politician- when he announced. So now he is in fact a politician, but not a very good one it appears.
He also said that he supported Nixon and Reagan at the time of their respective elections but turned Dem after Clinton inspired him. I have really no problem with that- so many Dems switched sides because of Nixon and Reagan its nice to see someone going the other way.
So with the late entry of General Wesley Everything Democrats Have Ever Wanted Clark it is the job of self-appointed pundits such as yours truly to ask what effect his entry will have on the race. Perhaps without much elucidation on his part of his potential platform this is impossible, but we ought to try anyways. Heres what we do know:
1. Hes from Arkansas
2. Hes a smarty- graduated first in his class at West Point and was a Rhodes Scholar
3. Hes a decorated 4-star General
4. Hes pro-choice
5. Hes pro-gun control
6. Hes pro-affirmative action
7. Hes moderately pro-gay
8. His campaign will likely feature Mark Fabiani and Chris Lehane, two major league assholes with a penchant for losing to George W. Bush, in starring roles
9. Hes against the War in Iraq
10. Hes buddies with Bill Clinton
Okay, so I stopped at 10 because thats a nice round number and because that seems to be the most important stuff to know. First effect I would say is that Bob Graham is probably history. His campaign never really took off- he has abysmal numbers, he raises about as much money as Denis Kucinich and with another Southerner in the race theres really no room for him. Most commentators have dropped his name from the list of contenders and another serious Dem really sticks the last stake in him. Unless his Q3 numbers are just phenomenal look for him to drop out and look for some of his top campaign people to jump onto Clarks ship.
Next is the CW that John Kerry is really fucked. Kerry was the dream candidate- an articulate, intelligent war hero. Put that up against Draft Dodger Shrub and he looks like hot shit. But since then his campaign has done really nothing, it is losing vital ground in NH and losing the money race to a governor from a state with fewer people than a lot of good-sized counties here in Texas. Now his supporters see someone with the same positives, only better. Kerry was articulate and intelligent in a patrician Beacon Hill, Yalie sort of way, Clark is articulate and intelligent in a Bill Clinton, Arkansas boy done good sort of way. Kerry was a war hero, but the whole thing seemed calculated for his political ambition, Clark made a career out of military service and has that reluctant leader thing that Americans love (think George Washington, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower). Plus, Kerry and Clark have the same idea- try to do okay in Iowa but really knock them dead in New Hampshire. Kerry is already 10-20 points behind Dean in NH and the points Clark seeps off threaten to derail him completely on that day.
Next comes the problems for Edwards. First, Edwards announcement got about as much media coverage as a Jermaine Jackson album release thanks to Clarks wise choice of an announcement day. Right after Edwards speech and right before the political black hole that is Hurricane Isabel coverage, Clark ends this week as the story of the week. Now, with the presumed exit or at least continued marginalization of Bob Graham Clark trumps Edwards as the only southerner in the race. In fact, he becomes the best southerner in the race and shuts off all the Clinton support Edwards was counting on. Edwards was another buzz candidate that has disappointed so far and like Kerry he is hurt by a candidate who is everything he is- southern, folksy, Clinton-esque- only better.
Lieberman is hurt because he was counting on Sunbelt Tuesday- February 3 when South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arizona, New Mexico and Delaware have their primaries- to prop him up after presumed losses in Iowa and New Hampshire. But who is more likely to pick up votes in the South and West? The New England Jew who ran as Al Gores running mate or the Arkansas General that kicked Slobodan Milosovics ass? The war issue is Liebermans best bet to win on this day but running as the pro-war candidate will lose him much needed delegates everywhere else as the activist primary base tends to be anti-war. Additionally, if things keep going like they are now overseas Lieberman will probably want to distance himself from that conflict altogether. If Dean wins in IA and NH, as he is wont to do, the field will be Dean, Clark, Lieberman and Edwards on Sunbelt Tuesday. Clark wins in South Carolina and perhaps Oklahoma, Dean wins in New Mexico, Delaware and Missouri, Lieberman can maybe pick up Arizona or Oklahoma, but I call them for Dean and Clark, respectively. Even if he wins both he is effectively out of the race as is Edwards, making it a Dean v. Clark affair to the end on March 2nd when about 1/3 of all the delegates are divvied up.
And how does the General fare against Dean? Normally he would be very dangerous simply because he has many of the same views and his campaigns base has been the internet-driven Draft Clark campaign that rivals Deans net effort. But the entry of Lehane and Fabiani suggests that this campaign will begin to take on a very conventional, top-down appearance very quickly. Slaying top-down conventional campaign dragons is what gets Howard Dean through the night- its his hobby, his specialty and the secret to his meteoric rise. Additionally, Deans base tends to be far more committed to their man than most other candidates. Having said this, I still see Clark seeping off enough votes to perhaps hand Iowa to Gephardt, but as long as it is close Dean has really won. I also see him winning New Hampshire for Dean by seeping off enough Kerry votes to make it even easier. After Sunbelt Tuesday the race will effectively be a Dean v. Clark affair. After that it will be far more volatile than any other Dean v. pairing simply because while he has the establishment cred that all the other other guys have, he also has solid liberal cred as well, which makes him an interesting foil for Dean. It will depend on organization, money and image- number one breaks Deans way, number three for Clark so I really think that money will be the deciding factor. If Dean keeps his fundraising machine going like it is now, the nomination is his with perhaps Clark as his VP. If Clark can tap the Clinton money though he might be able to eclipse the governor and will win with Dean perhaps as his running mate (though I think he has lots of options- Phil Bredesen of TN, Mary Landrieu of LA, John Edwards, Evan Bayh of IN, Max Cleland of GA, or even one idea I heard- John McCain be still my heart). So heres where I see it- Clark will get a lot of Clinton supporter money, but Clinton would be a fool to endorse him or anyone else. Deans machine will keep going as very few of his nearly 100,000 donors are maxed out and thus can be tapped again and again. Noting this, I call it a tossup.
Finally, Gephardt is really the only candidate helped by Clark I think. Everyone that is really making Gephardt sweat right now- Dean in IA, Kerry in NH, Edwards and Lieberman on Sunbelt Tuesday- are hurt far more by Clark than he is. If Clark seeps off enough Dean votes to hand IA to Gep, enough Kerry votes in NH to hand him a close third or even second place and enough Edwards/Lieberman votes in labor heavy SC to hand him a close second or victory there (plus his home state win in MO) he can stay alive longer than he would with losses in any of those places. Plus, another plausible anti-war candidate splits that constituency even further to his benefit. If Gephardt cant turn the money machine on all of this will be moot anyways as he will run out of gas long before the big day(s) and as time goes on his only real strength- union support- is slipping so I see Gephardt losing despite all of this help.
So heres the score card:
1. Graham is gone
2. Clark is like Kerry, only better
3. Clark is like Edwards, only better
4. Lieberman will lose a head to head battle in the South with Clark
5. The race will be Dean v. Clark with money being the deciding factor
6. Gephardt is helped by Clarks entry though the point is moot unless he starts making some money
So we can rank the candidates with Dean as the front-runner, Clark as the number two if things continue the way I see them, Gephardt third, Lieberman fourth, Kerry fifth, Edwards sixth, Graham seventh. Please comment, I'd be glad to hear what people have to say about all of this.
Led by Killer D hero Richard Raymond, 13 of the 62 Democrats in the Texas State House are announcing their support of Wesley Clark for President tonight. The Quorum Report has the news.
13 HOUSE DEMOCRATS BACK CLARK FOR PRESIDENT Happy Hour event at Mother Egan's tonight Thirteen House Democrats have pledged their support for retired Army General Wesley Clark, who announced his bid for President today.
Rep. Richard Raymond (D-Laredo), who is coordinating the effort, said he saw parallels between Clark's rise to national prominence with that of General Dwight D. Eisnehower in the 1950s.
"Sometimes history repeats itself," Raymond said. "It's clear that we are at a unique period in American history where our economy is in a terrible situation and we are at war. General Clark just might be the right person at the right time for our nation."
Apparently, Clark has a following here in Texas. On Clark Meetup, Houston, Dallas and Austin are all in the top 10 cities.
Update: These are the 13: Richard Raymond (D-Laredo), Juan Escobar (D-Kingsville), Jim McReynolds (D-Lufkin), Rick Noriega (D- Houston), Robert Puente (D-San Antonio), Glenn Lewis (D-Fort Worth), Barry Telford (D-DeKalb), Mark Homer (D-Paris), Miguel Wise (D-Weslaco), Pete Gallego (D- Alpine), Jim Solis (D-Harlingen), Gabi Canales (D-Alice) and Ryan Guillen (D-San Diego).
It's official. Wesley Clark is in. His webpage is up and running at Americans For Clark. Via Political Wire is Clark's webcast to the Draft Wesley Clark movement. I guess that at least half of my bold prediction is true. Well, maybe a third of it... we'll have to see about the rest.
Dick Gephardt has also gone on the offensive, attacking Dean with this site.
And finally, maybe the best news of the day, is that the DNC now has a blog, Kicking Ass: Daily Dispatches from the DNC. They're off to a great start. Kos has been asking them to do it for awhile now, and I'm pleased to see that the DNC has listened.
It just might happen. Wow. I'd be shocked, but a Clark endorsement of Dean would basically hand him the nomination. Dean would run away with it. I still doubt that it will happen, and think Clark will run, but who knows... The good thing is that Dean and Clark are friends. I would love a decent, respectful primary on the issues between Dean and Clark, and may the best man win, and the next best man be the VP. I think that both would be better for it.
Dean, Clark Win in North Texas Labor Day Straw Poll
By Byron LaMasters
The Dallas County Democratic Party held a Labor Day poll at their annual Labor Day picnic event at Fair Park. Over 800 people showed up, and here were the results:
North Texas Labor Day Presidential Straw Poll
Candidate
Votes
%
Howard Dean
266
49.5%
Wesley Clark
107
19.9%
John Kerry
52
9.7%
Richard Gephardt
40
7.4%
Dennis Kucinich
37
6.9%
Hillary Clinton
10
1.9%
John Edwards
10
1.9%
Al Sharpton
7
1.3%
Bob Graham
3
0.6%
Joe Lieberman
3
0.6%
Carole Mosley Braun
2
0.4%
So, what does this mean? I actually think that it's worth taking a serious look at the poll. While not scientific, unlike Internet polls that can be spammed easily, this poll required the attendance of those polled. Thus Deaniacs couldn't skew the poll, nor could Republicans for Sharpton. It was a poll of 537 real, activist Democrats on who they supported for President. It tells me three things. One, Democrats really like Howard Dean. He has real grassroots support among the activist base of the Democratic Party *duh*. Second, and most significantly, is a LOT of people really want Wesley Clark to run. As a non-candidate, he had at least twice as much support as every candidate but Dean. Finally, this poll shows, that at least in the Dallas area, no other candidate has much of a significant following among activist / base Democratic primary voters.
Wesley Clark will run for President, and he'll get the Clintons money. And by the end of the month, he'll be the story of the race.
I don't have any source. It's really just a gut feeling. But I can see it. Why else would there be stories like this floating around. The New York Times is hardly a tabloid:
During cocktails in the back yard, one group heard former President Bill Clinton say that the national Democratic Party had "two stars": his wife, the junior senator from New York, and a retired general, Wesley K. Clark, who is said to be considering a run for the presidential nomination.
A lot of Dean people still downplay the roll that Clark would play if he came into the race. So what if Dean and Clark like each other, talk weekly, etc. If the Clintons come to Clark and offer him their support (either out front or behind the scenes), or Clark has gone to the Clintons and asked for it (and that's my guess. That Clark has delayed this long until he gets the offical "ok" from the Clintons). I think that Hillary is smarter than to run. I know that she and Bill probably really want to go back to the White House, but I honestly think that they'll hold off.
People are saying that its too late for Clark. Well, what if he has the Clinton's behind the scenes support? Play this out for a second. Clark could announce on September 19th, do a whirlwind tour for the next week. Get the Clinton money people in right away, dazzle everyone by raising $5-10 Million (possible if Clintons give their donors the nod) in the last 10 days of the third quarter, and immediately become the story of the race. Sure, now that's the best case scenerio for Clark. But its a distinct possibility, and if he has the support of the Clintons he can be the story of the race by the end of the month.
In addition to the Clinton people, Clark would peel off anti-war / progressive support from Dean, military support from Kerry, southern support from Edwards and Graham, centrist support from Lieberman, etc. He already leads Bush. He's right where Colin Powell was 8 years ago. Clark is the one man that could change this race dramatically (I would say Clark could knock out Kerry, Edwards, Graham and Lieberman - or at least 3 of them - leaving the race between Dean's Internet army, Gephardt's labor army against General Clark. I personally like Clark, and I'd like to see him run. I'd like to hear more of his positions on issues before I'd consider supporting him, but he's really the perfect profile. He opposed the war in Iraq, but unlike Dean his military / national defense credentials are impeccable. He'd be acceptable to Deaniacs (one wonders why he's everyone's favorite VP for Dean), yet also can appeal to southerners, conservatives and moderate Democrats turned off by Dean (although I'm not suggesting that moderate and conservative Democrats wouldn't eventually support Dean if he were the eventual nominee, but I honestly don't see Dean being very competetive in the south should he be the nominee - although I do think that Dean could beat Bush by winning Gore states plus a few of AZ, CO, FL, OH, WV and NH). Furthermore, Clark would probably be acceptable to the DLC and he could pick off libertarian Republicans, independents, non-voters and more. I love the match up. I think and hope that Clark will run. I think that he'll catch fire. If not, he'll still be a great VP for Dean.
Via comments on this Kos thread. The Boston Globe reports on New Hampshire poll results:
McCain voters also displayed another strong sentiment: their dislike for President Bush.
As could be expected, well more than half, 67 percent, of the Democrats and Independents surveyed said they had an unfavorable view of Bush. The sentiment was even stronger among McCain voters, 76 percent of whom have an unfavorable opinion of the president.
Those polled were equally negative about Bush's handling of terrorism, with 68 percent reporting they believe the United States is losing the battle. Although 48 percent said they supported going to war with Iraq, 72 percent said they believed the case for war was exaggerated, and 74 percent said the intervention in Iraq was not worth the number of lives lost so far.
Shocking. 76% of New Hampshire voters that supported John McCain in January 2000 view President Bush unfavorably. These are people who are willing to vote for a Republican in 2000, and who's first choice for President was a Republican, the majority of whom probably voted for Bush in November, now saying that they want someone new. Wow. If we get the right message and right messenger, we'll win next year. Bush has alienated moderates (shown here) and conservatives, and Democrats hate him. Who's left?
Just returned from Howard Dean's San Antonio "Sleepless Summer" rally. The official crowd estimate was 3,500, although it could have been higher or lower. In my humble opinion, there were about as many people there as there were on the floor of the state Democratic convention in El Paso last year (which was about 3,000 plus or minus a thousand). The crowd also raised at least $17,000.
State Reps. Ruth Jones McClendon, Michael Villareal, and Eddir Rodriguez (all "Killer Ds") endorsed Dean.
Dean's speech hit on many of his standard stump speech talking points (for several minutes Andrew was able to recite word-for-word what Dean was going to say about health care reform).
But it alsoincluded an interesting tangent about building schools instead of prisons, which incidentally brought back vague memories of the Nader campaign.
On the other hand, it also included a discourse on why Dean feels he would be tougher on national defense than Bush ("He spent three trillion on givin tax breaks to Enron instead of fully funding homeland security," etc.). Which was nice.
Dean even cracked a joke about odd it was for a bunch of Texas Democrats to be applauding him on his balanced-budget pitch (which received some of the loudest applause of the night).
The energy was amazing. Let's leave it at that.
Update (via BlogforAmerica): The report filed by the San Antonio Express News.
Remember the dead and work like hell for the living...
By Jim Dallas
From a friend, "Obituary backs 'removal of Bush'" --
When Sally Baron's family wrote her obituary, they described a northern Wisconsin woman who raised six children and took care of her husband after he was crushed in a mining accident.
She had moved to Stoughton seven years ago to be closer to her children and was 71 when she died Monday after struggling to recuperate from heart surgery. Her family had come to the question of what might be a fitting tribute to her.
"My uncle asked if there was a cause," her youngest son, Pete Baron, said.
Almost in unison, what her children decided to include in the obituary was this: "Memorials in her honor can be made to any organization working for the removal of President Bush."
"She thought he was a liar," Baron's daughter, Maureen Bettilyon, said. "I think his personality, just standing there with that smirk on his face, and acting like he's this holy Christian, that's what really got her."
Bettilyon, who lives in Stoughton, said her mother didn't trifle with petty neighborhood squabbles but was attuned to significant policy-making at all levels.
"She'd always watch CNN, C-SPAN, and you know, she'd just swear at the TV and say 'Oh, Bush, he's such a whistle ass!' She'd just get so mad," Bettilyon said.
I've written before that Howard Dean has had a little bit of trouble winning over minority voters. Dean's base is considered to be "gay and lesbian voters, urban and surburban NPR liberal whites, some environmentalists, etc". So far, he's been acceptable to most Black and Hispanic leaders, but has yet to be embraced by them. Needless to say, this makes me happy.
U.S. Representative Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) announced today that he will endorse Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D. Speaking at a ceremony here in Presidio Park, Grijalva hailed Dean as the one candidate who can beat President Bush in 2004.
"I am pleased to announce my support for Governor Dean," said Rep. Grijalva. "I believe that Governor Dean is the only one that can unseat President Bush and take this country into a new era. He cares for the people and is genuine in his beliefs. His leadership will provide Arizona and the rest of our Nation with a sense of values that will benefit all Americans."
In announcing his endorsement, Grijalva specifically cited Dean's stance as an advocate for health care and immigration reform, his support for education and civil rights, as well as his desire to reincorporate American values into its foreign policy.
"I am honored to be endorsed by Representative Raúl Grijalva," Dean said. "He is a strong advocate in Washington for his constituents and he is an inspiration for Latinos and all Americans. Rep. Grijalva's life-long work on behalf of teachers, public education and the environment has demonstrated the impact that a single individual can have, and he demonstrated last year in his race for the House just how important it is to engage people in the political process."
Rep. Grijalva, who previously served in elected office for thirteen years as a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors, is now serving his first term in the U.S. House of Representatives after a surprise victory last fall that came after he mobilized typically disaffected Latinos in his district to reengage in politics and vote. Grijalva, whose first year in Congress is being profiled by the New York Times as part of a series on freshman representatives, represents a diverse district that is 50 percent Latino, and includes 200 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border as well as seven sovereign Native American nations.
Grijalva has a strong following in his Arizona district. He won by a heavy margin in a tough primary against a very well funded EMILY's List candidate (if I remember correctly). A lot of endorsements are relatively meaningless, but I think that getting a high profile Hispanic endorsement in the first primary with a large Hispanic population is a big help for Dean.
The results of Bill Howell's Texas Straw Poll are out at the Stout Dem Blog. I didn't participate for exactly the reasons stated by Bill, "It was fun, but it didn't tell us anything we didn't suspect already". Exactly. Howard Dean won a bare majority with 52% of the vote. Followed by Kucinich at 20%, Kerry at 13%, Gephardt at 4% and Lieberman at 2%. It basically says that of Democratic online activists Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich are popular, and that's about it. Bill also thinks that Kerry is stronger in Texas than his poll suggests as Dean and Kucinich had yahoo groups pushing their turnout, and Kerry didn't. Still, I'm impressed that 319 people did decide to vote in the straw poll.
Is Bob your friend? Join friendster and you can meet Bob! (I'm personally rather impressed that I am friends with Bob Graham through four degrees of seperation). I guess I have Carl with a K to thank for it, because he is friends with Howard (who, imagine this, is also running for President! I've heard good things about him, too!). This guy Howard, who's from Vermont and seems like a pretty cool guy is friends with Tammy and Ben who are both friends with Bob from Florida!
Gender:
Male
Interested in
Meeting People for:
Friends, Activity Partners
Status:
Married
Age:
66
Occupation:
Presidential Candidate/U.S. Senator
Location:
Hialeah, FL
Hometown:
Miami Lakes, FL
Interests:
Politics, NASCAR, Homeland Security, Florida, Environment, Education, Healthcare, Civil Rights, Economics, Fighting Crime, Pro Choice, International Relations, Foreign Affairs, gators, University of Florida, Harvard, Lawyer, Attorney
About Me:
I have dedicated my life to public service, and I have never lost an election. I have served two terms in the Florida House of Representatives and two terms in the Florida Senate. In 1978, I was elected the 38th governor of Florida. After two successful terms as governor, I was elected to the United States Senate in 1986 by defeating an incumbent Republican. I have been re-elected to the Senate twice, in 1992 and 1998. I am now campaigning to become the 44th President of the United States. I was born and raised in South Florida. I am a product of public schools in Florida starting with Hialeah Elementary and then Junior High Schools in Florida. In 1959 I received my bachelors degree at the University of Florida, where I was a Phi Beta Kappa, as well as a member of the Florida Blue Key and Chancellor of Honor Court. Then in 1962 I completed my bachelor of law degree from Harvard Law School. I am married to the lovely Adele Khoury of Miami Shores. I have four beautiful daughters and ten splendid grandchildren. When Im not working, I love spending time with my family. For more information on my workdays, my work with Florida Legislature, my term as Governor of Florida, my work as a US Senator and more information about my campaign please go to my website at www.grahamforpresident.com
Who I Want to Meet:
People interested in getting George W Bush out of office.
Yesterday, I found the official Kerry Blog, and today, via Greg's Opinion and Daily Kos, we have the official Graham Blog! It's on Moveable Type, and looks pretty respectable. I see that the Graham folks are finally embracing meetup.com, too. Graham still has quite a lot of catching up to do in the meetup primary, however, as Graham sits at 444, compared to Dean (over 80,000), Kerry, Clark and Kucinich (all in the 6000-10,000 range). Even more interesting is that according to Graham's blog, Bob Graham has joined Friendster! Heh! He's the last guy you'd expect to join friendster, which I would highly recommend. It's a nifty program where you can network with your friends friends and your friends friends friends, etc. It tends to cater to your under 30 / singles / internet savey type of crowd, so Bob Graham, who tends to remind you of your grandfather (in a good way) is that last person I would expect to see sign up for friendster. So, I'm going to have to give Bob Graham a few points for trying to be hip. Next thing you know, Janet Reno will throw him a dance party on South Beach! I wonder if Bob is as graceful as Janet? We might just have to see. Best of luck to him.
Well, John Kerry has joined the blogosphere. It's good for him, I suppose (and the Dean supporters attacking Kerry on there ought to stop. It's really pretty childish. Make your points, but be respectful, folks). Just in the way that Joe Lieberman often looks like he's trying to out-Republican George W. Bush, John Kerry is begining to look like he's borrowing the Howard Dean playbook. Take a look at his homepage. Now take a look at the Dean homepage. You'll notice how Kerry's added the on-line supporter tally (a la Dean) to his homepage. He's added the meetup.com link to his homepage, which I noted last week. Now, it looks as if John Kerry is trying out-Dean Howard Dean (at least in the webpage department). Starting next week will be a weekly chat with the campaign, enter the campaign with Kerry for a day contest and you can get your very own Kerry gear!
In fact, John Kerry's campaign is plagued by comparisons to Howard Dean. And it's not positive for Kerry. Here's what today's frontpage story in the New York Times said about Kerry:
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts had just finished a walking tour through Littleton, a small town near here in the White Mountains, when he paused to take questions from local reporters outside a candy store. There was one subject this day: Howard Dean.
Again and again, Mr. Kerry was asked his views of Dr. Dean. Again and again, Mr. Kerry, who had passed a half-dozen Dean placards on his walk, demurred. When a television reporter taunted Mr. Kerry to at least utter Dr. Dean's name, Mr. Kerry, who is rarely at a loss for words, grinned and pinched his mouth shut.
This is Mr. Kerry's world these days. Three months after many Democrats and Mr. Kerry himself thought he was rolling to the Democratic presidential nomination, he is frequently stuck in the shadow of an opponent who has moved from small-bore annoyance to potential threat. By all appearances, the changed atmosphere in the early battlegrounds of Iowa and New Hampshire has forced Mr. Kerry to recalibrate his approach to the crowded race for the nomination.
By his own account, Mr. Kerry's campaign message which even some supporters described as toothless and themeless back when the fight seemed simpler has become sharper, more focused and more compact. A candidate who has a reputation for circular speaking and windy orations is invoking Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman ("I'm going to tell the truth and they'll think it's hell."), and sounding campaign notes from John McCain, Paul Wellstone and, well, Dr. Dean.
John Kerry tries to be Howard Dean, but he's just not:
After what many Democrats, including Dr. Dean, described as vacillation on the subject, Mr. Kerry is now standing by his decision to vote for the war in Iraq, arguing, "I didn't take the easy road, but I took the road that I thought was correct." He is seeking to claim the mantle in 2004 for expanded health care coverage, an idea that was pioneered in this campaign by Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Dr. Dean.
He is also following Dr. Dean into the campaign computer age. Last week, he began his own campaign Web log, or blog, to provide a digest of his travels, modeled after the blog Dr. Dean has used with great success to rally supporters and contributors.
But just as Joe Lieberman doesn't play Joe Lieberman very well, John Kerry just doesn't play Howard Dean very well.
Mr. Kerry said any changes in his style and campaign which he said would become even more vivid as he approaches the official announcement of his candidacy next month were not in response to the ascendancy of Dr. Dean. Rather, Mr. Kerry said over the roar of a private jet flying him through the Midwest last week, any such changes were testimony of his evolution as a candidate, the natural rhythms of a campaign, and the increasing vigor he has felt in the months since he had cancer surgery.
"Look, I had a prostate operation in February and I'm feeling energized again," he said. "I'm feeling fully healthy and well and energetic and focused. I think there's a greater intensity. I'm stronger, back in full mettle and ready to go."
He can't blame his sagging campaign on is health much longer. It's been his excuse for the last few months. It's not working. Both John Kerry and John Edwards seem to have this strategy of turning their campaigns on this fall. I don't think it'll work. If you're running for president, you need to be strong out of the gate and stay strong to the end.
There's been lot of talk about latecomers to the game with Wesley Clark and Joe Biden, but they're not the only ones thinking of joining the fight. Former Congressman Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) who's now in prison is considering a run for president. He's even got a website up and running, here. According to his website, Traficant wants to kick out of the country "free-traders" like Joe Lieberman, "communists" like Janet Reno and "socialists" like Howard Dean. Yet Traficant is running as a Democrat. Hey Jim, what about George W. Bush?
Yeah Jim, enjoy yourself in prison.
Traficant links found via Political State Report post by The Wyeth Wire.
Well, it looks as if the Dallas Morning News has taken from the DLC Playbook with their editorial on Howard Dean today. The take the DLC line that Dean is "far left" and unelectable:
The centrist Democratic Leadership Council is worried that a Dean general election candidacy could erase the gains the party made among moderate independent voters during the Clinton years. Council leaders recently alleged that he represents the "far left" of the party and that those who back him are indulging their anti-Bush rage at the expense of a realistic strategy to defeat Mr. Bush at the polls. Said frustrated Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "Do we want to vent, or do we want to govern?"
The council is right. Dr. Dean is an exciting candidate, but his party faces an uphill battle against a popular wartime president. At this early stage, it isn't at all clear that the doctor has what it takes to lead a successful charge. Recent polling shows that only one in five white male voters identifies with the Democratic Party, a troubling number (from a purely strategic point of view) that won't redound to the Democrats' favor if they offer a candidate seen as a socially liberal peacenik beholden to special-interest groups. Dr. Dean is understandably the Democratic flavor of the week, but unless he can figure out how to appeal to the center, where the 2004 election will be decided, the party is likely to end up with a bad, and all too familiar, taste in its mouth.
Look at Dean's record in Vermont, guys. Dean has a McGovern problem, just like Reagan had a Goldwater problem. Reagan wasn't supposed to win. He was too conservative, and too out of touch. Republicans in 1980 wanted someone who stood up for their values and took the fight to Democrats. Democrats in 2004 want a Democrat who is unafraid to stand up for Democratic values and take the fight to Republicans.
Dean isn't McGovern, and despite what the DLC tries to tell us, we shouldn't buy it. The DLC liked Dean as a governor, and they ought to restrain themselves from the urge to make flawed comparisons. Need help debunking the Dean - McGovern comparisons? Take a look at Ekim's comment on kos today:
When most people make the very tired McGovern argument, they forget or omit several factors (or they are simply repeating the tripe that is spewed out of CW commentators):
1. the Eagleton affair. McGovern picks Eagleton as VP. Eagleton is revealed to have received shock therapy several times. The McGovern campaign flips and dumps him. As a result, McGovern looks indecisive, ineffective, and like just another calculating politician. This happened right after the convention and he never recovered as a result. This single event alone essentially destroyed his candicacy.
2. the U.S. was a very different place culturally at the time. You had massive demonstrations, cities burning, Weatherman bombing buildings, street protests, Chicago '68, acid, hippies, etc etc etc. The American public wanted order and Nixon was their guy. McGovern was incorrectly branded as the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion" - Dean shall have no such cultural issues surrounded his candicacy. He is not the candidate of the freaks, druggies, sex fiends, and malcontents. In fact, the relative stability of internal domestic politics means that a challenger like Dean is in quite a strong position. He in no way represents a threat to the "established order" like McGovern and more importantly his supporters were portrayed too.
3. McGovern actually polled much stronger when he was perceived as the anti-politician. When he moved back to cuddling up with the Democratic machine (i.e. Daley), his numbers dropped tremendously. People wanted a person who was to challenge the typical candidates (Humphrey, Muskie, Nixon, etc) and who would bring at the least some courage to Washington. That's why, racist as he was, George Wallace did quite well in the Dem primaries. Most Wallace voters had McGovern as their second choice. While McGovern and Wallace were far apart politically, during the primaries they had a similar style.
4. the Democratic centrists and power-brokers (Humphrey, Daley, etc) actually refused to enthusiastically support McGovern. They didn't deliver their voters to him and as a result, McGovern lost a huge chunk of Democrats merely because the likes of Daley and the rest were more concerned with a McGovern win than a Nixon win. The former reprented a threat to their control of their party; the latter did not. Had Humphrey and the others helped deliver their supporters to McGovern, he would have stood a much better chance. Would Lieberman do the same to a Dean candicacy?
[...]
Ekim | 08.05.03 - 2:01 pm | #
I don't think that Lieberman would do the same to Dean, although I do worry that things could get very bloody in a struggle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party if the primary comes down to Lieberman and Dean. I still think that Lieberman will drop out before Iowa, though. I must say, however, that his speech yesterday was impressive. I think that a Dean / Gephardt race down the stretch is most likely, but Lieberman is angling to unite the conservative / DLC / centrist wings of the party. The problem is that they don't vote that heavily in Democratic primaries, and much of that vote will go towards Edwards and Graham if they stay in the race. With that share of the vote divided three ways, one or two of them will probably drop out before Iowa. If not, I think that those three split the moderate / DLC vote, and the primaries quickly become a Dean / Gephardt fight. Just my thoughts. I'll elaborate more on it later.
I think that what will make or break Dean is his ability over the next year or so to tone down the anger just enough, and articulate a vision for America can unite Democrats and appeal to moderates and independents. As a Dean supporter, I think that he's well on his way, but definitely has some work to do.
Well, it's not a problem, but a concern. Dean has a good record on most issues of concern to minorities. He was very outspoken against Bush's decision to oppose affirmative action at the University of Michigan. Dean's position on the war in Iraq should also help him with Black voters, the majority of whom opposed the war. Still, pc wrote the following in my comments. I tend to agree:
Dean's base is gay and lesbian voters, urban and surburban NPR liberal whites, some environmentalist.
He has no base in the african american communities in Dallas, Houston and east texas. He has little support with hispanics in south texas. No major current Democratic officeholder has endorsed him. John Kerry has Henry Cisneros, John Edwards has Rep Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas, Martin Frost will most likely support Gephardt for instance.
I think that Dean's biggest problem with minority voters is that he's never had to appeal to them. Joe Lieberman is known by most Black voters in America from being on the national ticket in 2000. He's also known for his participation in the Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964. Most recently, however, Lieberman decided that appearing on FOX News was more important than attending the NAACP convention. The other contenders, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, John Edwards and John Kerry have represented states (districts) with a significant minority population, and are used to wooing Black and Hispanic voters. Also, Black and Hispanic voters have a tendency to support "establishment candidates" in the primaries. I'd love to learn more about why that is the case, because its proven to be true historically and currently.
The early primaries favor a candidate like Dean. Both Iowa and New Hampshire look a lot more like Vermont than the rest of the nation. Thus, Dean can win Iowa without needing any minority support. In fact, while Dick Gephardt's labor endorsements are rolling in, Dean seems to be inciting something of a revolt among rank and file union workers. At least that's what the latest Iowa numbers would suggest:
Dean's support is fairly broad-based. Among likely caucus participants he is the first choice of 36 percent of those with incomes topping $70,000, 28 percent of those with college degrees, 28 percent of those between the ages of 45 and 64, 28 percent of those from small cities, and 28 percent of men.
In competing with Gephardt and others for the support of the labor vote, a key Democratic constituency, Dean is the first choice of 29 percent of likely caucus participants from households with a union member. Gephardt, who received pivotal support from labor groups in 1988, is supported by 24 percent from union households. Kerry's share is 11 percent.
Dean's strategy will be to win or come in a close second to Gephardt in Iowa, then win New Hampshire. With those victories, Dean would become the undisputed frontrunner and primaries like South Carolina and Michigan become opportunities for Dean to appeal to Black voters (and Hispanics in Arizona). He won't be favored in either, but Dean's making the right moves so far. His National Urban League appearance was received well:
Former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont chided the president for using the word "quota" in criticizing the University of Michigan's affirmative action program.
"The word 'quota' is a racially loaded word," Dean said. "The president played the race card."
To improve race relations, Dean said, "we need white politicians to go before white groups and talk about race. We're all in this together." Most in the audience responded with an ovation."
Howard Dean's performances at the NAACP convention and at the La Raza convention were also well received. I don't think that Howard Dean will ever be the first choice of minority voters, because he doesn't really have a record on minority issues. Fortunately, Dean isn't making the mistake of blowing off minority voters either (as Gephardt, Lieberman and Kucinich did with the NAACP). I think that in the end, Dean will be an acceptable choice to the vast majority of Black and Hispanic Democrats.
The Meetup Primary contines, and Howard Dean is once again the runaway winner. He's now passed 70,000. Now, out of fairness, the Dean campaign embraced meetup months before any other campaign. Now, it looks as if the second place finisher John Kerry has had his campaign join the Meetup frenzy, as he has added a link to Meetup on his index page. I think that we all ought to be impressed with the Wesley Clark meetup sucess. He's not even running yet, but he's #3 in the meetup poll. Dennis Kucinich is running fourth in the Meetup Primary as the official Kucinich page also urges supporters to attend their meetup. None of the other campaigns are really pushing meetup, so its really no surprise that the other campaigns have little support in the meetup poll.
So what effect will this have? Meetup proves that Dean has a grassroots network that will pay dividends next spring. Only Dick Gephardt, with his labor support will be able to compete with Dean with grassroots Democratic support. John Kerry understands that, and has belatedly promoted meetup amongst his supporters. The Kucinich campaign also will use meetup as an important resource, as they won't have much else. They'll rely on grassroots support. I'm very intrigued by the Draft Clark folks. If Clark runs, I could see things really shake up. We'll see.
Wow! Texas is relevant in a Presidential election. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first presidential ad in Texas since... Carter vs. Ford in 1976 when Carter won Texas with 51% of the vote (although Texas was somewhat competitive in 1996 when Dole won by only 5 points).
Len is on the story as well.
In all honesty, I think that the ad will be good for Texas, but not necessarily for the Dean campaign as a whole. Why? Well, I'm happy to have anyone spending $100,000 to $200,000 (via US News) to tell the good folks of this state that George W. Bush is a moron. I wish that Democrats would have done that in last year's elections (instead of running "I agree with the President on this and that, but...). The ad is good for Texas Democrats, especially when there's so much anger among lots of Democrats and independents with Republicans over redistricting. Still, is this the best thing for the Dean campaign to do? I would argue that it's not. Sure - it'll get some media coverage nationwide (Exhibit A, US News article), and I'm sure the local news will be quick to follow.
Here's my concern. Dean is spending $200,000 that can't be spent on beating Bush. Anyone that claims that Dean, or any Democrat will beat Bush in Texas in 2004 does not know Texas politics. Unless Bush is found in bed with a dead girl or live boy, it ain't gonna happen. Sure, Texas can make a difference in the primary, but it won't make a difference in the general. Furthermore, at this point, I'm confident that Dean won't need much help in winning the Texas primary. He's the only campaign with an extensive organization in Texas at this point and most of the people that work in the party admit it. So, I'm not opposed to the ads in Texas... I'm looking forward to watching them when I get back down to Austin, but I honestly think that the money would be better spent next year in a place like Florida or Pennsylvania. I like the symbolism of an ad in Texas, but we're Democrats. We can't afford what I see as something of a symbolic gimmick. I know a lot of people call consider this a bold and courageous move (just read a few comments over at the Dean Blog). Well, I hope that's how the media spins it, but I'm not too sure. Anyway, that's my $0.02. I'd love to know what Andrew thinks about it, or anyone else.
Update: I see that Hope seems to agree with me, based on her comment on Not Geniuses.
Earlier today, Jim posted that Howard Dean was recognized by the New York Post as the quasi-frontrunner. It looks like the folks at Gephardt Grassroots have latched onto the story, too. And they're not too happy. I must admit, however, that I've been impressed with the Gephardt Grassroots blog. It's modeled after the Dean blog in many ways, and it's the best unofficial non-Dean blog which I've seen. It will be interesting to see if Dick Gephardt will pick up any momentum with the Teamsters Endorsement. Gephardt really needs money. Anyone know if the Teamsters will be able to help him much in that regard? Gephardt doesn't need as much money as Edwards, Lieberman or Kerry, because he has a national base, and labor will give him the volunteers he needs, but Gephardt can't have another quarter where he really embarasses himself like Q2.
The New York Post says Howard Dean is now the unquestioned frontrunner in the race for the Democratic nomination (via Political Wire):
July 31, 2003 -- SUDDENLY, Democrats are coming smack up against a stunning fact: anti-war upstart Howard Dean has become their 2004 presidential front-runner. He's the only Dem moving up in the polls. And Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) - the early quasi-front-runner with lots of establishment support after Al Gore dropped out in December - is going nowhere now.
Consider the tests of a front-runner. Take fund-raising. Dean, a physician and former governor of Vermont, topped the Dem pack in the last quarter by raking in $7.6 million.
No rival comes close in Internet savvy. Dean raised $507,000 on the 'Net last weekend in a whimsical "Cheney challenge" just to show his supporters could top Vice President Dick Cheney's $300,000 lunch. No other Dem could hope to do it.
Or take the first two test states that vote next January. Dean is either ahead or tied for the lead in Iowa. He tops the last few public polls in New Hampshire over Kerry by as many as three percentage points - but private polls are said to show a much bigger lead.
National polls don't matter that much right now - Iowa and New Hampshire are the key - but this week's Zogby national poll had Dean tied with Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.) at 12 and Kerry at 9 percent.
We must destroy this party to save it: a View from the DLC
By Andrew Dobbs
There was a time when I was proud to call myself a New Democrat. I believe that we ought to have a strong military, balanced budgets, a right to bear arms, strong businesses and I am a Southerner. The Democratic Leadership Council stands for all of these things, and as far as I can tell, so does the man that the DLC once praised as being the kind of governor they wanted other Democrats to be- Howard Dean. A rabid fiscal conservative with an A rating from the NRA and a market-driven health care proposal (as opposed to ur-DLCer Bill Clintons socialized single-payer system) ought to be the DLCs go to guy in 2004. Especially if this guy is building the kind of grassroots support that Howard Dean is. But alas, Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reports:
Al From, the founder of the organization and an ally of Mr. Clinton, invoked the sweeping defeats of George McGovern in 1972 and Walter F. Mondale in 1984 as he cautioned against a return to policies including less emphasis on foreign policy and an inclination toward expanding the size of government that he said were a recipe for another electoral disaster
The warning, by the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of moderate Democrats that helped move the party to the center 10 years ago, was largely a response to the popularity enjoyed in early presidential primary states by Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont.
The DLC seems uninterested in electing a Democrat unless it is their Democrat. Their fear might be an honest one- perhaps they truly believe that Howard Dean is a hopeless liberal who will lose dramatically to George Bush. But their very rhetoric, calling Dean supporters elitists who are out of touch with the real Democratic Party, is ignorant and destructive. Maybe it is your classic Southern apprehension for Yankees, but wherever it comes from it is uninformed and unnecessary. Furthermore, their grasp of demographics and Democratic electoral politics over the last 25 years seems to be feeble at best. Dan Balz writes in the Washington Post:
Dramatic erosion in support among white men has left the Democrats in a highly vulnerable position and unless the party strongly repositions itself, President Bush will be virtually impossible to beat in 2004, according to a new poll commissioned for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
Hmmm . white men eh? We havent won that demographic since the mid 1970s. Our electoral success is built on a coalition of women, liberals, union members and ethnic minorities. Lets also point out that Democratic support has grown dramatically among college-educated professionals, Hispanics, Asians and suburban women- four of the fastest-growing demographics in the country. The DLC seems to want to out-Republican the Republicans and we will always lose that game.
Polls suggest that our country is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats with about 15-20% of the population identifying themselves as Independents. The Republicans have won elections by sticking to a hard right program that turns out the vast majority of their base, and then softening it up with good images and rhetoric that get the few points of swing voters they need to win. Democrats have abandoned our base and so we are left grasping at 75% of the swing voters and we lose. If we can nominate a Democrat like Howard Dean that gets our base excited to vote again through grassroots organizing, plus keep pulling in many of the swing voters that are attracted to his moderate qualities we will beat Bush in a landslide.
Additionally, Al From and Bruce Reed need to remember that the President is elected by the electoral college. Democrats hold 260 votes that would be hard for us to lose, these are states dominated by post-industrial metropolitan areas that are home to minorities and college-educated professionals, the two most Democratic demographics. That means that an additional big state (Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Missouri) or a combination of a few smaller states (Louisiana and Arkansas, Nevada and West Virginia) will mean a victory for the Democrat. This effort will be much harder if the Democratic Party appears to be divided. What if Howard Dean is the candidate? All of the DLCs bluster and dishonest rhetoric will feed right into the GOPs hands. Theyll portray our candidate as a liberal out of touch even with his own party and theyll have Democrat Al From himself to put on their commercials. Lets say that one of the DLCers makes the ballot. The ill will theyve sown among many of the party faithful who are supporting Dean will create an anti-candidate backlash and our party will look like a bickering, in-fighting group of people that cant agree on anything against a Republican Party united and cooperative under a strong leader like Bush.
The DLC ought to put out position papers and ought to stress the values it believes in, but it ought to leave the name-calling and bomb-throwing at home. They might be surprised to see that the people they call out the hardest are actually the ones most likely to serve them.
.
(Before I begin this post, I suppose I should make it clear that my opinions concerning the race for President or Howard Dean are my opinions and only my opinions. I do not speak on behalf of Dean for America or anybody but myself. Period.)
So, let's say you are a liberal US Rep that really likes the Head Start program. Not hard to imagine. Now let's say that Tom DeLay and Bill Frist and George Bush have decided to gut the hell out of Head Start. Also not hard to imagine, unfortunately. Now, let's say that there is a vote up on that bill in the US Congress. If you were a good congressman, the caliber of guy that ought to be elected President, you'd make sure to be there for that vote. Especially if its the kind of vote that's close enough that your one vote makes an incredible difference- if you are POTUS material, you'll be in that chamber.
Unless you are Dick Gephardt.
Democratic presidential hopeful Dick Gephardt missed a House vote Friday on a Republican-backed bill that would overhaul the landmark Head Start education program, a measure that survived in the House by a hairbreadth margin.
The 217-216 Republican victory came after midnight Thursday and was so tenuous that Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla., recovering from a car accident, was brought in by wheelchair. But Gephardt, the former House Minority leader, had left Thursday evening for a two-day campaign swing through South Carolina, and the Head Start vote became one of hundreds he has missed this year.
The only other lawmaker who failed to make the vote was Democratic Rep. Ed Pastor, who was on a late flight returning from Arizona after attending to his ill father.
The above comes from the San Francisco Chronicle and it goes on to say that ol' G-Fart has missed over 350 votes this term. They also get two of Dick's buddies in the House- Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer- to point out that if he'd shown up the GOP probably would have busted out a few more votes they had waiting for them to kill the bill anyways. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. The fact that they dragged their guy there in a wheelchair makes me think that maybe the GOP was feeling the heat on this one. I suspect that Nancy and Steny are right, but that doesn't change the fact that Dick Gephardt missed an opportunity to exercise his power as a member of the United States House of Representatives to lodge the opposition of his constituents- many of which are probably participants in Head Start, as he represents a largely urban district- to a bill that would gut one of the most popular and successful social programs of the last 40 years. Dick Gephardt was elected by the people of St. Louis to represent them in that chamber, not to run for President, and he has failed them 350 times this year- that is unacceptable.
I'll never forget the first day I worked in the Texas House for Rep. Jim McReynolds and I sat with him, our Legislative Aide Heather Fleming and Rep. Scott Hochberg of Houston. Jim and Rep. Hochberg got to talking school finance, and repeated a discussion that I'd heard many of my friends have before. But then it struck me- these men were't participating in an intellectual exercise- they had the power to make a difference on these matters. Dick Gephardt has taken that power for granted and if anything disqualifies him from being President, it is his unwillingness to do what he can, with what he has, where he is. If there is anything that suggests that someone ought not be President, it is that.
My friend Carl emailed me earlier today informing me that I was quoted in the Dallas Morning News today:
Byron LaMasters of Dallas, a 20-year-old University of Texas student who heads Texas Students for Dean, signed on because, he said, Dr. Dean "is the one candidate who stood up to George Bush."
The column was mostly positive. The only concern was Barta's observation regarding the lack of minorities at the event:
The Dallas crowd was young, white and Internet-savvy. And they were organizing. Tables were set up for petition signing, fund raising and learning how to go to precinct conventions. It was strictly grass roots, not professional. Many learned about the candidate on his Web site.
[...]
While gay support was evident at the rally, noticeably absent were Hispanics and black Democrats, the most reliable base of the Texas party.
Dean has some support among minorities, but he has a lot of work to do. However, he has made some inroads among minority leaders in Texas. The chair of the Texas Coalition of Black Democrats spoke at the rally to support Dean. Howard Dean has also been endorsed by State Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin).
Still, there was an effort to show diversity on the platform during warm-up speeches. Janice Kinchion of Austin, chairman of the Texas Coalition of Black Democrats, recalled how other national party leaders snubbed the Texas Democratic Convention in El Paso last summer, but Dr. Dean showed up and spoke to a mostly empty house. After hearing him, she was hooked, she said, because "his message was real."
It's obvious that Dean has a lot of work to do with minorities. I think that its a matter of getting the message to the Black and Hispanic communities. I think that Dean has the right message, it's just a matter of people hearing it. Dean brings up equal right, his signing of the civil unions act, and his support of affirmative action in almost every speech that he makes. So far, Dean's message has been heard most by the more affluent, whiter, Internet-savvy crowd. Once his message reaches more Black and Hispanic voters, I think that we will see an increase in his support from those communities.
Al Sharpton has a new webpage. Thank God. His old one was a little embarassing. Glad to see it. My feelings on Al Sharpton? I welcome him to the debate, and I take his candidacy seriously, but I also laugh at the DLC types that are worried that he'll be a divisive force, might win South Carolina, and embarass the party. Please. Sharpton will only be a divisive force if the Democratic Party lets him. If we treat him with the respect that we would afford any other candidates, the Democratic Party has nothing to worry about. Only if we dismiss and insult Sharpton will we have to worry about him turning his supporters against the eventually nominee. While I would never consider voting for Sharpton in the primary, he does represent the views of many people in the base of the Democratic Party. It's important that we respect him and his supporters, even when we disagree with their tactics. A friend of mine is helping with the Texas campaign. One thing that I do hope that Al Sharpton brings to the debate is the issue of DC Statehood. I stongly support D.C. Statehood, and wish that most Democrats would take it more seriously. It's really a disgrace that 600,000+ American citizens have ZERO representation in Congress.
The Dallas Morning News surprisingly gave the anti-Bush protesters decent coverage. It's amazing. The less popular Bush gets, the harder those damn dissenters are to ignore. Here is the article.
The article on the fundraiser was about what I'd expect. Several interviews with awe-struck Bushites who paid $2000 for a dinner of "ham biscuits, vegetables, fruit salad, cheese and deviled eggs". Wow! An improvement over hot dogs! How classy! But Bush fed them the same old lies:
Mr. Bush mentioned Iraq only once, but he linked it with the overall war on terrorism.
"This is the work that history has set before us. We welcome it, and we know that for our country and our cause, better days lie ahead," he said.
Democrats are also seeking to make the economy a decisive election year issue, zeroing in on a couple of numbers: A jobless rate of 6.4 percent, the highest in nine years, and a federal budget deficit now projected at a whopping $455 billion.
[...]
As he has said at past fund-raisers, Mr. Bush noted that he had "inherited" a recession. But The National Bureau of Economic Research said the recession began in March of 2001, two months after Mr. Bush took office, and ended that November. White House officials have said that the economy was headed in the wrong direction when they took office.
Mr. Bush, you can fool some of the people, all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people, all the time. I think that America is waking up, and is realizing that its been fooled.
Well, I'm sorry to say that George W. Bush will be in Dallas today, although I'm happy with the Dallas Morning News headline of "Bush visits Dallas as critics grow louder. Fighting off attacks on war, economy, he plans tour, fund-raiser today". Lovely. It almost makes me want to buy a $2000 hot dog so I can listen to him tell me how he'll continue his war against the economy, and explain why the hell we're in Iraq, and why Americans are killed everyday in an operation with no end, and no exit strategy. Oh, right, it was all about liberating the Iraqi people. What a load of crap. I could go protest, but I'd rather do something productive, like prepare for the Texas Young Democrats Executive Board meeting tomorrow. Anyway, for the rest of you, here's the news.
President Bush returns to Dallas on Friday in a relatively unusual political posture: playing defense.
As he visits the city to tour a YMCA and raise campaign money, Mr. Bush is getting hammered by Democrats over the rising death toll in Iraq, new questions over the reasons for that war, continuing worries about the economy and a record-setting budget deficit.
"There are a lot of things going on, none of which are good news for him," said Karlyn Bowman, who analyzes polls for the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "It's a rough time for him."
Still, Mr. Bush's poll numbers remain strong, analysts said. And supporters said they are eager to tout Mr. Bush's accomplishments in his upcoming re-election bid, to be financed in part with events like the one Friday at the Wyndham Anatole.
"The president is very much focused on the future and doing what he can do in protecting the homeland, winning the war on terror and getting the economy moving again," said Ken Mehlman, Mr. Bush's campaign manager.
Before the gala, Mr. Bush will visit Lakewest YMCA in West Dallas to promote physical fitness.
Aides declined to estimate how much money they will raise at the $2,000-per-person fund-raiser in Dallas, and at another fund-raiser Saturday in Houston. Mr. Bush addressed seven fund-raisers last month that hauled in between $1.2 million and $4 million each.
Overall, Mr. Bush's re-election campaign raised $34.4 million in its first three months, more than its nine Democratic challengers combined. Analysts predict the Bush campaign could collect $150 million to $200 million for a primary season in which Mr. Bush faces no serious opposition.
Instead, Bush officials plan to prepare for the fall campaign with television commercials and grass-roots organizing. Bush supporters also said the money will help him respond to the attacks that Democrats make during the battle for their party's nomination.
Some of Mr. Bush's severest critics plan to greet him at the Anatole. A coalition of organizations is planning a group protest over what it calls "economic insecurity," "dismantling of the Bill of Rights," "destroying the environment" and "misrepresentations about the invasion and occupation of Iraq."
Mr. Bush will also spend time this weekend at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. On Sunday he will host Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, the current president of the European Union.
This is Mr. Bush's first trip home since the White House acknowledged that Mr. Bush should not have used his State of the Union address to accuse Iraq of seeking uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapons program. That unsubstantiated allegation has created a firestorm over the justification for the war.
Democrats once reluctant to criticize Mr. Bush over Iraq have become more assertive. They said the uranium claim, combined with the failure to date to find caches of chemical and biological weapons, undermines Mr. Bush's case for invading Iraq.
"It's a disgrace that the case for war seems to have been based on shoddy intelligence, hyped intelligence and even false intelligence," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
There are signs that attacks on Mr. Bush's credibility are taking a political toll. His job approval ratings, once consistently above 60 percent, have dipped below that mark in some recent surveys.
Yet missing weapons and questionable claims may be less a danger to Mr. Bush's standing than the fact that guerrilla war rages in Iraq, political analysts said.
"There has been growing criticism of his Iraq policy for a different reason – because Americans are getting killed," said William Schneider, senior political analyst with CNN. "The situation there still seems out of control."
If Iraq continues to be seen as unstable, however, the prewar arguments may well intensify.
"People will say, 'How did we get into this mess?' " Mr. Schneider said.
Mr. Bush is also on the defensive over the economy. The jobless rate is the highest it has been in nine years, and his administration just projected a budget deficit of $455 billion, a record high (though not a record amount when measured against the economy as a whole).
Democrats said the deficits reflect poor stewardship of the economy, zeroing in on Bush-supported tax cuts that they say favor the wealthy and will lead to oceans of federal red ink in future years.
White House officials noted that the vast majority of the critics are Democrats, and there is more than a whiff of politics in the air. Nine of those are Democrats seeking to defeat Mr. Bush in next year's election.
Bush aides said they are making progress in Iraq, as the U.S. military tries to subdue violent remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime. They cited the recent creation of the Iraqi Governing Council and preparations for elections.
As for the economy, Mr. Bush and aides said the tax cuts are starting to stimulate activity, encouraging employers to hire people and create economic growth.
Aides said Mr. Bush is not yet in campaign mode. But the stump speech the president has made at previous fund-raisers – one he is expected to echo in Dallas – offers a preview of the case he plans to make in the fall of 2004.
Mr. Bush links the action against Mr. Hussein to the overall war on terrorism that began with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. That includes the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan to remove the ruling Taliban, which had harbored Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist group, which plotted Sept. 11.
While Democrats point out that Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Hussein remain at large, Mr. Bush tells audiences, as he did in New York: "In Afghanistan and Iraq, we gave ultimatums to terror regimes. Those regimes chose defiance, and those regimes are no more."
Discussing the struggling economy, Mr. Bush cites a variety of factors: a recession and stock market slump at the start of his term, the Sept. 11 attacks, corporate corruption and prewar uncertainty regarding Iraq.
Though Democrats said the Bush-backed tax cuts are the biggest factor, Mr. Bush said in San Francisco: "When Americans have more take-home pay to spend, to save, or to invest, the whole economy grows and someone is more likely to find a job."
Throughout his fund-raising speeches, Mr. Bush has touted the passage of an education bill, conservative judges, creation of the Department of Homeland Security and an anti-AIDS program for Africa.
Mr. Bush's campaign will have plenty of money to press its case, though his chances of success may well come down to other factors.
Said Ms. Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute: "It all depends on whether things improve – both economically and with the situation in Iraq."
The Dallas Peace Center is leading a protest against Bush, so if your interested, Click here.
Well, since I'm linking to all the other unofficial campaign blogs, there's now an unofficial campaign blog for Joe Biden, found via Political Wire. I'm personally not a big fan of Biden, but best of luck to the blog.
Over the weekend, I posted on Presidential Blogs. At the time, I was unaware of a blog supporting Bob Graham for President, but I have since found the Bob Wire, which is an unoffical blog supporting Bob Graham for President. Best of luck to them.
First of all, I got to meet Howard Dean yesterday, and that was an exciting experience. I didn't really know what to say, but a friend of mine caught a picture of me with him, and I caught pictures of several friends with Dr. Dean. It's funny the things that you notice about famous people when you actually meet them. What did I notice most about Howard Dean? Well, he's kinda short, and he has very blue eyes. Amusing. I'll be sure to post the pictures when I get them from John. Speaking of pictures, I need to get my roll of film developed this afternoon. So how did I get to meet Dr. Dean (seeing that I'm a poor student and can't afford $2000 hot dogs - ok, well it would have cost $150 to go to the fundraiser, but I think I'll be saving for my New York trip next month instead)?
Well, as Len mentions, I was "pre-selected" (about 15 minutes beforehand) to speak for about 60 seconds on why I was supporting Howard Dean. The statewide coordinator, (former state representative) Glen Maxey wanted people from various backgrounds to speak for a minute or two on why they supported Howard Dean. So several African-Americans spoke, a gay leader, Anna, the Dallas County Young Democrats President, David Wilkins (and he's an avid Burnt Orange Report reader, too!), and several others. I was the student guy. When I spoke, I tried to make it personal, that as a Democratic campus organizer last year, I had trouble convincing students to vote Democratic because they didn't see how their vote would make a difference, and they didn't see much difference between the two major parties. I said that we had a lot of great candidates here in Texas in 2002, but many of them failed to differentiate the differences between themselves and their Republican opponents. I said that Howard Dean would make my job a lot easier, because he has a positive, winning Democratic message that would resonate with students on multiple issues. Anyway, I gave my UT plug with a Hook 'em sign. My friend Geoff teased me later, saying that I missed the best line - that UT actually rejected George W. Bush. Shit! That would have been great. Oh well. I'm very proud to be a Longhorn. Yale is for the elitists, but UT is where us really smart Texas folks go. Heh.
Anyway, all of us folks that spoke to warm up the crowd were asked to wait backstage, and then after we spoke, we all just kind of decided to hang out back there, because no one was asking us to leave, and we knew that the Governor was very close. So, we waited, and he saw him walking up as another speaker kept warming up the crowd. Finally, he got to where we were and shook hands with all of us, posed for pictures, and then went up to the stage where he was introduced by the Dallas County Democratic Party Chair Susan Hays. Dean gave his standard stump speech to the crowd. Len reported on one of the more memorable moments of the speech.
The other was a young fellow, probably about 10 or 11 years old, who was standing close to the front of the crowd. He was holding a home-made sign that read "I'm going to have to pay for Bush's tax cuts." During his speech, Governor Dean pointed right at him and said "Young man, we are going to fix things so that you will not still be paying for this president's tax cuts when you're my age!" (Those were probably not his exact words, but pretty close.)
For a report from the fundraiser, check out Get Donkey. From what I heard about the event, it was just amazing. The house, apparently was jam packed, wall-to-wall, with at least 150-200 people. The reports I heard were that over $60,000 was raised before the event began! I can only imagine what the final tally will be! The crowd was reported by the Dallas Morning News to be 1200. Organizers, however, claimed that 2000 people were there. Here's the Dallas Morning News article:
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean on Sunday told about 1,200 supporters in Dallas to "take back" their country, urging Americans to reject the administration's ideals on war, economics and health insurance.
"We need jobs in this country again, and you're not going to get that without balancing the budget," the former Vermont governor said.
"We're not going to say we're going to get rid of the tax cut. We're going to say, 'Would you rather have the tax cut or health insurance that can never be taken away?' "
Dr. Dean spoke at Dallas City Hall Plaza after spending part of his day at a private Dallas residence raising $60,000. Organizers said it's his first trip to Dallas as a presidential candidate.
Jennifer Gross, a small-business owner who lives in Flower Mound, called Dr. Dean's style "refreshing." She brought her 9-year-old son, Michael, who carried a large poster board printed with, "I'll have to pay for Bush's tax cut" in large black letters.
"Howard Dean has been very straightforward with people and speaking his mind. And I like that," she said. She added that she supports his stance on health care.
Dr. Dean, who was a pediatrician in practice with his wife before being elected governor in 1991, has said he believes the United States should guarantee health care to all citizens.
Polls show he is among the front-runners for the Democratic nomination.
Dr. Dean blasted the White House's stance in Iraq, saying it has alienated America from the rest of the world.
"People don't respect us anymore. I want to live in a country where people respect us."
Dr. Dean favors sending American troops into Liberia as part of an international peacekeeping force, saying the presence of international troops "will help us in Iraq."
He joked a few times in his speech about being a Yankee trying to get elected in the South. Campaign organizers said they have gathered enough signatures to put his name on the ballot of the Texas primary in March. Dr. Dean told reporters that he wouldn't neglect the Texas primary.
"There's plenty of Democrats in Texas, we just haven't heard from them in awhile," he said.
Len reminds me that Howard Dean will have a rally in Dallas this evening. I'll be there. Who else will be there? Let me know, and I'll look for you!
Sunday, July 13 at 7:00 pm!
Dallas City Hall Plaza, 1500 Marilla, Dallas, TX
Speaking of Howard Dean, Burnt Orange Report contributor Andrew Dobbs is becoming famous. It looks as if he had the opportunity to meet Judy Woodruff when she came to Vermont to interview Joe Trippi.
Howard Dean's campaign started the blogging era of presidential campaigns with the Blog for America. Other campaigns are slowly catching up, but still, no other candidate has an official blog. While I thought that the Dennis Kucinich blog was official for awhile, as it has several posts that look as if they were made by the candidate, there's a disclaimer at the bottom, that it's not official, but done by "friends of Dennis Kucinich".
The Blog for America lists dozens of unofficial Dean Blogs in its "blog links". The Dean 2004 blog was one of the originals, but dozens more have joined the act. But Dean (and Kucinich) supporters aren't alone in the blogosphere. John Edwards supporters have several sites, including Edwards for Prez, which has made it on to my blogroll. Young people have gotten involved at Youth for Edwards. Oliver Willis hosted Americans for Edwards, but has since removed his "Edwards 2004" button on his site.
The Kerry Blog has also found its way on to my blogroll. So has the Draft Clark blog, and the Dick Gephardt blog. Also, just starting out is the Gephardt Grassroots blog. And, how could I forget, yes, for all my misguided Republican friends out there, there is a G. W. Bush 2004 blog, recently moved to Bush Blog dot US. Take a look at it. A couple of these guys have blogs on my blogroll, but some of their posts are seriously misguided to say the least. Josh is supporting Howard Dean, too! I'm all for it! Yes, Josh, help us take back America! Not only that, but the folks on the Bush Blog are taking jabs at Kerry for his military record. Is Bush's military record really something the Bush folks want to get into a debate with? Who went AWOL again? Oh well, it does make me feel good to know that I'm provoking them a little bit, here and there.
I haven't seen much of anything from Joe Lieberman, Bob Graham, Carol Mosely Braun or Al Sharpton, but if their supporters have blogs out there, let me know!
Update: As Kris points out in the comment thread, the Bush Bloggers take after their man in the censorship department. When trying to post a comment on the blog, you get this message:
COMMENT QUEUED
Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval.
Select Smart says Patrick Leahy (not sure why he was included. Leahy has endorsed Howard Dean) and Dennis Kucinich. Regardless, I'm sold on Howard Dean, but this is an interesting little test here. Link via Slightly Rought, via Greg's Opinion via Cal Pundit. Cal Pundit warns, however, that the quiz might be skewed to favor Kucinich.
1. Leahy, Patrick Senator, Vermont - Democrat (100%) 2. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (98%) 3. Green Party Candidate (98%) 4. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (91%) 5. Daschle, Senate Minority Leader Tom, SD - Democrat (90%) 6. Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham, NY - Democrat (88%) 7. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (87%) 8. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (86%) 9. Feingold, Senator Russ, WI - Democrat (86%) 10. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (84%) 11. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (82%) 12. Biden, Senator Joe, DE - Democrat (79%) 13. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (79%) 14. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (79%) 15. Jackson, Cong. Jesse Jr., IL - Democrat (79%) 16. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (76%) 17. Dodd, Senator Chris, CT - Democrat (73%) 18. Kaptur, Cong. Marcy, OH - Democrat (69%) 19. Bayh, Senator Evan, IN - Democrat (68%) 20. Clark, Retired Army General Wesley, AR - Democrat (66%) 21. Socialist Candidate (65%) 22. Feinstein, Senator Dianne, CA - Democrat (65%) 23. Bradley, Former Senator Bill NJ - Democrat (55%) 24. Gore, Former Vice-President Al - Democrat (53%) 25. Libertarian Candidate (46%) 26. McCain, Senator John, AZ- Republican (17%) 27. Hart, Former Senator Gary, CO - Democrat (16%) 28. Hagelin, John - Natural Law (14%) 29. Buchanan, Patrick J. – Reform/Republican (7%) 30. Vilsack, Governor. Tom IA - Democrat (6%) 31. Bush, George W. - US President (5%) 32. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (4%) 33. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (-6%)
Update: After reading more about this survey from Cal Pundit, I have further belief that the survey is flawed, even though I think that my political views are very similar to Patrick Leahy's. However, I don't think that I agree with Dennis Kucinich 98% of the time. There are some real issues where I disagree with Dennis Kucinich on, and they're not just concerns related to his abortion flip flop. I disagreed with the following two statements on the quiz (that Kucinich supports):
There should be a guaranteed livable annual income for all, including those outside the work force.
Full employment for all Americans should be federal policy.
I disagree with Kucinich on trade. I support free trade, NAFTA, WTO, FTAA, etc. in theory. Globalization is inevitable, and it's dumb to not acknowledge that. That said, I think that it is critical to protect the environment and workers rights in every trade agreement that we make. Unfortunately, that's not done, but still I don't think that throwing out NAFTA is the right approach either, as Kucinich would have us do. I have the similar disagreements with the Green Party and I would not say that I agree with 98% of their platform. Also, I have substantial diagreements with both Kucinich and the Greens on war. I opposed war in Iraq, but I don't consider myself a pacifist. I supported taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan, and I actually think that we didn't go far enough. We had the Afghan tribes do our dirty work, when we should have gone in ourselves and taken out Osama Bin Laden. Instead, he managed to slip away. I opposed invading Iraq for several reasons, most fundamental of which is that I did not see Iraq as a threat to U.S. national security (in the way that the Taliban was). I felt that the claims of weapons of mass destruction and links between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were at best disingenuous.
Also, others have expressed confusion about Tom Vilsack's placement on the list. I'm a big fan of Vilsack, and I'm sure his placement is a flaw with the program.
BTW, I'd love to know what others get on this, so if you take the quiz, let me know your results!
I attended the Dallas Dean Meetup last night. There were about 130 people there, crammed into an oversized room at Central Market. This month's activity was to write to undecided Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa. I wrote my letter to a nice gentleman named Norm. After some jokes about stalking our new Iowan friends, we sat at tables of three or four and wrote our letters. Fierce debate followed as to whether I should address my new friend as "Dear Norm", "Dear Norman", or "Hey Norm!", but I eventually decided on the simple "Hi Norm". I wrote in my letter that Dean had inspired me, and that he's the kind of leader that the Democratic Party needs, as he'll stand up to Bush, and the Republican Party, as opposed to being scared of him, etc.
I feel that it is necessary to respond to the whole “Dean is the McGovern of 2004” meme. George McGovern was of course the Democratic candidate for president in 1972 that lost 49 states (winning only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia) to Richard Nixon. He emerged as the candidate after a messy primary battle in which establishment favorites such as Hubert Humphrey and Edmund Muskie fell victim to the liberal insurgent, a scenario that many in the media claim to see developing as Gephardt and Kerry and co. are taking hits from Gov. Dean. But as usual the talking heads seem to have little to no grasp of history or even of what Dean stands for.
I think that it is telling that Dean attended the 1964 Republican National Convention with his parents, who were Rockefeller delegates. Dean holds similar positions to the old Rockefeller Republicans- fiscal conservatism, social progressivism and a strong yet cautious military policy. But in the 40 years since that time the GOP has moved so far to the right that there is no room in their party for Rockefellers any more; the only Rockefeller in congress today is a Democrat- Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. Dean is a Rockefeller Democrat, and in a day and age where a sense of history or commitment to anything beyond one’s own self-promotion is absent from our nation’s capital, the punditocracy of that city have no other way of categorizing Governor Dean than as a McGovernite.
Dean’s foreign policy seems to be the source of much of the worries of the Democratic elite. The DLC and other Democratic “leaders” thought that if they went ahead and voted for Bush’s war on Iraq and didn’t worry their pretty little heads that maybe, somehow, the emperor would actually have some clothes. They were wrong. They lost miserably because their little drag act didn’t appeal to real live hawks in the GOP base and simply turned off sensible doves in the Dem base. They didn’t learn their lesson and now the architect of the disastrous triangulation ploy, Dick Gephardt, and the dove today, hawk tomorrow Waffler-in-Chief John Kerry think that an ambiguous and ill-conceived foreign policy is advisable while a foreign policy that essentially mirrors that of Jack Kemp or Nelson Rockefeller- that we should maintain a strong armed force to defend our freedom or the freedom of our allies but that we should only use it when absolutely necessary- is radical and McGovernite. This is absurd. Howard Dean’s finance chair, Dave Grossman, is the former chair of the conservative pro-Israel group AIPAC, Dean supported the first Gulf War (when an ally of the United States was invaded by a belligerent power) and the War on Terror (when an enemy of the United States murdered 3000 Americans in one fell swoop). Exactly what about this policy is McGovernite? If anything it is too conservative for many Democrats, but it is anything but “weak” as the DLC has characterized it. Weakness is voting one way in Washington and talking another way in Iowa.
Both Dean and the GOP have come a long way from that 1964 Republican Convention. Governor Dean went from New York to Vermont, from blue blood to green mountain boy, from a stock broker to a doctor, from a DLC celebrated Governor to a DLC condemned presidential candidate. There is no longer any room in the GOP for someone who believes that the simple principle of only spending what money you have or that the government should stay out of the business of morality or that our military ought to be strong but wary of war. If big, irresponsible, reckless government was the hallmark of McGovern’s platform, then it appears that the Republican Party carries his mantle far better than Howard Dean ever has.
Well I suppose that many of the readers of this blog are keeping up with the Democratic Presidential Primary so you are probably already aware that Howard Dean has raised over $6.5 million and counting this quarter. As of 12 minutes ago we had raised $230,000 today alone. The amazing thing is that the average donation size is less than $100 which suggests a few things.
First, we have tens of thousands of new donors, people that are moved by this message into giving money. Ted Sorenson always said that 50 $1 donations are better than one $100 donation. The simple act of writing a check, or giving your credit card number to a stranger so that another stranger can run for office is an incredibly huge step and if you can convince 25,000 people nationwide to do that, you are a force to be reckoned with.
Secondly, a very large portion of this bounty will be matched by federal dollars- this $6.5 million could end up being $10 million or more by the end of it all.
Finally, Howard Dean can beat Bush because he can hold his own on Bush's ground of traditional campaigning and then beat him on the field of grassroots organizing. People talk about how much money Bush has, etc., but there is a saturation point. $200 million vs. $100 million isn't that big of a difference, they both buy a lot of commercials. In fact, in some races (a la Tony Sanchez) too many ads can backfire. So Dean has a fundraising muscle with ordinary people that, when coupled with the big dollar donors that will show up if he wins the nom, can build a healthy war chest and then he can turn out crowds, build excitement and have a movement that costs almost nothing but is incredibly powerful. He is the only candidate that doesn't look like a creature of the out-of-touch elitism of Washington DC and is the only one with the power to create such a movement.
Joe Trippi called us all into the conference room today to let us know that we are making history. Someday soon there will be an upper division poli sci class called "The Politics of the Internet" and the entire first few weeks will be devoted to Dean For America. This campaign is doing something never done before and it is incredibly exciting to be a part of it. I would invite you to be a part of it too by giving just a little bit of money, $10, $50, $2000, it all makes a difference. You can go to http://www.deanforamerica.com/contribute and give there.
I just received a call from the Howard Dean campaign reminding me to vote.
Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to rig the primary for Al Sharpton (har-har), but the good folks on free republic can't decide whether to vote for Sharpton or Kucinich. They're also a little paranoid. LOL.
I hope that everybody got a chance to see the governor's speech yesterday, I hear it was great.
Yes, despite the fact that I was on Church Street in downtown Burlington, Vermont I was unable to hear the speech. Instead, I was busy attempting to cover up a giant "Vote for Green Party" sign that some rabble rousers (apparantly not officially from the Greens- they called to apologize to us and to clarify that this was not them that did this) had decided to bring to the event. I did get to meet Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), both were friendly and Mrs. Jeffords was an absolute delight (I hear that Mrs. Leahy is also very nice, though I did not meet her).
Other than that I spent 13 hours (starting at 4:30 am) carrying heavy things and dealing with various head cases on the hottest day of the year- roughly 95 degrees all day. There were 6,000 people there, the governor rocked and it was very exciting, even if I am sore all over my body today. Nothing a few beers couldn't help. After the event and a nap most of the campaign went to Breakwaters, a restaurant on the waterfront, for dinner. 4 of us- including myself and Gray Brooks the guy from Alabama that introduced the governor- jumped into the lake. It was very fun.
Don't forget to vote in the Move On Primary today. If you have AOL they have been blocking the ballot as spam but you can request another ballot. There have also been some technical difficulties w/ Move On, they should be better soon, keep trying! Have a good one!
As expected, Rick Perry signed a bipartisan bill to move up the Texas primary by one week, thus avoiding the potential conflict of primary day falling on Spring Break. The primary will now be held on the first Tuesday of March, Super Tuesday, which is begining, more and more, to look like the decisive day for the Democratic nomination:
Governor Perry signed Representative Dan Branch’s House Bill 2496 into law late last week. The bill moves Texas’ primary election to the first Tuesday in March, one week earlier than previous law mandated. Election date conflicts with school district spring breaks prompted the Legislature to move the primary date. Senator Kyle Janek sponsored the bill in the Senate.
I plan on posting on the Political State Report tonight to cover the recent events regarding the budget and redistricting, unless Charles Kuffner beats me to it.
Great announcement speech by Howard Dean. I really only have one complaint... not about the speech itself, but that the campaign folks took so long to get that annoying Green Party sign covered up. It may seem insignificant, but it's important. Imagine that someone had never heard of Howard Dean before, and that speech was their first exposure to him. What would they think? That Howard Dean is supported by the Green Party? I don't know if the sign was there to protest Dean, or support him, but to me, it gave the impression that the Green Party supported Howard Dean. Now, that probably wasn't the intent of the sign, but nonetheless, it reflects poorly upon Dean. If the first thing that people hear about Dean is that he's supported by Greens, probably about 90% of voters would see that as a negative. For Republicans and independents, the affiliation could easily associate him with the "lunatic fringe", and many Democrats, like myself, see affiliation with the Greens in a negative manner.
I had a similar experience to this at our candidate rally at UT last October. As the emcee, I saw my job as consisting of three things: 1) introducing candidates, 2) cheerleading and 3) sign control. Whenever a Green / Republican (aka. Grepublican, they're all the same) sign got in the way, I would send several volunteers to block it out with a Democratic sign. My theory is that they have the right to have their signs, but we have the right to block them out when there's more of us than there are of them. Unfortunately, the event received poor coverage in the Daily Texan, because of reporter Kris Banks childish decision to write about the sign battle instead of the real story... that all the Democratic candidates came to UT and spoke on student issues. However, the event did receive good television coverage, for which I was pleased. Regardless, at every event like this, especially when it's televised, you absolutely must have an organized volunteer team willing to block out any unfavorable signs quickly.
I like foreplay. Bob Graham, Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman oppose foreplay. Shame on them. Foreplay is fun, sexy, erotic, exciting... to oppose it is to be righteous, puritanical, fundamentalist, etc. Boring. Howard Dean gets it right. He teased us with a little bit of foreplay, then dove into the real thing. Those other guys just don't quite have the same touch. Boring. Duh. LOL.
Confused, yet? Well, take a look at this satirical article from the Washington Post on what the other campaigns thought of the big news, that Howard Dean was actually running for President after the months of consummate suspense:
For the record, both Graham and Gephardt are official candidates for president, as is Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). "We don't believe in foreplay," says an official from one of these declared campaigns, who asked not to be identified because he did not wish to associate himself and his campaign with the image of foreplay.
I'll be watching the announcement online. Andrew, a Dean intern in Burlington, VT, UT student, and Burnt Orange Report contributer will post his first-hand account of the announcement... at some point. He has been working to set up since 5 AM and works until 5 PM this afternoon. After that, all of the interns up there will be having some sort of celebration party, so I'm not expecting anthing until tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to watching it myself. We'll have to see what he has to say about this.
Well, Dennis Kucinich has joined Howard Dean in the blogosphere. I haven't had a chance to check Kucinich's blog out that much yet, but I'll post on it more soon.
This is an unfortunate event, and Howard Dean is handling it the right way. A lot of people give Bush a hard time for the trouble that his daughters get into. Not me. I have no problem with attacking Bush for his past, but the media ought to lay off his daughters. I certainly have my own vices (no, I've never stolen liquor from a country club before), which my friends could attest to, but fortunately, I don't have famous parents, so I don't have much to worry about most of the time (Mom and Dad, if you're reading this... I'm good, I promise). It's tough enough for young people our age having to live in the shadow of their famous parents, and to have the media spotlight on them. I don't excuse what his son did... he should be punished according to the laws on the books, but the privacy of the family ought to be respected. I wish Howard Dean and his family the best.
So Dick Gephardt is convinced that the Move On Primary is rigged.
Officials in Dick Gephardt's campaign said they were surprised when their supporters who registered got an e-mail encouraging them to vote for Dean. Gephardt's team considered pulling out of the primary but decided to stay in with reservations.
"We are not going to change our participation at this point, but we are concerned that the process seems to be rigged," said Erik Smith, a spokesman for the presidential campaign of the Missouri lawmaker. "We think there is a legitimate role for MoveOn to organize grass-roots support for candidates, but we are worried that it appears they are playing favorites."
Perhaps if Dick Gephardt's clan would wait a mere 24 hours, or if they had checked their email the day this story came out, they would notice an email message from Sen. John Kerry sent by MoveOn.org or today by Rep. Dennis Kucinich. The top three finishers in an earlier Move On poll got to send out emails, in the order of their finish- Dean, Kerry, Kucinich. Dick Gephardt fared very poorly in the poll.
It is laughable that at the same time that the primary schedule is rigged in Gephardt's favor (easy win IA, not too crucial for Gep NH, then MO, then union heavy MI, etc.) he would get his panties in a wad over the Move On Primary. His candidacy is based on the old way of doing things- his message is outdated and out of touch. After a decade and a half of ineffective visionless "leadership" of this party, he's surprised that the rank and file don't like him!
This of course is an attempt by the hawkishly pro-war, capitulating, calculating, spineless, tax and spend, irresponsible wing of our party to snuff out an attempt by Howard Dean to remake the Democrats in the mold of FDR, JFK, Harry Truman and Sam Rayburn rather than Dick Gephardt and Walter Mondale. We cannot allow this to happen. Show Dick Gephardt that his way of doing things is over, register in the Move On Primary and vote for Gov. Howard Dean, MD next week. 14 years of losing ground by Gephardt versus 12 years of prosperity, responsibility and justice by Howard Dean make the choice an easy one.
Over the past week I have met 2 former governors of Vermont. Today I met the lovely former governor Madeline Kunin, the first female governor of Vermont. She served in the late 80s and was a good progressive Democrat. She was a polite, elegant lady, the kind that you don't see involved in politics anywhere else in the world except for this cordial little corner of civilization, Vermont. She appreciated my joke about how though my former governor was running for President, I would not be supporting him.
She was here to announce her formal support for the other former Vermont governor I met this week- Howard Dean.
I didn't even know that the governor would be in the office (it is fascinating how nobody calls him "Dean" or "Howard" or anything really besides "The Governor" in hushed tones in these parts), but I saw Kate O'Connor, the woman that travels with him and knew that he was around. I decided to seek him out discreetly and found him watching a news story from the previous evening's broadcast on the TV in the policy section. After the piece was done he turned to leave, saw me, extended his hand and thanked me for working for him this summer. I thanked him and told him that it was my pleasure and then he left. It wasn't earth-shattering, but it is always great to see him. I can't wait until Monday, when we make our formal announcement.
One final time, I must bug you, register and vote in the Move On Primary. We need this support and it will be decided by as little as 100 votes. Thanks!
DNC
DNC Blog: Kicking Ass
DSCC
DSCC Blog: From the Roots
DCCC
DCCC Blog: The Stakeholder
Texas Dems
Travis County Dems
Dallas Young Democrats
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett
State Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos
State Rep. Dawnna Dukes
State Rep. Elliott Naishtat
State Rep. Eddie Rodriguez
State Rep. Mark Strama
Traffic Ratings
Alexa Rating
Marketleap
Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem
Technoranti Link Cosmos
Blogstreet Blogback
Polling
American Research Group
Annenberg Election Survey
Gallup
Polling Report
Rasmussen Reports
Survey USA
Zogby
Texas Stuff
A Little Pollyana
Austin Bloggers
D Magazine
DFW Bogs
DMN Blog
In the Pink Texas
Inside the Texas Capitol
The Lasso
Pol State TX Archives
Quorum Report Daily Buzz
George Strong Political Analysis
Texas Law Blog
Texas Monthly
Texas Observer
TX Dem Blogs
100 Monkeys Typing
Alandwilliams.com
Alt 7
Annatopia
Appalachia Alumni Association
Barefoot and Naked
BAN News
Betamax Guillotine
Blue Texas
Border Ass News
The Daily DeLay
The Daily Texican
DemLog
Dos Centavos
Drive Democracy Easter Lemming
Esoterically
Get Donkey
Greg's Opinion
Half the Sins of Mankind
Jim Hightower
Houtopia
Hugo Zoom
Latinos for Texas
Off the Kuff
Ones and Zeros
Panhandle Truth Squad
Aaron Peņa's Blog
People's Republic of Seabrook
Pink Dome
The Red State
Rhetoric & Rhythm
Rio Grande Valley Politics
Save Texas Reps
Skeptical Notion
Something's Got to Break
Southpaw
Stout Dem Blog
The Scarlet Left
Tex Prodigy
ToT
View From the Left
Yellow Doggeral Democrat
TX GOP Blogs
Beldar Blog
Blogs of War
Boots and Sabers
Dallas Arena
Jessica's Well
Lone Star Times
Publius TX
Safety for Dummies
The Sake of Arguement
Slightly Rough
Daily Reads
&c.
ABC's The Note
Atrios
BOP News
Daily Kos
Media Matters
MyDD
NBC's First Read
Political State Report
Political Animal
Political Wire
Talking Points Memo
Wonkette
Matthew Yglesias
College Blogs
CDA Blog
Get More Ass (Brown)
Dem Apples (Harvard)
KU Dems
U-Delaware Dems
UNO Dems
Stanford Dems
GLBT Blogs
American Blog
BlogActive
Boi From Troy
Margaret Cho
Downtown Lad
Gay Patriot
Raw Story
Stonewall Dems
Andrew Sullivan
bexar county elections
collin county elections
dallas county elections
denton county elections
el paso county elections
fort bend county elections
galveston county elections
harris county elections
jefferson county elections
tarrant county elections
travis county elections
ABC News
All Africa News
Arab News
Atlanta Constitution-Journal
News.com Australia
BBC News
Bloomberg
Boston Globe
CBS News
Chicago Tribune
Christian Science Monitor
CNN
Denver Post
FOX News
Google News
The Guardian
Inside China Today
International Herald Tribune
Japan Times
LA Times
Mexico Daily
Miami Herald
MSNBC
New Orleans Times-Picayune
New York Times
El Pais (Spanish)
Salon
San Francisco Chronicle
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Slate
Times of India
Toronto Star
Wall Street Journal
Washington Post
Dick Cheney threw the first pitch at a minor league baseball game in Altoona, PA yesterday. Shortly after throwing the first pitch, he had a bit of trouble. The Altoona Mirror reports:
Oops. Meanwhile, John Kerry went one-for-three while pitching over at the "Field of Dreams" in Iowa. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports:
