Election Polls and Predictions

Those of you still commenting on the old Zogby thread may be interested in Zogby's latest poll.

Meanwhile here's a simple-minded way to think about the election. There must be something wrong with it, but I can't see what it is.

The last election was a statistical tie electorally, and Gore's on the popular vote by a substantial margin. Many key states were very close.

Today's electorate can be divided into three groups:
1. People who voted for Gore in 2000.
2. People who voted for Bush in 2000.
3. People who didn't vote in 2000.

Unless they are dead, all of Gore's voters will vote for Kerry. The counter-argument would be that some marginal Gore voters will 'rally round the flag' and 'vote for the Commander in Chief'. An alternate version says that “security moms” (aka soccer moms worried about terror) will vote for Bush because it makes them feel safer. I don't buy either of these arguments.

I think it's also clear that Bush has held most but by no means all of his vote.

Zogby's latest suggests that new (young) voters are breaking for Kerry. (“among young voters – 18-29 year olds – a group Al Gore only won by 2 points in 2000, Kerry is winning in a landslide, 53% to 33%.”)

Of course turnout and regional factors matter. Some pervious voters in the first two groups may stay home. But is it credible to think that the GOP will manage turnout sufficiently well to overcome what seems a real deficit? Won't more Republicans than Democrats stay home if they are unenthused with their party's candidate?

So, barring the October Surprise, it's Kerry by a landslide.

Like I say, it can't be that simple, can it?

This entry was posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election. Bookmark the permalink.

275 Responses to Election Polls and Predictions

  1. Altoid says:

    That’s about the way I see it (I’ve told friends I think the popular vote’ll be at least 54-46), and that’s why the GOP attack machine will be in overdrive. Their only hope is that people just won’t vote. To do this, they’ll turn again to the tactic they’ve used most successfully before: overwhelming, coordinated attacks and smears to depress voter turnout by getting ordinary, decent people so disgusted with politics and politicians that they stay home. It worked to perfection in 1994, and it mostly worked in 2000.

    Of course they’ll try specific voter thinning through little tricks like purging the voter rolls. But I’ve been convinced for a couple of years now that the major purpose of really vicious attack ads and underground smears in general elections (it’s different in primaries) is not to get voters to switch, but to get voters to stay home. It’s a deliberate tactic to drive down turnout.

    People need to be aware of this and not let it get them to stay home. Remember, it’s a tactic that uses decent peoples’ sense of fair play against them.

  2. Mitchell says:

    Sadly, I don’t think it’s that easy. I do agree with the premise that those who voted for Gore will vote for Kerry. In fact, while it will not be easy, I think that Kerry can win all the same states Gore won in 2000, and yes I understand that means PA, NM, Ore., and Wisc. But after the 2000 census, Kerry will end up 6 more electoral votes short with that calculus. Kerry has to win all those same states, which won’t be easy, _and_ add either a Florida (not likely given Jeb’s chicanery) or Ohio (possible), or a combination of, say, NH, W.Va., and Nevada. Dems now say Virginia is in play but that’s a non-starter. My point is that while it’s true some Kerry and some Bush supporters will stay home, it won’t be enough to overcome the electoral realities. At best, I predict Kerry will win all the Gore states, plus NH and W.Va. That gives each candidate 269 electoral votes. The 12th Amendment kicks in, and the GOP wins the House vote, 31-15 (4 states have an equal number of GOP and Dem House members).

    It will be very difficult for Kerry to win all the Gore states. But even if he does, the more daunting task of picking up states will be the problem. Just as Gore voters will vote for Kerry, Bush voters will vote for Bush. The country is so divided, the result is that it seems voters have really dug in and taken an interest in validating their 2000 vote. The number of undecideds in swing states is very small. While there might be some Bush voters who are grossly disappointed in his performance and decide to swtich over, the question is whether that will be enough to make a red state blue.

    I just don’t see where the electoral math works for the Dems. Virginia, Florida, Ohio, either of the Carolinas–these are possible but, as the British say, not bloody likely. As much as I hate to say it, the best chance of making a red state blue is in Florida. The new Cuba travel restrictions might have an effect. It’s going to get ugly in Florida, that’s for sure.

  3. Jean says:

    I think Floridians will be out in force. I do not believe that Jeb will be able to steal Florida twice. THere is an incredible amount of anger, and determination to make sure our votes are counted.
    People never involved before in political campaigns are becoming active –
    there is a seething in FLorida that won’t stop until it blows up or until they are given a fair election,.
    I think Kerry has a chance in Florida . we will be voting by absentee ballot.

  4. adaplant says:

    Certainly it is a long way until Nov 2 and there is no telling what may happen in the intervening days to shake up the race, but according to Election Projection 2004, Kerry-Edwards have already picked up New Hampshire and Missouri from the states Bush won in 2000 while Bush has not picked up any of the states Gore won in 2000.

    I can see Kerry-Edwards carrying all of the Gore/Blue states and picking up NH, WV, OH, FL, MO and possibly AR and TN. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. The key is as always the relative success of the GOTV efforts of both parties and the potential return to the ballot box of the previously disenchanted and the entrance of the new vote to the electorate. There are several factors which could quite possibly turn a predicted close election into a relative rout if Kerry-Edwards (KE04) keep it together and stay on-message.

    Karl Rove’s strategy has to be to try to have KE04 become reactive to the slime machine rather than proactive in furthering their own message and taking the fight to Bush.

    I’m excited by the possibilities and determined to WORK HARD in whatever way I can to assist in the effort to restore trust and credibility to the White House.

    I urge everyone to do the same.

    Volunteer for Kerry-Edwards

  5. bob cox says:

    I don’t think it is that simple, either. How much will fear be a factor? Fear (of attacks, of disorder, of the Other, of losing what one has) makes people vote for “strong” “conservative” candidates.

    Recall that the polls showed Bush a little ahead right up until the last weekend in 2000. Some people apparently broke against him because of the drunk driving thing. Those people are hardly solid Gore voters.

    Finally, my pessimistic read of American history is that we only take action to avoid the abyss when we are already falling into it. Bush needs four more years to actually get us to this state.

  6. Tom says:

    When Bush was campaigning in Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago, I read a couple of “man on the street” interviews on a local newspaper’s website. One guy said he voted for Nader in 2000. Now he is an ardent Bush supporter. I think Michael is correct in a macro sense, but he overestimates other people’s ability to think rationally.

  7. Tom says:

    I agree, almost instinctively, that barring an October surprise, Senator Kerry should and probably will win by a good margin in the popular and electoral votes. However, I am biased since I honestly feel President Bush is transparently incompetent. In any event, the current polls neither confirm nor contradict the so-called presumed Kerry landslide. According to a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, only 46% of the electorate currently approve of President Bush’s job in office. After four years in office, a majority of the electorate no longer views President Bush favorably. Again, absent an October surprise, those voters are unlikely to be swayed to change their mind by advertising that introduces them to President Bush; those voters already know President Bush and do not like what they know. Thus, unless the swing voters decline to vote or decide to vote for President Bush because they find Senator Kerry less appealing, President Bush should lose by a large margin.

    At the same time, however, the latest tracking polls indicate that Senator Kerry has not yet received much of a bounce, if any, from the democratic convention. According to the Rasmussen Reports, Bush and Kerry, respectively, stood at 46% and 48% on July 16 and at 46% and 47% on July 31. I am certainly perplexed by these numbers. The democratic convention was almost perfectly staged, very much on message. If Senator Kerry cannot get any bounce after a nicely staged, nationally broadcast introduction to the nation, perhaps the undecided swing voters do not like what they see. For that reason, this election could indeed follow the conventional wisdom that the election will be too close to call. I hate to admit that I may be wrong about this election, but I cannot deny the evidence of my own eyes.

  8. arthur says:

    Remember the turn out variable. Gore had an exceptional turnout in the African-
    American demographic, due to a great get out the vote effort run by Donna Brazile, support for Clinton, and support for Gore himself. Kerry has a fine voting record, but he hasn’t had to appeal to Blacks in Massachusetts, and it’s not certain that Kerry can do as well as Gore did. Voters won’t switch to Bush, but they may not show up.

  9. Angry Bear says:

    I believe the reapportionment from the 2000 election also helped Bush, moving about 20 electoral votes to the states Gore won to those that Bush won.


  10. Dem says:

    Too hard to predict. One part of your premise is incorrect: that everyone who voted for Gore will vote for Kerry. About 80% of Gore’s vote was solid, but about 20% of it (the last minute, “swing” voters) was tepid. And 9-11 did change some people’s world view, permanently. It may be hard to imagine a Gore voter being a Bush voter in 2004, but there are many former Gore voters who feel strong emotional ties to Israel or a strong emotional reaction against Muslim terrorists and now stand with Bush.

    The second challenge is predicting a high turnout. Every 4 years predictions of high turnout based on motivated voters are heard. Every election day there are anecdotes of long lines and quotes from people saying “I’ve never seen it like this before”. But in the end participation rates usually vary no more than a percent from the election before.

    Finally, the anecdotes about people who “voted for X 4 years ago and but now will vote against X” are also common in elections with incumbents. Yes, I’ve heard many such stories of Republicans disgusted with Bush. But the poll numbers don’t support a big shift. This too is a normal trend. The Republican and Democratic policies have shifted significantly since 1960, and as a result voters have followed. There are still some stragglers in each party who finally are realizing they are in the wrong party.

    I can’t remember an election involving an incumbent where the outcome was less foreordained than this. By this time in 1976, 1980 and 1992 everyone knew the incumbent was praying for some kind of miracle. Whereas in 1972, 1984 and 1996 everyone knew the challenger had no real chance. Incumbent elections are ultimately referenda on the incumbent, and normally by now it’s clear what Joe and Jill Average’s judgement on the incumbent will be. And you’d think the judgement on the Bush administration would be as a resounding failure. But, the media is playing a very interesting role this time around, so all bets are off….

  11. jam says:

    I think the argument does go through, but you need to allow for a lot of small corrections.

    Yes, the young voters split for Kerry, but those that died were not necessarily split 50-50.

    No. Not all the surviving Gore voters will vote for Kerry. Though it’s hard to figure out how many won’t.

    No. Not all the surviving Bush voters will vote for Bush. Kerry clearly has been trying to pry loose a group that could be called the McCain republicans, to the extent of talking about “John McCain and I” in his acceptance speech. Again, it’s very hard to size this group.

    Third party voting will be harder to predict this year. Not only will Nader be running as an independent, but the Greens will run David Cobb who’ll be on most ballots. We haven’t had a Nader-free Green candidacy, so have no good basis for predicting its size (though I suspect they’ll do at least as well as the Libertarians). The Nader poll numbers are all over the place (largely because a poll with a 3% margin of error can’t easily measure support that’s less than 3%).

    For what it’s worth, electoral-vote.com, which graphs the most recent state polls, shows six states that had voted for Bush as now polling (if marginally) for Kerry: NH, WV, TN, MO, AZ, NV. Two states that had voted for Gore are shown polling a tie: MN, IA. Gore had won Iowa by only a fraction of a percent.

    My own guess is that Kerry will actually hold almost all the surviving Gore vote, and hence, by your argument, win. But I’d be hard put to justify the numbers.

  12. Andrew Lazarus says:

    Dem is right. At least in the blogosphere, there are a number of Gore voters so desperate for a more aggressive United States, they would support a war on Perú. They’re voting for Bush precisely because he misled them into war.

  13. Alison says:

    Keep in mind the historical trends; I’ve seen more than one site mention that at this point in the year, no incumbent president has had less than 50% approval and won. Many people have already decided to fire Bush, but whether or not they will vote for Kerry (vs. voting another party or just staying home) remains to be seen.

    There was also the comment on Washington Monthly that Gore lost a portion of the union vote in 2000, because a lot of the younger people were complacent after eight years of prosperity and decided to vote for Bush on social issues such as gun rights. Many of those younger labor people are the ones who lost jobs under Bush, and know what the stakes really are now.

    There is also what I’ve been reading from Kos and Josh Marshall, that the Bush/Cheney campaign has been focusing exclusively on its very conservative base, holding rallies in safe counties rather than stumping in competitive areas. According to reports, they’ve decided to regroup, while the Kerry campaign is actively reaching out to moderates. Not a wise strategy, and if they’re going to keep places like Ohio B/C are going to need to take a few more risks.

    Maybe I’m just overly optimistic because of the slant of the blogs/sites I read… but even some of the moderate news sites are starting to smell fear from the Bush camp. And no wonder: if the Electoral Vote Predictor is entering polls correctly, Kerry has been leading Bush in the electoral college by a significant amount lately (310-217 a week ago, now down to 289-232 with two states tied). Even Fox News polls aren’t as sunny as they once were.

    If the B/C campaign had an obvious strategy beyond negative ads (which are becoming less and less effective) and preaching to the converted, I’d be worried. It just doesn’t seem to me that they have any way to pick up votes, as opposed to driving them away from Kerry — while Kerry and Edwards are raising their profiles all the time.

  14. Although there may be a non-insubstantial number of Gore voters who will cross over to the Dark Side, I think they will be balanced by those who voted for Bush in 2000 based on the whole “compassionate conservatism” plus big tax cuts for everybody message, and the fact that Clinton made governing look so easy that Presidential competence was not an issue in 2000. These people were fooled once, and they won’t get fooled again.

    I also think that the polls overrate Bush’s actual support by at least 3-5 points. There remains a sense that “not supporting the President” is equivalent to “not supporting the troops” that is reflected in the polls. That is why Kerry won’t stray too far from Bush’s Iraq policy, and why Kerry is emphasizing his military experience to such a degree. These voters will wind up voting for Kerry in November, despite telling pollsters today that they “support the President”.

  15. Altoid says:

    “the media is playing a very interesting role this time around”

    Yes, Dem, they certainly are. High up on the list of “interesting” aspects is their lack of access to Bush, combined with their need to play clips of him speaking to slavish audiences (so many of them in uniform, and therefore actually under compulsion). They can’t question any of his non-sequiturs and plain nonsense, but just broadcast them: “We’ve turned the corner and we’re not going back.”

    Rove has them running a *truly* post-modern campaign, where not only do assertions have absolutely no referent in the real world, but no attempt is even made to link them to it (that’s Scott McClellan’s job, sort of). At the same time, free and paid media carry these assertions with pictures of cheering crowds, uniforms, and flags. All these visits (to what a related thread over on Kos points out are areas they won by a big margin in 2000, not contestable ones) are photo and video ops for the news and the ads. The bet has to be that images are the only thing that counts, regardless of either verbal commentary or viewers’ direct real-life experience. It’s an audacious campaign.

    This isn’t to say that only commercialized idiots will vote for Bush; a lot of people have real reasons to, as many contributors have pointed out. But it will be interesting to try to separate out expressed reasons from subliminable imagizing.

    BTW, I think Paul Lukasiak is right that a lot of people don’t tell pollsters what they’re really planning to do. I think they get a lot of hang-ups and no-responses from anti-Bush people who might actually vote but really don’t want to talk to polls.

  16. Dem says:

    Altoid: The bet has to be that images are the only thing that counts, regardless of either verbal commentary or viewers’ direct real-life experience. It’s an audacious campaign.

    Amazingly so. There appears to be no concern over factual accuracy. I saw a soundbite on one of the cable news stations from Bush’s stump speech. He said that Kerry had no plan to pay for his additional spending and that he’d pay for it by taxing everyone. Flat-out, easily verified lie, but of course the talking heads said nothing.

    Now, Bush might have claimed that Kerry’s funding plan is inadequate. Or unfair. Or bad economics. I expect arguments could be made to support all those assertions. But Bush said Kerry “had no plan”. Saying Kerry “has no plan” when Kerry in fact described it in his acceptance speech in general and has had it in detail on his web site for months is lying.

  17. peter jung says:

    The Democrats will win in a landslide IF we have free and fair elections, but I very much doubt that we will. I expect Rove will try to duplicate the chaos of Florida 2000. but in multiple states, and then hope that he can win the subsequent slugfest in the courts. I’m expecting a horrific scene at the gates of the White House, as millions of Americans surround the place post-election with slingshots and signs and rocks and vats of boiling oil. I fear we are headed for a very ugly confrontation….

  18. Chris says:

    I’m afraid you have the right of it there. Everything seems to be signaling a bald manipulation of the election–(1) the use of uninspected voting computers that cannot be audited and are manufactured by committed Bush supporters, (2) the speculation of “postponing” national elections should terrorists strike, (3) the flood of public money purportedly earmarked for “homeland defense” being channeled to states that are dubious targets for terror but happen to be election battleground states (in effect, using funds for the common defense to instead buy votes for the incumbent president). That’s just off the top of my head. It looks like the Republicans are applying the same rules to the election that they have in all else: the ends justify the means. But the end may just be civil war.

    If the Republicans win, whether by fair means or foul, our noble experiment with a consititonal republic may become a bitter memory.

  19. peter jung says:


    This sounds odd, but I’m very optimistic about Democratic prospects for November, which leads me to the pessimistic conclusion that getting down and dirty is the only option for the GOP. I think we ought to fight like hell to win this election, but also begin to think about the appropriate response if the worst comes to pass and we find ourselves under the heel of an illegitimate regime. A citizen’s tax strike might be a useful strategy…..

  20. MP says:

    People love to step into fictional worlds of fantasy and conspiracy. Sci-fi and spy movies are sure-thing box office smashes nowadays. An entire generation grew up on the X-Files.

    But eventually, fantasy ceases and it comes time to vote. All the Grisham-like theories of a rigged election, neo-cons and Israel planning 9/11, obl actually a cia agent, bush as hitler and michael moorism won’t amount to much when it comes time for America to vote.

    There are of course those that have invested so much personally into such nonsense that they’ll have no choice to vote for kerry, lest admitting the fact that fantasy got the best of them. But most people, although enjoying a good tale, really aren’t going to think about these things come election time.

    Terrorism, Taxes, and Abortion.

  21. Dem says:

    MP: Cute rhetorical trick, putting concerns about the 2004 election being rigged in the same category as “Israel planning 9/11”. That way, without introducing a single fact in support, you attempt to discredit the concern.

    Won’t work, MP. Elections have been rigged for centuries, probably dating back to the origins of democracy. The US is no stranger to rigged elections, nor to voting machines that are easily riggable. Given the literal $billions being poured into this year’s election, and the enormous benefits for supporters of those who win, it would be naive to NOT be concerned about the potential of election fraud.

    Furthermore, anyone who has studied computer security in the past 15 years (and there are 10s of thousands of us) knows that the new computers systems are just begging for compromise. Every rule of computer security that has been developed over the past two decades is being ignored.

    As I say, EVERYONE should be concerned. However, a funny thing is happening in that this is being portrayed as a partisan issue. Many republicans, like yourself, are pooh-poohing the concerns and labeling anyone who brings it up as a nutcase. This fact, combined with the obvious pro-Republican conflicts of interest by two of the major firms, only reinforces the concern.

    It is possible to use paper ballots and to count votes by hand. Accuracy is not lost (whatever accuracy you lose in the counting process is more than compensated for by the increase in accuracy gained in the data entry process … that is, people are more likely to cast a ballot that reflects’ their intent) — all that is lost is speed. And that in turn can be compensated for by increasing the number of temporary workers who count the votes. Canada tallys results from their national elections in 4 hours … by hand.

    At this point, until a rigorous acceptance process is set up for voting machines, the US should move to pure hand balloting. We use such rigorous processes for all other issues relating to national security. Doesn’t the act of voting warrant at least as much protection?

  22. Chris says:

    Dem likewise has the right of it here. If the Republicans are so damn unafraid of losing the election, as MP suggests, the rational response would be to do everything possible to promote the legitimacy of their win. So they should not object to efforts to regulate the voting machines in order to ensure accuracy and neither should they contemptuously dismiss the concerns of others about the possibility of rigging the election. The Republicans haven’t done this, which tells me that they’re scared and are planning for every eventuality.

  23. Chris says:

    Oops. I forgot one other means the Republicans use to manipulate the election–the terrorist warnings from the DOJ or Homeland Security that happen to appear whenever Bush’s poll numbers are down. By the way, the latest “alarmingly specific” threat to our financial institutions has, surprise, been exposed as wrong, wrong, wrong. Again, the Repubs could demonstrate through actual deeds some of their self-acknowledged integrity by making those responsible for issuing these warnings insulated from political manipulation, but then these warnings wouldn’t be timed to work to their advantage. But the Republicans believe in power at any cost, and will not deny themselves access to any tool in their arsenal.

  24. MP says:

    Voting machines:
    Republican groups are also advising their supporters to use absentee ballots rather than the electronic machines:


    You have mistaken for conspiracy what those of us in FLA have long known: the tropical heat fries the brain and people here are generally incompetent. Run a Google on Miriam Oliphant, and you’ll see why the latest machine debacle is a result of mere stupidity, not a right-wing conspiracy.

    Terrorist warnings:
    It amazes me how posters here apparently have access to information that others don’t, such as the age and accuracy of the information the authorities are acting on. Further, I am amazed at how experienced they are in counter-terrorism, as they are all apparently more qualified than Homeland Security to decide how old information must be to be actionable. They are apparently more experienced about tacticts that might be designed to flush out cells, get them to panic and make mistakes.

    It seems to me that regardless of the age of the information, if a cell finds out that one of its members has been compromised there are 2 choices: attack quickly or roll things up. Isn’t it better for us to be safe than sorry? Don’t we have a right to know regardless? It is statistically unlikely my house will catch on fire. But if my smoke alarm goes off, I should ignore it?

    Further, the warnings are election-neutral. Dems can spin spin them (“see how unsafe we are now”) just as easily as Republicans. The need for them makes Bush look just as bad to some as the quality of response makes him look good to others.

  25. Chris says:

    I’m not sure the smoke detector analogy works here. A smoke detector is politically neutral. It may make mistakes, but it does not do so to anyone’s advantage. The DOJ and Homeland Security, on the other hand, are headed by political appointees who are making warnings based on information that no one without a Republican agenda can verify. Perhaps, as you say, these warnings might make the terrorists panic–but no one has produced any evidence of this. On the other hand, one may observe that these warnings came after the DNC, after Abu Ghraib, or any other Bush setback, and that the media abandons these stories in order to give primacy to the upgraded terror alerts. Too many coincidences here. I’d be happier if the alerts were made by someone not a client of either party and who was budgetarily and organizationally protected from partisan bullying. Until we have that, there is no barrier to using the alerts for political purposes to distract the electorate from bad news.

  26. MP says:

    That a warning might have the effect of “distracting” people from Bush “setbacks” is but one theory on how warnings might influence politics.

    On the other hand, I will repeat my arguments above and say that the warnings could just as easily amplify Kerry’s criticisms of how the Bush administration has “failed” to make us safer.

    The political impact of mere warnings are so difficult to predict, it is highly unlikely that they would be used for political motive. They could just as easily backfire on a boy who cries wolf.

    No, Chris, as much as you’ll hate to admit it, warnings are issued for tactical and strategic reasons related to our safety.

  27. Dem says:

    Back on topic, here’s an article that talks about crossover voting. It’s got lots of anecdotes of Reps who will vote for Kerry, but at the end the one statistical fact indicates that (for the states mentioned) both parties have people who intend to cross over to vote for the other, and in similar amounts (more for Kerry, but only slightly).


  28. Richard Reddy says:

    I came to the same conclusion–a Kerry landslide–by equivalent logic. As many republicans are concerned for the environment, voters cross over. The same is true of white collar, engineering, science and medical professionals–whose wages are bartered down–and jobs endangered by outsourcing and a battered economy. Deficit spending does not earn republican fans, nor does a policy of intervention in the Middle East. The nice thing about secret ballots is that GOP voters can say one thing, and do something else, without disturbing the social ecology or networks they depend upon. Polls about US policy direction are especially revealing.

    Great numbers of GOP voters are left out in the cold by conservatives who dominate the party. I think they are likely to send an unequivocal message to GOP leadership that minority rule is dog that don’t hunt. It’s a huge embarassment!

  29. Joe Beck says:

    for the love of god! america wake up and smell the coffee. it is our duty to
    go out on november 2 2004 and vote these two con men and scaliwags george w bush and dick cheney out of the white house! this current administration is nothing but a sham and disgrace!
    please people!!!!! if you really want to save america then put a decent man in the white house!
    john kerry and john edwards! take back your country which has been stolen from you!!!

  30. tabruns says:

    I think the interesting thing is if you’ve been watching the polls over the summer, you see a slow steady trending of states towards Kerry. States that Bush was supposed to have locked up (Arkansas, Tennessee, and Nevada first, then Arizona, most recently Virginia and North Carolina) are all coming into play. As noted by Charlie Cook and other political analysts, incumbents usually get *at best* 1/3 of the undecided vote, and this year’s undecideds are polled as being very anti-Bush. It’s speculated that Bush will be lucky to get 1/4th of the undecideds.

    What this means when you look at the states is that Kerry will likely carry the red states where he’s tied with or 2-3% down from Bush. If the current poll numbers were in place on election day, I’d say Kerry would win the Gore states and pick up West Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas and have a shot at Arizona, Virginia and North Carolina.

    I’m curious to see if any more red states will start to poll showing Bush losing his lead in that state. I’m hoping Louisiana, Kentucky and Colorado can be peeled away. The only poll from Indiana I’ve seen has Bush getting only 46% of the vote there, but Kerry only gets 24% and the Undecided vote is 26% (!). I don’t know exactly what that means, but it can’t be good for Bush to be getting only 46% in a state as Republican as Indiana.

    The dynamics of this race are 1) It’s initially a referendum on the incumbent and 2) If the public decides it doesn’t want the incumbent then the next question is does the challenger clear the bar of acceptability for being elected. I think it’s clear by now that Bush lost the initially referendum and Kerry’s convention, in spite of the crows by Republicans that there was no “bounce”, served to solidify his standing as an acceptable alternative. IF the economy suddenly rebounds big time and Iraw suddenly quiets down then it will be a close finish. IF both stay a mess I think Kerry will definitely win. However, I wouldn’t necessarily count on any states where GOP efforts to committ voter fraud could pan out (Florida is still suspect, I think, and I don’t trust Diebold’s election machines so I’d be wary of Ohio too).

  31. MISDIRECTION says:

    BUSH IS GOD!!!
    Do you really think that they are not going to keep him on the throne?

    Votes don’t really count! Sure, they are trying to get low voter turnout by making a mockery of the election process but it’s all part of the big plan.

    Bush is as incompetent as a dumb blonde that has testosterone driven men buying her stuff.
    He will leave the White House richer than any other president in history.

    Let’s talk of threats and fan the flames of racial prejudices, I mean, American Patriotism. Nothing like fear to keep people from seeing what’s really going on.

    Bush talks about the high gas prices but won’t tap the oil reserves to keep the cost of gas down so that his oil tycoon buddies can get rich just like his buddies got rich off the California power fiasco.

    And we won’t mention that Bush Sr. was making money with the Bin Laden family while 9-11 was going on. What’s that? We had no homeland security before 9-11? Remember Pearl Harbor?

    I hope Bush does win for the following reasons:
    1) If he loses, they will use the excuse that ‘had GW been able to finish what he started, we’d all be better off now’ for the next elections to put a Republican back into office
    2) If he loses, he will not be held accountable for anything and will still leave the office very wealthy
    3) If he loses, there will be no chance, however slim, that the public might finally wake up and see what a mess we are in…push the red button…America needs a wake up call.

  32. Living_Republician_Florida_Area says:

    They have the same issue with the voter list in 2004 as they did in 2000. The list which has been opened to the public, by order of the court, has shown that a large demographic Democrate voting section is on the list, while a large demographic Republician voting setion is not on the list. In other words, a large number of blacks are on the “Cannot vote list” while a large number of Cubans (whom have criminal records), and mostly vote Republician, are not on the list. It smells like 2k again. I gues this was the real Y2K problem.

  33. walt hummel says:

    thought i would see some serious thought here,was sadly mistaken with your jibberish

  34. tabruns says:

    Well, either the Kerry convention bounce has faded or Karl Rove’s Swift Boat Veterans smear campaign is reigning Kerry’s surge in. The unfortunate thing about smear campaigns is that they *work*, at least to some extent. Sure it’s getting out in the media now that the group is actually funded by major Republican donors that are very connected to the White House. It’s also getting out that the charges the group makes are lies, contradicted by the official Navy record, by the vets who actually DID serve with Kerry, and by Swift Boat Veterans’ own statements. Unfortunately though I’m sure all Rove was hoping for was simply to blunt Kerry’s advances by planting seeds of doubt in the minds of some independents. Also when the campaign is about what Kerry did in Viet Nam, its not about what Bush did (or didn’t do) in Texas, or the economy, or Iraq, or the budget deficit, or the environment.

    I think it’s sort of a tight box for the Kerry campaign. He has to respond to the bullshit, but he also needs to move on. Voters will eventually want to move on *anyway*, but he has to reverse the effects of this smear. If you want Bush out of the White House, like I do, its tempting to get discouraged or put one’s head in the sand or whatever when election trends seem to be not going your way. However, I’ve been watching the election play out since May and I prefer to acknowledge when Kerry is doing well and when he isn’t.

    The question that can play out here is will the smear campaign (which is continuing) slow Kerry’s advance or will it reverse the trends of this election? As some pundits have noted there’s been a gradual “sea change” in the electorate over the summer which was leading towards a Kerry win if not an actual landslide. I’m sure what Rove is hoping is that the smear campaign evened up the the race again, and that Bush will get a 9/11 anniversary bounce from the Republican convention. Maybe that will happen. That won’t mean the race is over by a long shot and Kerry is a fighter and a good political closer so I still think that unless Bush is ahead by *at least* 3% in the polls going into election day then Kerry will win. However as someone posted on a blog somewhere else, “now we’re in the scary part of the ride”.

  35. Chris says:

    These polls and predictions may yet not matter. A memo has recently appeared describing how the executive branch can assume the authority to postpone the election and even disenfranchise voters (but with the election results–from those permitted to cast ballots–still binding). That’s right, folks! Bush might get a slight lead in the electoral college, call a red alert, and win the election.

    See http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32471.pdf

    You can find further analysis on antiwar.com. Fortunately, this is just a plan…for now. But that talk has even gotten this far should be cause for alarm.

  36. Wesley says:

    Wow. It’s yet another bastion of American Liberalism. What’s funny is that you’re STILL talking about the 2000 elections. What about all of the conservative Republicans that were disenfranchised in the Florida panhandle. They didn’t go out to the polls after ABC, CBS, NBC, etal all called Florida for Gore /BEFORE/ the polls were closed.

    What about military personnel stationed overseas who the Gore campaign tried very hard to get disenfranchised from their votes while they were overseas defending your “Right” to belly ache and moan about how evil this nation is. You also apparently ignore the media consortium’s indpendent investigation into the 2000 election recounts. Bush won EVERY count where legal methods of counting the votes were used. Gore only won half of the methods not considered legal. Half is good enough for a Liberal, I guess…

    What I don’t see here is any serious discussion of the issues, such as what Kerry did in the Senate. I can’t find anything about his Senate record in any media. Now, if his record was defensible, you’d think he’d shift the debate from his Vietnam record to his Senate record. Probably would have done it a long time ago… I’m sure you guys would be frothing at the mouth from yelling about his strong voting record and accomplisments while he was in Congress. Yet neither has happened. I guess the problem is his Senate record isn’t defensible.

    You hate Bush so much that you’re just going to give your vote to Kerry/Edwards for free. Why? His Vietnam record? He carries a piece of shrapnel in his leg? This qualifies him for the office of President of the United States? Dole lost the use of his right arm while fighting Axis tyranny in World War II, and yet this was a point of derision and mockery by liberal cartoonists.

    A piece of metal “lodged in his leg” is a mark of heroism? I haven’t ever seen Kerry limp. Maybe this piece of shrapnel is what caused him to fall down while skiing and curse out the secret service agent who wasn’t even near him when he fell, I guess.

    MISDIRECTION is just a wonderful example of the ilk of wild-eyed, left-wing, liberal nutjobs shouting down the “walls between the common man and real democracy”… You guys want to talk about a few people that got stuck on “criminal roles” and got “disenfranchised”. Is this really that unusual? How about we talk about liberal organizations such as the so called “foster care system”, which leaves thousands of children lost, beaten, and violated by a mismanaged, incompetent government organization which can’t even keep track of the children in their so-called “care”. That’s progress to you people?

    And you libs want the government to run health care? Here’s a story for you. There were TWO women who had miscarriages while in the waiting room waiting to see a doctor, where they had been for over 12 hours. This is good health care? Yeah, I guess. It’s free, though, right? Not really, because the tax rates in Canada average.. what.. 20% higher than in the U.S.? Can you really call that free when the government is taking YOUR money away from you before you can ever right the check, regardless of whether or not you ever use the medical services.

    Give me a break. If Kerry/Edwards wins this election, it will be only one more undeniable piece of evidence that the majority of Americans are morons who will believe anything they see on television, just because some talking head with “nice hair” said it.

  37. Steven says:

    My prediction for the election is this:

    John Kerry will win the Predidency by a comfortable margin but by no means a landslide. Bush will once again take many of the same states he did in 2000 but 2 states he will lose BIG TIME will be Florida and Ohio. Both the Northeast and West Coast will be dominated by Kerry. The key states that come in to play for Bush are Florida and Ohio, if he can somehow manage to win those states he can get re-elected but its my prediction that he will lose both those states by larger margins than what the polls indicate. I predict this election will have the highest vote turnout in over 30 years. Both sides will come out in droves and it is very much up to the independent, middle of the road voter in this election who is most likely leaning toward John Kerry. I can’t forsee Bush doing something to this election that prevents people to vote. I just don’t think his guys are competent eneough to ever pull something like that off.

  38. misdirection says:

    Why is it people like WESLEY always assume that anybody who doesn’t blindly follow the Republican agenda is a Liberal? And why is it ‘unpatriotic’ to question the motives of the President? Wasn’t this country built on the principles of ‘democracy’ maintained by a system of checks and balances?

    Didn’t Ben Franklin say “the government that governs least governs best”? What ever happened to “For the people, by the people …”? Do you even know that your civil liberties are being violated? Do you care?

    I fought in Desert Storm on the front lines, and I’ve been to places where soldiers were there like it was a huge beach party, shirts off, volleyball nets up, boom boxes blaring…stuff you wouldn’t see in the news, but I wasn’t lucky enough for that cause I kept getting sent to the lines were they were shooting at us and throwing who knows what at us …

    And let’s not forget how they used us as lab rats and gave us orders to take pills, untested and unapproved by the Food & Drug Association, so that we could become better killers …

    Believe it or not, I’ve voted Republican up to the point that my civil liberties were violated and my benefits were taken away from me not to mention any chance at a normal healthy life …

    What I had posted earlier was a feeble attempt at best to be sarcastic as this election will more than likely turn out to be a joke. But maybe I’m just a little jaded … can you blame me? Yeah, you probably could. But that’s okay, nothing worse than what’s already been perpetrated on me.

    So WESLEY, I present to you with this challenge: you ask us to defend Kerry/Edwards, let’s see how well you can defend Bush/Cheney on the things mentioned at the site below:


    Show us your superior Republican intellect by disputing any/or all of what is posted at that site above …

  39. lamo_gop says:

    Well, look… I can’t imagine anyone who is REALLY sitting there trying to make up his/her mind at this point in time… it’s just two guys…

    Guy One: Daddy gets him into National Guard, then he goes AWOL for upteen years, then lands heroically on the deck of a carrier. Never, ever would have risked a pinky for his country. Demonstrably believes that that’s for the middle and lower economic classes.

    Guy Two: VOLUNTEERS for service in Vietnam, is decorated for bravery. (anyone who says that he wasn’t injured severely enough or wasn’t in enough danger has NEVER been shot at by someone truly intent on killing you. I know this because I have. If you can do anything besides fall down and quiver… much less increase your own peril by doubling back to save a buddy… you SHOULD be decorated. If you haven’t been there, shut up about this.)

    Guy One: Lies about intelligence indicating WMD in order to get support for a well-documented desire to invade Iraq.

    Guy Two: Voted to give President war power, believing the above lie to be true. (along with most others… including Republicans).
    (ethical hint for those who are ethically challenged… if a cop hates a local resident for personal reasons, then creates some evidence that that person is a drug kingpin, presents it to a judge who issues a search warrent, the cops break into the guy’s house, a fight breaks out and two people are killed .. IS THE JUDGE AT FAULT? OR IS IT THE COP? … extra credit … What will happen to the cop when the falseness of his “evidence” is discovered?)

    Guy One: wants to be commander-in-chief (of the MILITARY… he is not YOUR or MY commander-in-chief… this term goes back to the Romans who had the emporer as commander-in-chief of the military in order to rule out military coup) when he sits, unmoving, for 10 minutes after learning that we were under full-on attack by foreign enemies of democracy.

    Guy Two: wants to be commander-in-chief (again, of the MILITARY) when he is cited for decisive action in the face of enemy fire. (I can just see GW hugging the deck begging someone to get him out of there… B’GAWK!!! B’GAWK!!!

  40. Chuck says:

    Current and upcoming factors that are going to swing the election toward a narrow margin for a Bush victory:

    1) Kerry’s comments regarding fellow Vietnam veterans
    2) Kerry and Edwards’ abysmal voting records in the Senate increasingly highlighted
    3) health care debates and Edwards’ role in crippling malpractice suits and Kerry’s unrealistic and expensive universal coverage
    4) Kerry’s lack of any personal appeal
    5) a possible terrorist attack before the election
    6) Arnold, Rudi and McCain’s public support
    7) Republican convention (protests are going to back-fire) and 9/11 anniversary
    8) ever-increasing Iraqi stability (example recent Nadjaf settlement) and US troop reduction
    9) a happy American business community
    10) disgusted voters turning to the fringe parties
    11) low dem voter turn-out
    12) falling oil prices

    I could be wrong, but these and other variables are going to time just about right for Bush.

  41. lamo_gop says:


    I’ve repeated your reasons for Bush victory, followed by a “-“, followed by my prediction of an event that SHOULD, were it to happen, guarantee a Kerry victory…

    1) Kerry’s comments regarding fellow Vietnam veterans – Bush will sign a document stating that all Vietnam Veterans are pussys.
    2) Kerry and Edwards’ abysmal voting records in the Senate increasingly highlighted- Bush’s record will be highlighted making Kerry and Edwards look like legislative gods.
    3) health care debates and Edwards’ role in crippling malpractice suits and Kerry’s unrealistic and expensive universal coverage- Bush’s inability to put two connected thoughts together cause him to self destruct during debate question on health care..
    4) Kerry’s lack of any personal appeal – Bush and Chaney’s demonic personalities flair forth. They develop curious red marks on their foreheads which look oddly like a couple of “666”s.
    5) a possible terrorist attack before the election – Said attack is tracked to Bush memo to Rummy encouraging him to arrange it. Brings forth proof of Bush family connection to 9/11 attacks.
    6) Arnold, Rudi and McCain’s public support – Arnold takes to wearing swastikas, Rudi recants and McCain’s neck, unable to handle the unbearable repression, explodes.
    7) Republican convention (protests are going to back-fire) and 9/11 anniversary – 1000 protesters publicly executed by John Ashcroft personally in Central Park.
    8) ever-increasing Iraqi stability (example recent Nadjaf settlement) and US troop reduction – uh… business as usual, as for the last 15,000 years.
    9) a happy American business community – Bush repeals tax cuts and increases business tax 200 pct.
    10) disgusted voters turning to the fringe parties – 99 pct. of voters cast votes for Kerry/Edwards.
    11) low dem voter turn-out – All Rep. voters, except those voting for Nader, stay home.
    12) falling oil prices – Saudi family raises oil prices to $100 per bbl. citing the hardships it creates for the Bush’s and other wealthy friends.

    Chuckie sez >

    You are very wrong, but right about the outcome… you failed to mention one factor, … well, two…, that guarantee a Bush victory.

    13) Diebold software is hard-coded to cast ballots for Bush/Cheney regardless of user input. And…
    14) Supreme Court stalks the land, proactively searching out challenges to the vote count and declaring that anyone who questions the vote is offensive and violates the standards of decency of the locality in which they live, and should therefore be sent back to Africa without regard to race, color or creed.

  42. Chuck says:

    lamo, I’m sorry about your condition buddy. You need to put down the bowl, swipe away the spittle, and go to the ER. I was trying to make some reasonable observations of the political reality, not step on my own partisan tounge in the process. God bless you man.

  43. michael says:

    Visitors are reminded to consult the comments policy version 1.0.

    Attention is drawn to point 1, regarding civility.

  44. NYC Survivor says:

    I personally think it’s a travesty to use 9-11 to try and boost the Republican popularity in the polls by scheduling the Republican convention during that time but that’s politics for you…why not capitalize on the mob mentality of most U.S. citizens who are too ignorant to think that our government is capable and more than willing to do what we accuse other countries of doing?

    Here’s some interesting reading for all of you who might be interested in questioning the “truth” about 9-11 or those who believe that we are fighting a war on terrorism rather than Bush and his buddies getting rich off the blood of our son’s and daughters:


  45. NYC Survivor says:

    I personally think it’s a travesty to use 9-11 to try and boost the Republican popularity in the polls by scheduling the Republican convention during that time but that’s politics for you…why not capitalize on the mob mentality of most U.S. citizens who are too ignorant to think that our government is capable and more than willing to do what we accuse other countries of doing?

    Here’s some interesting reading for all of you who might be interested in questioning the “truth” about 9-11 or those who believe that we are fighting a war on terrorism rather than Bush and his buddies getting rich off the blood of our sons and daughters:


  46. ed says:

    I am Bushes nightmare. I haven’t voted in 3 elections (I voted for Perot…ok you can stop laughing now). I am an independent. I am christian. I am in Pennsylvania. I am in Montgomery county. I haven’t registered yet. I am a male. I am 30. I am voting for Kerry.

    And there are alot more like me.

    My predection.

    Kerry gets over 300 electoral votes.

  47. lamo_gop says:

    Thanks, Michael. I didn’t mean anything personal in my response to Chuck. I was just making the point that regardless of whatever made-up or real points are working in favor of Bush, they won’t matter if Diebold has an impact. In case anyone doesn’t know, Diebold manufactures a large number of the electronic voting machines. Their software is emminently vulnerable to hacking by anyone who knows their stuff. (GOOGLE : “Diebold Election Fraud”) Diebold engineers know the Diebold software. Diebold, Inc. is a HUGE financial supporter of the Republican right, generally, and Bush specifically. Diebold has it within their power to miscount the election in favor of the Republicans. There is no doubt they will do this if they can, as there is no audit trail once the button is pushed. A recount becomes meaningless.

    I just thought that to take Chuck’s points and generously assume he was serious about them, counter them with blatantly ridiculous ones , swinging the real vote count all the way around, then adding Diebold into the mix supported by the Supremes, might call attention to this dangerous situation. I had no idea Chuck was looking though my window as I was (insert whatever you think he was getting at with “bowl”, “spittle”, etc.), otherwise I wouldn’t have done it !?!?!!!

  48. Chuck says:

    My apologies to both of you. I love “reasoned” political debate, and was a bit stunned at the reply I got. I promise I am not a peeping Tom and am sorry for my equally hyperbolic reply.

  49. susndeca says:

    It’s NOT that simple.
    I’ve carefully kept up with *key states* and looked up Gore/Bush from 2000 numbers.
    Strategies can and likely will change in the final run but here is what I view now.
    the *swing states* as of yesterday C0,FL,MI,NV,OH,PA,TN. Others may become much closer but using many different polls to calculate those are the only ones to close to call right now. *Notice I used multiple polls(5 or more)*.
    Kerry will have to take FL or OH to stand a chance and still hang onto Gore states. If bush takes PA or MI it’s like over right then and there. Do not expect the west states to make up for such a defeat. Just as calling Florida early for Gore in 2000 prevented many going to the polls. That is why I give NM to Bush because I think he’ll take either MI or PA causing the election to appear done for Kerry. If I were Kerry I’d spend more time in PA and MI because he’s very vulnerable in those and absolutely cannot afford to lose 1. Being in the AR/MO area I can promise you polls are skewed. I’ve never seen either state more decided thatn i do now for replublicans. I predict republicans score landslides in both states governments which will carry over for Bush as well. Do not count on those states Kerry supporters. Focus on taking FL or OH if you want a real shot.

    my 2 cents, susndeca

  50. ed says:

    Well, I wouldn’t go as far to say that this election is simple…by no means am I saying that…

    However, I too am following all the major polls.
    the problem is that many of them are based on “likely” voters. “likely” voters are defined as those who are both registered and voted in the previous election. There are many people my age and younger who did not vote in the last election (or have never voted) who are now very motivated to vote, if only to get bush “out” of office. Also, I think that the last election’s close race will have a major effect on those xer’s (like me) who now realize that their vote “does matter”. Not only do we have a sense of empowerment that has never been felt before, but many of us feel that facism is creeping into the GOP and we will not stand for it. (i’ve heard the term “goldberg republican” a couple of times from interviewee’s at the convention on MSNBC…for those of you who don’t know…Golberg was a forefather of the extreme right wing movement who was infamous for proposing using nukes in Vietnam and was against the civl rights movement in the 60’s)

    Of course, being true to my x-er roots…I haven’t gotten around to registering to vote yet although I plan to next week along with my wife, who has never voted either. From those people who are in my cohort that I know, all but one have never voted, aren’t registered yet, and will be voting for Kerry.

    In any event, I am very concerned not only the future of our country, but about the future of our relationship with the rest of the world, for I realized something the other day which eriely was mentioned by a protest organizer on c-span that night (although he said it much more eloquently than I can)

    Since after WWII and the development of the Military Industrial Complex and it’s resulting “actions”, the U.S. has not had the greatest of international support and goodwill. However, since the INVASION of Iraq, it has gotten much worse. As of this moment, the world blames Bush for the U.S.’s fundamental change in its military engagement policy and directive (from passive/reactive to aggressive/proactive).
    However, if we as U.S. voting citizens decide to reelect Bush, then the world will shift blame from Bush to us. If as a country we decide to reelect Bush, we are, in essence, approving of his policy decisions.

    Forget about the economy.
    Forget about terrorism.
    (compared to the rest of the industrialized world, we’ve still gotten off pretty lucky statistically)
    Forget about Kerry’s shortcomings.

    If we reelect Bush…then the blood of innocent people will be on our hands.

  51. Dave says:

    I think there is one thing that many of you are overlooking: Safety. When it comes to who will work hard to protect us, Bush outshines Kerry without question. Sure, Kerry went to Vietnam and Bush didn’t. But Kerry has always voted against every measure to make our military stronger. Kerry voted against every measure put forth by Ronald Reagan to ensure that our military is superior to the Soviet’s. Kerry’s record shows that he is not going to do what needs to be done to protect us. Bush’s record, post 9/11, shows that he will take steps to secure our country. You may not like the war in Iraq, but Bush’s stern resolve shows that he is willing to do what is necessary to protect us.

    9/11 changed everything. I think this will be reflected in the election.

    -Sidenote: On the Iraq issue – My opinion – Justified and the right thing to do. It has become bad, however. Facts: Italian, British and American intelligence all stated that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger and that has recently been backed up by each country. Pres. Putin has publicly stated that he told Bush that Saddam was actively planning terrorist attacks against US. Russia has been one of Saddam’s friends for a LONG time. If all of that is put on the table in front of you along with 12 years of defiance and unwillingness to cooperate and live up to his agreements (read up on conditions of ending the first Gulf War), what would you have done??? Would you have sat there and waited for Saddam to attack us and kill thousands of Americans? (I know, “where are the WMDs?” We haven’t found them. But remember, it only takes one bomb to take out NYC. Better to try to find the bomb than to let the bomb find us) Or would you have gone in there and taken him out of power? 15 Nations agreed that he should unconditionally surrender either all wmds OR all proof of their destruction or suffer the consequences. He did neither. I believe that Kerry would have sat around. Bush took action. There is no longer any question that Saddam is or is not a threat to the US.

  52. lamo_gop says:

    uh… safety? how does Bush outshine Kerry when his administration went out of its way to avoid addressing intelligence (real intelligence) about Bin Laden, and then, after the intelligence that they could have acted upon proved true on Sept. 11, 2001, responded by going after Sadaam Hussein on intelligence that was know to the intelligence community to be false??? Is it ’cause he talks like John Wayne? (well, a considerably dumbed-down John Wayne, anyway). We are in far more danger as a nation after 4 years of Bush. As far as the Iraq situation goes… No. We shouldn’t have gone to war against Iraq at that time. We should have captured Osama Bin Laden. The intelligence on yellow-cake was trumped up and disavowed not confirmed as you incorrectly state.

    On and on and on… to drive the point home, a tree gives fruit according to it’s nature. This is, in Zell’s words, a meta-fir. I’m not talking about fruit trees, I’m just pointing out how a policy of violence will beget violence (see.. uh.. o.k., all recorded history)… it has always, and will always, be thus. I always feel frustrated after writing one of these things. I think Americans have, in general, lost the ability to think critically. If you don’t see the writing on the wall by now, you won’t. Vote for Bush. As someone in a previous thread said, it’ll hasten the end and give them the opportunity to fully discredit this worst administration in our history.

  53. truth says:

    What really happened on September 11, 2001? Who was responsible? Were there warnings in advance or foreknowledge? Why was the military response to events delayed? Does the official story of 19 men on a suicide mission plotted by Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qa’ida from Afghanistan hold up under intense scrutiny? Has the administration deceived the American people about what they knew prior to the attacks? Why have no U.S officials or Agency heads been held accountable?

    The Taliban opposed a proposed gas and oil pipeline that was planned by U.S. oil and gas companies to bring cheap energy sources to the sea from the countries around the Caspian Basin. Oil company executives complained in Congressional hearings that the Taliban were blocking US access to a source that would soon yield 85% of the world’s oil reserves. American plans for a military intervention into Afghanistan were finalized well in advance of 9/11. Divisions of US and British forces stood ready for the operation a full month in advance and surrounding countries were notified in July by Colin Powell of a pending invasion in mid-October.

    After 9/11, the Taliban made repeated offers to turn over Osama bin Laden to US authorities for trial, but the US balked at the offers.

    Were there specific forewarnings or foreknowledge of the event? There was reportedly a very high level of alert and concern about an impending attack inside the United States in 2000 and 2001 based on NSA and CIA intercepts and intelligence data. In addition, at least 11 countries sent warnings of an attack prior to the event to various intelligence agencies in the US. Some of these were more specific than others, but collectively they warned of the time, the targets and the method of attack on 9/11. In addition, the press reported several specific warnings about flying that day. According to Newsweek and MSNBC, Pentagon brass were told not to fly on September 11. Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco was reportedly told by his “security people” in advance not to fly that day. Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercially in July and both Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made public announcements in the weeks prior to 9/11 that they would stop taking any commercial flights. These reports are not covered in the Joint Inquiry investigation, and it would be very useful to know exactly who got each warning and when, as well as what they did in response.

    Of the 185 deaths at the Pentagon site, the vast majority were on the plane or doing construction work outside. Similarly, the timing of the attacks on the Twin Towers happened before most people arrived for work, and all the flights involved were delayed in departure. Had the planes struck an hour later in New York City, the death toll might have been in the tens of thousands instead. Commercial flights that leave early on weekdays are also less crowded than at other times. All these factors suggest planning to minimize the numbers of deaths that day, which suggests an agenda beyond the goals of most terrorists.

    Uncovering the truth about 9/11 may well compromise a network of deeper political connections between US and foreign intelligence agencies, secret regional agreements, drug traffic and organized crime, and foreign investments that include corporations and oil interests of the Bush family.



    Think you know the answers? Then read the questions presented at the site below:

  54. Chuck says:

    Hey Truth, are those web sites your sources? If so, its mostly unsubstantiated junk, as is most of lamo’s bogus points. If you are going to make outrageous claims guys, back it up with refernces to the appropriate sources. That way we can all see (as you would by going to the websites posted by “Truth”), that most of these claims are unsupported by any facts, but merely partisan speculations.
    This is the same kind of thinking that denies the lunar landings, believes Johnson killed Kennedy, etc. Although it may be true, you gotta have PROOF.

  55. lamo_gop says:

    Hey Chuck. Please use my full name… “lamo_gop”. It’s more polite that way. I wouldn’t call you “Chu” or “uck”. I’ll let Truth speak for itself, but which of my points are unsubstatiated? The one about intelligence on Bin Laden being ignored? Here y’ go… all this one takes is the ablity to read… and maybe digest some crow.


    Or perhaps it’s the one about fruit trees bearing according to their nature. Sit and watch an apple tree go thru the seasons for a few years. You will be wiser for it and won’t be taking up so much valuable bandwidth offering knee-jerk reactions to everything.

    BTW, I wonder why you would let Dave get away with his assertion that all countries recently substantiated the assertion that Sadaam tried to buy yellowcake from Niger? The only documents corroborating that intelligence turned out to be forgeries. I won’t take the 30 seconds required to document this, since everyone knows about it already. Everyone but you. And Dave. Tsk.

  56. Wendy says:

    Thank you all for some good belly laughs! With only a few exceptions you all need a reality check! Really folks what planet are you living on anyway?

  57. Wendy says:

    Thank you all for some good belly laughs! With only a few exceptions you all need a reality check! Really folks what planet are you living on anyway?

  58. Chuck says:

    Call me what you like lamo (I’ll stick with the abbreviation)…I’ll sit back now and revel at the rising shrill of your voice as the election tilts ever more to Bush. I grow apples btw, and have watched many seasons come and go. Yours is fading for now, thank God. Wendy, the planet is Earth, welcome aboard!

  59. Wendy says:

    Hey Chuck I believe you just might occupy earth with me, not so sure about lamo- does this guy really believe his own hot air?

  60. Ed says:

    Well, chuck and wendy, since you live on earth…you should know that the love of money is the root of all evil.

    And I don’t think it’s not a consipiracy theory being spouted…it boils down to human nature.


    And we currently have the richest cabinet in the histroy of the country. Dr. Rice even has an oil tanker named after her!

    And as far as watching “as the election tilts ever more to Bush” …

    Here’s the latest polling data…If I’m not mistaken it’s measure by “registered voters” and not cnn/gallup’s “likely voters”



  61. Ed says:

    oh yeah.

    one more thing.

    You might have seen many seasons…but just how old are you?

    what’s with the name calling? Last time I checked, name calling was reserved for 8 year olds and people who don’t have an organized or intelligent response to a post or an issue. Hence I guess why most of the GOP convention was spent shooting tasteless spitballs at the dems….

    and i quote….”Don’t be economic girlie-men” -The Governator


  62. Chuck says:

    So Kerry and Edwards are a couple of po boys? In fact, when was the last time we had a genuine poor President? And honestly Ed, does that really matter? Rasmussen is wishful polling (didn’t they predict Dean in Iowa?)…we will see in November. I am 50 hard lived years (had my 18th birthday in Vietnam)) and I apologized for losing my cool earlier, if that’s what you are talking about. I looked back at my original post and it seemed organized and reasonable to me, right down to this one. Anyway lamo started it with the Chuckie business, so nah nah nha boo boo. LOL (that’s 8 year-old).
    Wendy, you my kind of lady!What a great country that we can debate this stuff, eh? I love you all, even you Ed and Lamo…

  63. Wendy says:

    You know Chuck, there’s one nice thing about being an “elephant”, we have thick skin and yes it’s wonderful to live in a country where we can debate the issues. That’s what I’ll be trying to perserve in this next election!

  64. Wendy says:

    You know Chuck, the nice thing about being an “elephant” is we have thick skin, and yes it’s great to live in a country where we can debate the issues! That’s what I’ll be voting to perserve in this upcoming election.

  65. ed says:

    Didn’t say they weren’t…
    But you also have to compare HOW they got wealthy….

    Kerry…mostly by marriage…
    Edwards…by representing ordinary americans in class action lawsuits.

    Bush…Oil, family ….can you say….Carlyle Group, one of the largest investment firms in the world…which just so happens to be run by his daddy?
    Cheney. CEO of Halliburton, the world’s largest oil field services company.

    And among his cabinet…his best friend,
    Don Evans: Commerce Secretary: former CEO of Tom Brown Inc, Denver based oil and gas drilling Co.
    Donald Rumsfeld: Director of Gulfstream Aerospace before it was aquired by defense contractor General Dynamics (thus owns stock in GD)
    Colin Powell: same as Donald
    Norman Mineta: Consultant at Lockheed Martin
    Dr. Rice…mentioned before…Chevron Director

    Of course I could easily go on…those are just the ones that play into this whole oil/war thing…
    The defense and oil industry aren’t the only ones represented in the cabinet and among his top advisors. In fact, just about ever sector is represented…from AOL to Phillip Morris.

    I’ll leave that with a quote from Eisenhower, which comes from his last speech before leaving office.

    “We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. “

    For me, and from my heart…this is why Bush has got to go. If you can’t see the connections, then it’s because you either don’t want to see them, or are so blinded by partisan politics that you can’t.

    BTW, I’m not a democrat, I’m an independent…and an Evangelical Christian to boot.


  66. Wendy says:

    In the words of Voltaire/Tallentyre: “I disapprove of what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

  67. Chuck says:

    Ed, a reasoned and good argument. Nader is your best choice based upon your arguments. You surely know that the Democrats are not terribly different in this regard. Personally, I’m not much bothered by it all. After seeing how most of the world lives, from rank poverty in most of it to state totalitarinaism in the rest, this country can’t be beat. There are those who would only be satisfied if we lived like Amish folk. So what if the cabinet is connected with cooperate America? Have the last 3 years been that terrible because of it? Seriously, compare your own personal life to most people living in the world. Edwards has contributed to the gutting of health care in NC. As in many states, doctors are fleeing specialized medicine because of outrageous malpractice ins. costs and settlements. And don’t think Heinz just makes ketchup. It is a large multinational coporation. Lastly, although I don’t like mixing relgion (I am a Christian as well) and politics, partial-birth abortion (research it Ed) is outright murder and Kerry supports it. Nuf said there. Thanks for participating in the process Ed, keeping an open mind and having the guts to reasonably debate and defend your beliefs. You have my respects sir.

  68. Truth says:

    This one is for Chuckie:

    Someone posted this before but thought Chuckie might need to read this:

    Why not prove what is unsubstantiated there? Read his resume and find what is not true or substantiated and post all the unsubstantiated facts here for all to see. There are links there that substantiate the facts. I bet Chucky won’t be able to find much on there that is not true. Ofcourse, he can say “it’s not true” but won’t be able to prove it…so why do we need to prove it is true?

    Oh, that’s right…because we’re “liberals”, “democrats”, or whatever else you wish to label us as to make us seem less credible than “republicans”. We have to substiante our facts, republicans only have to say it for it to be true.

    NEWFLASH: Republicans LIE

    Oh, and Chuckie, I believe in GOD but where’s the proof to substantiate He exists?

  69. lamo_gop says:

    Wendy, what hot air are you talking about? I substantiate what I say after your buddy speak irresponsibly with no substantiation and you call that hot air? People like you make it seem like Republicans aren’t real people, that they just have knee-jerk reactions and standard talking points for everything that’s said. And when they find another to bounce their catch-phrases off of, well that’s when you really hear the hot air blast. It’s like listening to Rush. No wonder he calls you his ditto-heads. Sad.

  70. lamo_gop says:

    Wendy, what hot air are you talking about? I substantiate what I say after your buddy speaks irresponsibly with no substantiation and you call that hot air? People like you make it seem like Republicans aren’t real people, that they just have knee-jerk reactions and standard talking points for everything that’s said. And when they find another to bounce their catch-phrases off of, well that’s when you really hear the hot air blast. It’s like listening to Rush. No wonder he calls you his ditto-heads. Sad.

    And, uck… was that your response to my request for substantiation? My voice is shrill? Man! I’ll bet it’s at least an octave below yours, little girl. Because it’s clear you have no balls as well as no brains.

  71. Chuck says:

    The proof of God is all around us to see Truth, as well as the proof of evil. There are those who see what they believe and those who believe what they see. This is a solemn day in our history (9/11) and I pray for those who were lost and their families. No more response from me to foolish arguments (as I predicted lamo is losing it). These are serious times and I trust our leadership and our people. Good weekend to all!

  72. Chuck says:

    POW, thanks for the comic strip. Its impressive on its surface, but if anybody takes a closer look at it panel by panel, its easy to see it for what it for is. For example, the whole issue of Bush’s support for ethanol research is summed up in an AP report about a particular ethanol plant closing. Because of this the implication is he does not want to support such research at all (which is hogwash of course). Someone like Truth (who sees only what he believes) would of course extrapolate further that this is solid evidence that Bush means to profit further in oil at the expense of ethanol. In fact, Bush might even launch an attack on same place and blame it on AlQuieda. After all, everything Republicans say are LIES and thus apparently everything said by Democrats is true! And this guy calls himself Truth? Oh Lordy…
    It would be interesting to research and debate each assertion made in POW’s comics, because it would show the fairly shallow skill needed to take facts out-of-context and manipulate them into something with more meaning than they have. But alas I don’t have the time and fortunately most Americans are able to see this stuff for what it is. I labelled it earlier…partisan junk.

  73. attorney robert says:

    but has killed our reputation overseas, i know because thats where I have been for over 2 years of the last 4, one in brazil and another in russia. they really hate us folks, no kidding. but, myself, i am too concerned with the professionalism of the us supreme court to go for kerry. so, texas here you go again.

  74. FearTheVote says:

    Would Bush kill an assault weapons ban just to get votes from NRA members? Would allowing assault weapons in our neighborhoods make for a safer America?

    If the US is safer now, why do they warn about the impending threat if we do not give them 4 more years?

    Why do they avoid the real issues and trying to intimidate the public with fear?

    Why is nobody in the Bush administration being held accountable for the failures of the last 4 years?

    At what cost is your vote being bought?

  75. POW says:


    I find it ironic that anyone who is not supporting the current administration has to “prove” anything but those that stand by the record of this administration’s failures can just chalk it up to bipartisanship or liberalism. You accuse us of seeing what we believe but are you so blind that you do not believe what you see? Or do you just believe the words you hear? Are you forgetting about the US Constitution and Bill of Rights on which this great country was founded? Are you forgetting that we gained our independence by Revolution? That our civil rights are better due to Americans fighting for what they believe in? People like you would fare better in a monarchy or dictatorship where your life and welfare is controlled by people in power. Some of us, however, choose not to give into fear and empower ourselves with the right to choose.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    “…that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

  76. Chuck says:

    POW, you sound just like me, only from a different voting perspective! I admire your points, its just that we see things a bit differently. That’s the beauty of this democracy. I celebrate your opposition! God help us all if we all start thinking the same.
    I merely argue the factors that are going to lead to a Bush victory, ask for reasoned debate, and the nutcases come out…not meaning you (Truth’s arguments that Bush is behind the WTC attack etc.).
    I certainly need no guidance on defending the Constitution or supporting it. I served in Vietnam; my father did two tours there as a marine; my uncle was killed there in ’67; both served in Korea together; their father served in WWI in France; his grandfather served in Lee’s army in the Civil War: and his grandfather served as a continental soldier. He had a cousin who signed the Declaration. And that’s just on my father’s side!
    Some people either cannot accept any opposition (on both sides), while others can’t make reasoned arguments to support thir points. Note that most of my origianl predictions are panning out to be true. Take a closer look at your own talking points (not for my benefit). You will see the distortions for yourself.

  77. Chuck says:

    POW, you sound just like me, only from a different voting perspective! I admire your points, its just that we see things a bit differently. That’s the beauty of this democracy. I celebrate your opposition! God help us all if we all start thinking the same.
    I merely argue the factors that are going to lead to a Bush victory, ask for reasoned debate, and the nutcases come out…not meaning you (Truth’s arguments that Bush is behind the WTC attack etc.).
    I certainly need no guidance on defending the Constitution or supporting it. I served in Vietnam; my father did two tours there as a marine; my uncle was killed there in ’67; both served in Korea together; their father served in WWI in France; his grandfather served in Lee’s army in the Civil War: and his grandfather served as a continental soldier. He had a cousin who signed the Declaration. And that’s just on my father’s side!
    Some people either cannot accept any opposition (on both sides), while others can’t make reasoned arguments to support thir points. Note that most of my origianl predictions are panning out to be true. Take a closer look at your own talking points (not for my benefit). You will see the distortions for yourself.

  78. ed says:

    back from vacaction 🙂 lot’s of discussion here 🙂

    Let me peel back to my 2nd post and respond to chuck about Nader.

    Yes, you are right…I’m more of a green than anything (big solar nut). I’m also an entrepenuer (and thus by definition a capitalist) which puts me in a complex position (thus why I’m an independent). However, I’m also a realist, and a vote for Nader is a wasted vote. (I already wasted a vote on Perot back in the day). Even so, Kerry is an environmentalist…and despite Heinz being a multinational, you have to realize that most of Theresea’s life has been spent giving away money through the Heniz foundation with a good amount to environmental causes (good article about her in Reader’s Digest a couple of months ago)….which leads me to probably my biggest point that I think is really dividing the nation.

    I think the really divisive point is where a person stands on what you believe in regards to WHY we are in Iraq and WHY we are in Afganistan.

    For me….I just look at the facts…never mind the bush resume..never mind the partisan spin machines on both sides.

    Bush: from oil
    Cabinet: from oil, defense industry, and corporate america.
    Advisors: mostly from oil, and defense
    Carlyle Group: Bush Senior, buddies, Bin Ladens, etc etc etc…

    Afganistan: A major oil pipeline across the country is designed long ago…but talks for getting it put in place are stalled…after defeating the taliban a new government is put in place…a month later the pipeline is approved.

    Iraq: hmmm let’s see…just yesterday the major pipe was bombed and oil prices went up again…I wonder what that means?

    9/11: a very very awful thing. Death, destruction, mayhem…and all of it happens LIVE ON TV. (which is a very very important piece in all of this) 80 percent of the terrorists are discovered to be from Saudi Arabia

    Bin Laden: bad guy…mastermind, hates america…etc, etc… probably been in Pakistan since he was wounded back in March.

    The U.S.: we are a nation extremely dependent on foreign energy. I mean MASSIVELY DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN ENERGY, especially gas for our automobiles which we take great care in collectively commuting independently to work, which is, on average, 35 miles a way. We also have the largest interestate transportation system which also keeps our massive economy moving. (Just this morming I was 300 miles away down at the beach) All this means is that


    If we were to pay what most of the rest of the world pays for oil…our economy would positively tank.

    So what does all this mean in regards to the upcoming election?

    For me, it boils down to how each of the candidates treat/will treat F.O.D.

    1. Bush: considering background, business connections, and the past four years…it’s quite obvious…his position is MARKET DOMINANCE.
    2. Kerry: considering his environmental record, voting record, his own personal complexity as a human being, his connections, etc… is a combination of MARKET EVOLUTION (altnerative renewables, green energy, etc) and POLITICAL NEGOTATION (clinton-omics, back scratching etc)

    How many more people have to die before we decide to change our consuming habits?

    Personally, I can’t even fathom voting for bush. But I probably would have at least had to think about it for more than a minute if he hadn’t invaded Iraq.


  79. Chuck says:

    Good points Ed…
    I agree that we do need to reduce both our consumption habits and our dependence on oil.
    But I don’t think the war is about oil. The leading suppliers (over 70%) of oil to this country are Mexico, Canada, Venezuala, and a host of non-opec suppliers (pretty much in that order). The Persian Gulf actually only supplies less that 25% of our imports (this is Dept. of Energy data…see their website). Of the Persian Gulf suppliers, most is from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, most of these supplies are predicted to be stable over the next 30 years (same source). And even if I grant that Bush went to war for oil supplies in the region (which I don’t), so what? Did you just say you took a trip to the beach? Would you be the first to step up and make a sacrifice to lower consumption? How many of the things can you look at in your room that did not involve petroleum in some way? Do you honestly believe that Kerry is going to make an iota of difference in this regard? Did Clinton or most Democratic leaders? If this is a genuine problem for you, and you want to see real change in your own life in this regard, vote green and buy a buggy. Otherwise its truly tweedle-dum tweedle-dee ‘tween the two, and there must be some other more salient reason for your politics.

    I hear alot of anti-business tone in your argument. I wonder if you might have paid too much attention to your sociolgy professors, etc. I know I did. I remember at one time honestly believing conflict theory (neo-Marxism) as gospel. But somewhere along the line I grew up and learned it wasn’t all so simple. And that maybe capitalism is not the all encompassing evil that it has been portrayed for the last 30-40 years in leftist academia (not without its evils however). Try to become familiar with the benefits of our economic system as well as its flaws. It could be a real eye-opener.

    If you mean political negotiation, you must mean with our so-called “friends” such as France, Germany, Russia and China. Ed, understand that these countries are our competitors. It is in their interest to oppose us. I would be horrified to see our national security dependent upon negotiation with people whose interests rests with our failures.

    To which dead people do you refer? Those who were murdered by the terrorists? Do you know the stated motives of these people? They are religious fanatics…Our closest domestic equivalent is Eric Rudolph. They hate only partly because of our support for Israel. They hate us more simply because of who we are…infidels. The troops who died believing that we support them? Most are like my nephew who served over there. They believe in and love their country. They perceive they are defending it and that we love and support them. Are we going to let them die in vain and just walk out?

    I in turn could not possibly vote for Kerry. I think he is weak and vascillatiing and morally repugnant. He crapped on his comrades and is unable to spell out any clear agenda other than massive burgeoning of socialist government. His model for America is Europe. I say no thanks to that!

    Welcome back from the beach Ed. It looks as if your native state has come to its senses lol. The hurricane will send all the snowbird yankees home from Florida, and with those two states, Bush has it in the bag. Ahh politics, I love it man…

  80. Chris says:

    Back on topic for a bit, here’s an interesting news story regarding GOP attempts to intimidate election pollsters who report results that they don’t like:


    Back to the thread of discussion, there is much that baffles in me in Chuck’s post that I don’t feel inclined to address. For instance, I haven’t heard anything from Kerry where he would adopt European socialism (apparently, any attempt by government to look after the welfare of its citizens falls under this stigma). As far as I can tell, much of the criticisms of Kerry are speculative, generic attacks on liberals. I happen to be suspicious of liberals too, as a Libertarian, but the today’s GOP is positively terrifying. Bush has worked hard to undermine the Constitution, which was designed to place a check on the ability of government to become totalitarian. Rather than a “massively burgeoning of socialist government,” we’ve seen a similar growth of a police state where government is now the master, rather than the servant, of the people. There is ample evidence of this throughout Michael’s blog–look for yourself. Bush’s model for America is clearly Oceania ala Orwell’s 1984–a nation perpetually at war, engulfed by propaganda that contradicts itself ever few days, under surveillance, where the elites amuse themselves by breaking thoughtcriminals through torture. I’d risk a European socialist administration for a few years in order to get rid of a fascist, malevolent administration. Even the terrorists are minor league killers compared to a totalitarian regime.

  81. ed says:


    Another person who has associated facism with the current administration.

    I think your stat quoting is a bit misleading…here are the actual june 2004 numbers ranked by country. (In millions of barrels)
    1. Canada 51.2
    2. mexico 50.0
    3. venezuela 43.2
    4. saudi arabia 43.5
    5. Nigeria 35.7
    6. Iraq 19.1
    7. Russia 9.6
    8. UK 9.1
    9. Algeria 6.5
    10. Kuwait 6.7
    And as far as iraq historically….
    In November 2002 we imported 9.6 million barrels. This increased steadily through
    February 2003 where 25.8 million barrels was imported. Then, we invaded and after we controlled the pipeline, we imported almost 20 million barrels that April.

    So, as far as percentages are concerned, the top 10 import countries accounted for 87 percent of all crude oil imports, and Iraq accounted for 6 percent of the total.

    So I think it’s a bit of a stretch for you to say…”Of the Persian Gulf suppliers, most is from Saudi Arabia”.

    As far as being anti business…I just don’t see me being that way. What I am being is very zealous about trading blood for oil.

    As far as the deaths that I refer to are concerned….

    We have now lost over 1000 US Troops…that’s just on our side.
    according to iraqbodycount.net there are between 12,721 to 14,751 CIVILIANS that have died in this war. It doesn’t matter whether we killed them or some suicide bomber killed them. They are dead because we are there.

    Their blood is on Bush’s hands. If we reelect him. then their blood is on our hands.


  82. Chuck says:

    Chris I won’t argue that government has become the master of the people rather than the other way around. But that was fought against and lost in the 1860’s. There’s nothing new there…I did look at the site you mentioned, but other than, alas, the same old weary and unsubstantiated junk, there’s nothing to be gleaned from it. That is, Republican America bad, Democratic good, etc. And more of the old mean old America stuff. Puhlease. The rest of your assertions are simply ridiculous. There have been far worse times for freedom in our own history (Civil War; WWI and II), and much better examples of Orwell than the U.S (see history of the USSR or pre WWII Japan, for example). Is there a Libertarian candidate running in your state? Then vote your conscience or you don’t have one is my humble opinion. Fortunately you probably will have to wait another 4 years at least to see your socialist alternative dream come true.

    Ed, other than an insignificant increase then decrease in Iraqi contribution, I see absolutley no difference in your numbers from mine! Bottom line is the same. We get nearly all of our oil from the same stable suppliers we have been for years, in spite of the war. Where was I misleading? The only person misled is probably you, but only by your own nitpicking of very minor amounts. My goodness son, you’ll have to do better than that. And after all that you revert right back to the blood for oil assertion, in spite of the numbers you typed with your very own fingers!

    Look up how many deaths were a result of Saddam’s wars with Iraq and Kuwait; his own internal murders; Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and those killed in Iraq by terrorists and Bathists, they pale to the numbers we are responsible for over there. How many died to end slavery here? How many died to end REAL fascism in the mid-20th century? Got news for you bud, war means fighting, and fighting means killing (Nathan B. Forrest). What is a crime is WASTED blood. If you don’t agree with the very premise of the war or the vision of hope for a democratic Middle East, then none of it is ever going to make any sense to you. So no point in beating a dead horse here.

    Again I commend your courage and good points (except the oil thing). Believe it or not I am open-minded, but like a good catcher, I await the good pitches.

    Speaking of the blood of innocents, did you research partial-birth abortion? Did you read that a recordable moment of great anxiety passess through the child when it realizes its dying? As a self-professed Christian, how can you possibly vote for a man who voted against ending that nightmare?

    Have a good day friend!

  83. ed says:

    I see Chuck…so what you are trying to tell me is…if there was no oil in Iraq…we would still have invaded because Sadam is such a bad guy.

    I don’t buy it….not for a millisecond. The reason I don’t buy that argument is because any disruption in the supply chain from the top 10 suppliers results in a major crisis in America. The reason is because we are using up the oil just about as fast as we are importing it. And 20 million barrels of oil is certainly nothing to sneeze at.

    Also, considering the fact that the BUshes are so “tight” with the Saudi’s, I’m sure that plays into this as well.

    As far as partial birth abortions are concerned….I am pro life…but I’m also pro life after you get out of the womb…including capital punishment, of which W has set records. I’m also pro life even when it comes to my enemies…because I believe what Jesus said on the sermon on the mount…

    In any event, when it comes down to it, I guess God will judge the hearts of all us, including W.
    …but one passage just keeps popping in my head…something which I just can’t shake…something which I think is the essence of what has happened for the past 4 years…

    “The Love of money is the root of all evil”.

    and looking at how much money is being made from this war…how much money will be made for the next 20 years because of this dramatic shifting of oil control…I just can’t help but cry out for the soul of our country.

    what have we become?


  84. Chuck says:

    Yes I am saying we would have gone to war irregardless of oil, just as we did in Panama; Grenada; Bosnia; Vietnam; Korea and on and on. 20 mil barrels of oil is chicken-feed, easily a blip on the international market and made up for in a matter of days by other producers. The last “major crisis” directly resulting from disruption of oil was in the late ’70’s. In spite of clear, substantiated evidence, you are just seeing what you believe friend.

    Obviously you did not research partial birth abortion. These are the same children that are often brought to delivery if needed to save the child or mother or are delivered naturally as preemies. The only difference is that labor is induced for the sole purpose of murdering the child, and rarely due to any physical threat to either, only for the “psychological” health of the mother. This occurs OUTSIDE the womb to a living human. But it is completely silly and biologically/spiritually ignorant (and terrifyingly arrogant) of you or any of us to grant “living” status to a person simply because they have left the womb. In that natural incubator it is not a pig and it is not dead.

    I think instead you should be asking what you have become…deluded and hypocritical to a frightening degree. You have allowed a political disposition to completely cloud what I think is a good heart. I’m sorry for that Ed, and I can only pray for you buddy.

    Fortunately Bush continues to rout Kerry, and I believe the drubbing will be worse than the polls reveal. Most of us have broken free from your type of delusions, in fact there is a Christian revival of unprecedented numbers occuring (of course not being reported) and conservatism is on a dramatic rise, especially among youth. Whew, and just in time…

    I think that pretty much ends any hope I had of good debate with you Ed. Best wishes to you.

  85. ed says:

    I am completely aware of partial birth abortions. I am against it. I only used the term “out of the womb” as a metaphor, not as a definition. I believe human life occurs at conception. I think you completely missed my point by focusing on the partial birth and ignored my real point…and that is…
    Republicans don’t have a corner on the morality market. (and neither do democrats)

    As far as delusions are concerned…maybe I am…however, after seeing evil in it’s truest forms, I have found myself to have been given the gift of discernment (in case you haven’t figured it out, I’m charismatic).

    I am quite aware of the resurggence of the Christian faith, having been working on my masters in missions for the past number of years, I try to stay abreast of such movements. I would say that the main thrust of this movement actually revolves around the televised event of 9/11 in which many many people (including myself) witnessed reality and the human condition in all it’s horror and resolute finality. Those kind of events push us out of our materialism, subjectivism, and pluralism to searth the depths of our soul and come out on the other side on our knees with our hands stretched upwards. I’m not saying that what happened was a “good thing” rather what happened only made reality, the human condition, sin, hate, etc, much more real for many people that had never “witnessed” such things.

    The leading question that is raised from such a thing is this…

    what do we do with it?

    And yes, I welcome prayer for me and my family. But please don’t pray to make me a Republican and “see the light” that would be a real waste since I truly believe that I already have seen it, and try to follow it (and him) every day. Rather I ask that you pray for clarity, vision, and that I will do God’s will, for that is the most important thing that any of us can pray for.

    And I will do the same.
    In Christ,

    BTW, how much of our debt did we spend in Panama, Grenada, and Bosnia? How many ground troops did we send? I’m not trying to make a point, I’m just not to clear about those situations.

  86. ed says:

    I am completely aware of partial birth abortions. I am against it. I only used the term “out of the womb” as a metaphor, not as a definition. I believe human life occurs at conception. I think you completely missed my point by focusing on the partial birth and ignored my real point…and that is…
    Republicans don’t have a corner on the morality market. (and neither do democrats)

    As far as delusions are concerned…maybe I am…however, after seeing evil in it’s truest forms, I have found myself to have been given the gift of discernment (in case you haven’t figured it out, I’m charismatic).

    I am quite aware of the resurggence of the Christian faith, having been working on my masters in missions for the past number of years, I try to stay abreast of such movements. I would say that the main thrust of this movement actually revolves around the televised event of 9/11 in which many many people (including myself) witnessed reality and the human condition in all it’s horror and resolute finality. Those kind of events push us out of our materialism, subjectivism, and pluralism to searth the depths of our soul and come out on the other side on our knees with our hands stretched upwards. I’m not saying that what happened was a “good thing” rather what happened only made reality, the human condition, sin, hate, etc, much more real for many people that had never “witnessed” such things.

    The leading question that is raised from such a thing is this…

    what do we do with it?

    And yes, I welcome prayer for me and my family. But please don’t pray to make me a Republican and “see the light” that would be a real waste since I truly believe that I already have seen it, and try to follow it (and him) every day. Rather I ask that you pray for clarity, vision, and that I will do God’s will, for that is the most important thing that any of us can pray for.

    And I will do the same.
    In Christ,

    BTW, how much of our debt did we spend in Panama, Grenada, and Bosnia? How many ground troops did we send? I’m not trying to make a point, I’m just not to clear about those situations.

  87. Ed says:

    Interesting. I was doing research about partial birth…came across this…

    “John Kerry voted repeatedly against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He says that a health exception is necessary. Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter has stated that Kerry would support the ban if it included a “clear exception for life or health of women.”
    -from somewhere on about.com

    I agree with him. I suspect a number of these late term abortions were due to life threatening conditions on the part of the mother (assuredely not even a majority, but all it takes is one)

    BTW, there were 2200 PBA performed annually, Before the PBA ban was signed into law by Bush. A couple of federal judges have struck down the law, and you can expect the issue to play out into the supreme court sometime next year.

    So from my perspective, the issue will most likely play out exactly the same regardless of who is in office. So in opinion, it is only a Republican created issue to rally the ethic troops against them darn liberals who are just plain awful for our country.


  88. Chuck says:

    Ed, you have a good thick skin and you hang in there. LOL I am not praying for you to become a Republican, I promise. I am sure you are a good man and I hope life is good for you and your family. You’ll have to research the answer to your question, I really don’t know. I split my voting ticket but this time I don’t think there is any question that between the two candidates, Bush is the better of the two. Kerry is from a pre-911 almost 60ish persuasion. He just is not the right guy for the job, and every day more and more people are seeing that. It should have some significance to you to see that the heartland realizes that. The only support Kerry has left are the cattle minded union voters and the rainbow coalition (and a few die-hard Dixiecrats). Now the more intersting race is becoming the Senate. I would love to see Dascle (sp?) go…what a destructive phony. Hope the good people of Pennsylvania recover quickly from the recent storm. I am in the mountains of NC and we have taken a serious lick. Best to you Ed…

  89. Ed says:

    Thick as an elephant (and stubborn as a donkey)

    Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree about Kerry, he’s been painted a an extreme liberal, but he also represents a very liberal consitutiency…and isn’t that what a representative is supposed to do? Represent?

    What I’m really getting sick of is the media on all sides. For instance, they all agree about CBS. Even CBS now agrees …yeah we made a mistake. NOw the news is about how the news needs to put it behind and move on. They are reporting on not reporting! How ridiculous is that!

    Whatever happened to moderacy? I feel like I am getting squeezed…

    To tie in and get back on topic…I look at pollingreport.com and rammsusen, and others every day…how can they have such WIDELY divergent polling numbers? Does it fall in HOW they ask questions? Or is it all about WHO they are asking…ie what demographic?

    Or is it really the case (that is being promoted as a reason from a number of “experts”) that the swing voters are people that actually change their mind on a daily and hourly basis.

    If that is the case, then shouldn’t they be identifing themselves with John Kerry…who just shot himself in the foot again today by saying we shouldn’t have invaded.

  90. Chuck says:

    Well, its not over till the fat lady sings (but I hear her warming up). All I can say about polls is “Dewey Beats Truman.” Kerry is floundering and he knows it. Unless a cataclysmic event occurs (and even then we will likely see a rally round the president result), its just ain’t gonna happen for the dems this year. As flawed as it may all seem, I refer you to my earlier posts and suggest you take heart. It is a wonderful country we live in, far better than most. God is in charge and everything will ultimately work out fine. We can start talking about if 08 if you want. What do you think… Hillary (who’s the vp?) versus…Juliani/McCain? Powell/Rice? Believe me, she won’t be a shoo in, no matter what she thinks. I will give her credit, she is focusing on her senatorial duties and being a loyal party member.

  91. Ed says:

    McCain would win in a landslide unless he does something really dumb in the next four years (like back bush for another war, maybe this time with Iran)

    I pray that God is in charge, and not Mammon 🙂


  92. Rich says:

    I’ve lurked long enough. Hi.

    Yes, Sadaam was a bad man. We (Reagan, Rumsfeld, etc.) created and backed him, knowing his past and his nature, because we didn’t like his enemy.

    Yes, Sadaam killed many of his own people. We know because we found the mass graves. We know because we enabled it. Here’s how: We chickened out of attacking and killing him in the first Gulf war. We told the people to rise up and overthrow him, and that we would support that effort. Then, when they began, we ran away. When the helicopters came, the rebels thought it was the Americans, there to help overthrow Sadaam. Surprise! They learned otherwise when the gunships opened fire on them and mowed them down! The mass graves were simply the most expedient way of disposing of the corpses our policy failure had caused to happen. And don’t tell me that we’re not responsible for what Sadaam chooses to do. Face it!

    I think Chuck needs to take a breath and stop spouting RNC tripe. Do some real research and just pay attention to the facts. Separate the feelings from the facts. Pay attention to the facts. Be honest. Then make up your own mind. Do not be afraid of changing. I think of Bob Dylan’s line: “He not busy being born is busy dying”. Talk to some (more than a few) young men and women who have spent a year or more in Iraq. Ask if they feel a sense of mission. Ask if the Iraqis are smiling and giving them hugs in return for chocolate bars. As a Vietnam combat veteren, I truly hated that war… but I think this current war without end (either to fighting OR to corporate profits), is the most sinister, evil, cynical (cynical because it is clearly about oil and revenge) war this country has been involved in since the Indian Wars… further, I believe it has the potential to become even worse than that.

    Well, based on reading many past posts, I guess I know Chuck’s response to all this… but I’m hoping against hope that he can see beyond his ideologies and bring an intelligent, non-hypocritical, non-partisan analysis to the table. Just once.

    As far as Kerry goes, he is beginning to address the simple facts of the “WAR ON TERROR” (quite an Orwellian idea, indeed!) and he is eloquent. His points are eloquent because they are simple and true. Do not, however, expect the POINTS he makes to be addressed by the current president. Expect everything to be framed in an attack or misdirection of some kind. Ditto the economy. Ditto the envrionment. As Kerry’s eloquence increases, his numbers will improve. People will listen. Too many people have been negatively affected by this president to NOT think about it. We don’t believe that Orwell meant “1984” to be an instruction manual. Kerry will win.


  93. nigel says:

    Bush wins because he isn’t running against a person he’s running against his failures of the last 4 years. As a devout republican I know Bush hasn’t done the best job possible and the liberals keep reminding us of that. However John kerry is not offering a different approach to our problems He just says “I’m not bush”. People vote for that.

  94. Chuck says:

    ssshheeww…that’s about as deep a breath as I can draw Rich. So we walked out on them before and is your argument/remedy that we walk out on them again? Which “eloquent” point of Kerry’s do you refer? Those hawkish ones he made against Dean, or those myriad contradictory dovish/hawkish ones he made against Bush? Are you referring to his four-point strategy he made recently (a four year war that relies on “allies” that won’t even support us in Afganistan)? Have you really examined his remarks critically or who’s the partisan here…Do you deny that there is a war on terror occuring in spite of Iraq? And speaking of musician philosophers…Kerry is the closest you will ever see (except maybe Edwards) in this country to George Harrison’s taxman. Do you mean to say you are ideology-free? Please identify my specific hypocrisy.

    I have talked to several veterans and I have done my homework. Most of the “bad guys” are imports and Bathists. There are many grateful Iraquis…its just a screwed up country my man that required a dictator to keep the feuding parties in line. So the question is now what…they don’t even know. But they can learn if they are supported, protected and educated, not given up on. We made a COMMITMENT.

    Yes you are right, don’t waste your hope on me. My mind is made up. But I am grateful for your service in Vietnam and I respect your views, I just don’t agree with you.

    So as a fellow Viet vet you don’t find Kerry’s post-war remarks just a bit troubling? Did you commit atrocities or believe most GI’s did? Is war itself not sometimes a necessary atrocity?

    Kerry’s eloquence will not improve because he has none. No my friend, Kerry will lose, badly.

  95. Chris says:

    Okay, Chuck–that’s enough.

    You’re welcome to vote for Bush, but judging from the comments, you’ve failed to convince recent posters of Bush’s merits and the only defense you offer of his policies is that it’s worse somewhere else or you’ve “talked” to “veterans.” Please. A convincing defense of Bush would require publically available evidence for his merits, like referenced statistics showing clear improvements in the economy, or a respected opinion poll that Iraqis are happy to have US soldiers around, or that the deficit won’t have to be paid, or that No Child Left Behind is being fully funded (or even works, irrespective of funding level). You are therefore welcome to offer actual evidence at some point. Michael Froomkin has done superb work amassing the evidence (documents and deeds) that Bush is a coward, war criminal, incompetent, and a dictator-aspirant. If Bush wins–honestly–then fine; his voters will fully deserve what they have coming to them. But enough unsubstantiated opinion and repititions of banal GOP propanganda.

  96. Chuck says:

    Chris I must have hit your funny-bone or something. If you will read my posts from the beginning you will see they are all reactive to others. And no, I won’t do your homework for you. Both Bush’s and Kerry’s records are open for any to examine. I am sure that no matter what “statistics” I post, they would be meanungless to you. Tell you what, I will look Froomkin up and see what he has to say. But don’t for a second think you are going to limit my right to speech just because you don’t agree with it or like it. I respect your right to disagree and not even read my comments. Fair enough?

  97. Chris says:

    You certainly have the right to free speech. If you want your arguments respected, however, you need to back them up with evidence. To help you out, I will tell you what sources are acceptable for evidence. First, a source needs to be un-self-interested. Evidence by authors or organizations with demonstrated political agendas, or who are compromised by a funding source or an overseer with a political agenda (like, these days, the NIJ), are not acceptable. Data from academic sources–journals and books, and the like–are acceptable so long as they are peer-reviewed. The peer review process helps to insure the integrity and scientific merit of the research. Opinion polls by respected polling organizations is somewhat less acceptable, depending on their methodology; polling organizations that consider their methodology proprietary (that is, secret) are unacceptable. Statistics are not inherently meaningless–only those statistics that are collected using poor methodology or that are presented out of context. Second, confirmed government documents are acceptable evidence. I refer you to the Apologia Pro Tormento post Michael put up as the one that convinced me our Republic was truly in danger from Bush and that even a liberal senator from Massachusetts was preferable as president. Third, news reports of actual deeds are acceptable and are particularly powerful as corroboration of what one reads from government documents. Many of Michael’s posts are simply illustrations of the manifestations of the Torture memos.

    Some “conservative” posters read these documents and consider the dismantling of our Constitution as an acceptable response to a changed world. My own opinion is that no US politician (unless he has designs on dictatorship) has the power to make that judgment, and that changes to the Constitution need to be placed before the people and may not be made in secret and acted upon unilaterally. Additionally, and I don’t think all the Bush supporters in the Zogby and other polls quite realize this, the powers sought by the President to act beyond the Constitution frees him to act arbitrarily toward citizens. There is ample evidence that this is already occurring, as you will have noticed from Michael’s posts. I simply cannot believe that Bush supporters are anything other than grossly misled–I cannot believe that they would like to see our protections from government power dismantled. But, as I’ve said already, if they genuinely want this kind of government, then they deserve what they get.

  98. Rich says:

    Chuck, I won’t do your homework for you either. Just listen to, or read, Kerry’s speech at NYU the other day. Pick out pretty much any 10 consecutive sentences and you will find 2 or 3 of the eloquent points I refer to.

    There’s something very myopic about your reference to Kerry’s seemingly contradictory remarks about his approach to Iraq. All right wing ditto-heads spout the same religion… “Kerry flipflopped!”. This is where you reveal yourself as an ideologue (ditto-head, according to Rush) and not a free-thinker. And here’s why: Kerry, like all of us, myself included, turned to W for leadership in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. We didn’t think ANYONE … REGARDLESS of ideology would use something so horriffic for personal gain. Suddenly we were all patriots together. There were no parties, no ideologies… only a mutual revulsion and bonding together to find and destroy whoever was behind this. In that spirit, Kerry voted to give W a blank check. We believed he would not dishonor it. BTW, we also had the good will of the world on our side. We were gonna catch OSAMA BIN LADEN! (Remember him?). Kerry now says we can’t just leave. That doesn’t make him a hawk. Only Rush would have you believe that!

    Yes, I did witness atrocities in Vietnam. If you call willful murder of innocent civilians because a case COULD be made that PERHAPS they fought on the other side at night an atrocity. I do. Anyone who doesn’t is less than human. But, Chuck, you would never understand that. To you, and others like you, who have not had to bear a weapon in a hot combat zone, there’s something vaguely (or overtly, in some psychotic states) glorious about war. If you’ve been in one, you know this: you don’t HAVE one unless your country is directly (read DIRECTLY) endangered. Not endangered according to one or another philosophical argument about Communism or Terrorism or Islamism. Let me be clear… We SHOULD have gone to war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. We should NOT have invaded Iraq. We should have captured or killed Osama bin Ladin. We should not have a President who cavalierly says that he’s no longer interested in Osama bin Ladin. Kerry now says that this is the WRONG WAR, AT THE WRONG TIME. He’s right.


    THE FLIP FLOP NEWS: If you really want to enjoy some quality flipflopping, listed to Bush’s speeches about finding and killing Osama, then listen to his recent statements that he’s not concerned about him. Listen to replays of the certitude the administration had that WMD existed and that there were ties to Al Quaida. Then listen to replays of the current line. Now ALL the reasons are different. Now we are engaged in a debate over whether the Iraqis are better off now or before. In a debate over whether democracy will work there or not! What about the one who were responsible for destroying the World Trade Towers? Those of us who have eyes and ears have not forgotten. We have not gotten lost in the cynical excercise of ideological self-righteousness that has hijacked the Republican Party and turned it into the party of extremist Neo-Conservatives and Born Again Christians. Anyone who is a true Republican will see this. Fiscal Conservatism anyone?

    I could go on and on. I could make sense from here to eternity. Chuck would not hear. It makes me think perhaps he doesn’t possess the inner qualities necessary to distinguish an atrocity from a necessary combat action… making him less than… … … ???

  99. Tim says:

    I think people like Chuck rely heavily on conventional wisdom rather than facts to label Kerry but can’t refute any of the facts about the Bush Family Ties or the failures during his first term.

    I wonder if people like Chuck even listen to Bush’s Words before jumping on the GOP bandwagon.

    Maybe it’s all just an act, after all, he did graduate from Yale and Harvard…but how can you honestly defend the words straight from the horse’s mouth? Listen to the words more closely and maybe you too will hear the truth.

  100. Ed says:

    wow. I thought Chuck and I were the only ones still “chatting” on this old string…(well, I guess it can’t be too old if it ranks on the second page in google for “2004 election polls”)

    Despite all the spinning on both sides. I honestly think that Bush thinks he is doing the right thing. The problem is, I don’t think he is the one making the decisions. For all practial purposes, I think what we have in office is a figurehead.

    I think Cheney is actually running the show. Just look at who is usually playing golf, and who is in the whitehouse working.


  101. Chuck says:

    Chris/Rich, on its surface great responses, but let me take a closer look. Still trying to find the Froomkin stuff you cited. No I did not carry a gun, only loaded shells and lobbed them at the shores over there. I don’t think the proximity and size of the ammo means I thought any less (and still don’t) of who was at the receiving end. I was a Marine brat as well whose father left home twice for Vietnam and my uncle was killed there in ’67. I or them may have commited atrocities, but I have no direct knowledge of any and as my Dad says that’s BS in that all war is an atrocity. I am impressed by your assumptions of my views of war, especially given that you have no idea what they are! You may assume them based on my support of our role in Iraq (however that role seems to change). I do not agree that you have to bear a rifle to have sole ownership of the horror of it. I know many who did who seem as shallow as a puddle. I did not ask you if you witnessed atrocities, I asked if you commited them or believe most gi’s did. I have never posted an assertion that that war (or any) was glorious or that any good a’tall came of it.

    Because I have yet to read Froomkin, I assume you are you referring to activities authorized under the Patriot Act (?) or to the Act authorizing our use of force in Iraq(?) You do know this was congressional legislation directing the President and not the other way around, right? Given that, these are powers specifically granted by the constitutuion, for where else does legislation derive from? I hardly see a “dismantling of the constitution” here, or any attempt at “dictatorship.” You have done a nice job revealing your where your heart is here Chris. There is a fear coming from you that is building a fence around your own ability to think critically. Although you windily advise me how to use references, you cite only one yourself as “ample evidence.” I will evaluate that source shortly and see if it meets your own criteria.

    As far as Kerry’s speech, call it myopic if you like, I’m just telling you what the man said. He would continue the war for four years (exactly?) and he would rely more on our so-called allies who failed us in Afganistan. So those vitally critical absurdities are to be ignored because I don’t discuss the entire speech or agree its eloquent? Eloquence does not mean diddly to me. There have been many eloquent fools and plain-spoken heros.

    The Republican Party has no more been hijacked by neo-conservatives and born-again Christians (an interesting worry there) than the dems have been by the communists or socialists, etc. That is frightened hyperbole and is another example of an unsupported assertion on your part. I honestly do not see McCain or Arnold or even Zell Miller and countless others coming close to what you fear. Could it be that they may simply be reasonable people who have a differing point of view from yours?

    You do make valid points about the confusing and changing “purpose” of the war. I am disturbed by the lack of wmd, but I honestly don’t believe Bush has lost interest in Osama, etc. But we are there, we have destroyed Sadam and the Taliban, and we are fighting terrorists over there instead of here. And even Kerry agrees we need to stay there as we have made a commitment and we can’t simply abandon the people of Iraq now. One can even argue that we are now obligated to clean up the mess we started.

    As I said before, I respect your beliefs, I am not threatened by them, I just don’t agree. I celebrate our differences and welcome reasoned debate. I am ultimately optimistic and believe in the good of our people. Does that make me a fool or a bad person or “something less than… ?” Okay, then I am a fool and a bad person and I have a big mouth. But I suspect your ears will be at least as closed as mine my friend.

    Tim thanks for jumping in. I have been listening. But like most (including you) I filter what I hear through my own beliefs and values. It may just mean that mine our different. That is called free-thinking and that is the basis of a democracy. Its ok to rejoice that we don’t all think the same while grieving that yours MAY not be the prevailing belief at this time.

  102. Chris says:


    Chuck, I’m not sure any of this is getting through, but I’ll try again. A reasoned debate is not a simple matter of articulating competing beliefs and making irrelevant ad hominem comments about the posters or by trying to be witty. There must also be substance, or fact. Support for Bush does not simply appear out of thin air, but has to come from some source. For example, your belief that Bush has not given up on Osama–in order to be a reasoned belief–must have originated somewhere (e.g., a Bush speech, a bug in the oval office). Otherwise, one may well ask by what credentials you presume to know Bush’s mind, or presume to say that things are going just fine here in the USA under Bush’s leadership. With a factual basis, however, your argument becomes difficult to ignore. So I ask once again, could you kindly attempt to defend Bush’s contributions to the well-being of the US by citing some evidence? If you’re having a hard time marshalling a factual defense of Bush, that may be a sign that that particular belief is misplaced.

    Which brings me to the torture memos. Yes, it is one fact. But, for me, a big one. More facts include stories leaked about the detention centers at Abu Ghraib, Mosul, Gitmo, Afghanistan, the ignoring of the Supreme Court regarding the detention of enemy combatants, and so on–all posted and indexed on Michael’s blog for your convienence. With this memo and the events that have transpired, I therefore am in a position to draw an informed conclusion about Bush’s dictatorial bent because his office requested the memos, rewarded its authors with Federal judgeships, acted consistently in the spirit of the memos (both re torture and the exercise of unlimited presidential power), and no one in the White House has repudiated anything contained in the memos in spite of direct requests to do so. Moreover, the memos were drafted and acknowledged in secret, and John Ashcroft refused–without explanation–a direct request by Congress to see the memos (they were leaked the next day). All facts. My conclusion is further informed by the fact that–at least in my copy of the Constitution–it is not among Bush’s privileges to decide for himself whether to obey our laws or treaties. Because the ability to do that is dictatorship, and a repudiation of the Constitution. This is not a fence built on fear, but a reasoned conclusion from the evidence.

  103. eD says:

    i visited the sites in the last few posts.
    The most disturbing to me was the history of the Bush family.
    Based on the well referenced documents, it appears that the bushes grandfather had a hand in funding Hitler’s Nazi party before and during it’s rise to power. Granted, hindsite is 20/20, and I’m sure there was a different view of Hitler prior to the Olympic Games where he “showed off” his military prowess (ie, I think he was man of the year twice) But even so, for the Bush family fortune to be initially be derived from “weapons of mass destruction”…it’s not only ironic…but makes you go …hmmm….

    I’d like to actually see the actual source documents, that is unless they have been destroyed too, along with alot of other Bush stuff (or sealed away in his father’s library)


  104. Chuck says:

    Its getting through friend, I just disagree and its driving you nuts. But OK, here’s a couple of references to some facts regarding Osama. Read today’s article in the New Yorker by Jane Mayer regarding an excellent discussion of the continued US interest in and effort to track Osama. The Times of India have a great piece today about a special force being trained now to fine-tune the search in Pakistan. There are others but these are a great and current start. They certainly do not indicate that Bush has forgotten this creep. But I would be willing to bet you dollars to doughnuts this goes in one ear and out the other. Why? Because of your entrenched beliefs and because of mine and the fact that they differ. Nothing mysterious or terrible about that.

    I am still reading Michael’s posting of his analysis of the Walker memos. I am working on trying to get at multiple angles of this. Although it is intersting, it seems from the outset that you have taken this analysis as gospel. I can tell you that I truly see hyperbole in your conclusion that Bush’s goal is dictatorship and usurption of the constitution.

    I don’t think I have said things are going fine here in the USA under Bush’s leadership. In fact, I could soundly criticize Bush over several key issues. I simply believe that this is a) a great country, especially compared with others and b) I think Bush is a superior candidate to Kerry in this election.

    I could debate issue by issue this assertion if you like. For instance, I believe Bush’s approach to health care is superior to Kerry’s. Bush means to place more of the onus of health care toward personal responsibility and preparation, while at the same time preparing the country for the reality of the medical future of this country. We cannot rely on government to support it in its entirety, it can’t afford it. By paying more for it ourselves, especially those who are able, perhaps we will make better choices and more realistic planning, yet at the same time having a solid safety net for those who can’t. Kerry on the other hand subscribes to the RIGHT of healthcare for all and the need for the federal government to provide increasingly universal coverage, even for those who can afford their own. All of this at incalcuable cost. The gutting of physician practice, especially specialty practice, by excessive malparactice awards is a recognized component of Bush’s health care reform. See the recent Texas legislation and its resulting very positive trends (dramatic decrease in malpractice suits and reuction of malpractice insurnce costs) as an example of what he is talking about. Kerry opposes tort reform in health care.

    My best argument is a personal one. I look around and see a great (but not perfect) place to live and a bright future for my family. I see reduced crime, a cleaning up of our culture, a cleaner environment, cheap gas (compared to what most of the world is paying), great educational opportunities, less discrimination and on and on. It largely IS a matter of seeing things as an optimist. Unfortunately for Kerry and the democrats, they must rely on a message of pessimism and gloom to convince me. It just ain’t gonna fly.

    We could argue one another breathless with this tack (is that why the sigh?). I have already confessed my mind is made up. I could not bring myself to vote for Kerry and have said why.

    I appreciate you calling me witty, I know you hate it. I feel for you man and your dark view of things. I recently met the man who wrote “This is the Day the Lord Hath Made” and was impressed by his motto, even at 95 years old…”look up, always look up.”

  105. Randy says:

    Don’t mean to interrupt the “Chuck and Ed” show but stubbled across this site a couple hours ago and did a little speed reading from top to bottom. Most present reasoned arguments, some are a little shaky, a couple are just ‘out’ there. Here’s my take for what it is worth.

    The second term for a president should be looked at as a ‘reward’ for a job well done during the first term. On analyzing the state of America and the world as it stood in Nov. of 2000, versus the state of things now in Sept. of 2004, I cannot for the life of me state we are anywhere near better off 4 years later. Certainly the world turned on 9/11/01, but that salvo was just the biggest in a long string of salvo’s fired by one of a small, but incredibly determined, group of people collectively termed terrorists. Civilization has been dealing with small groups of people that have a chip on their shoulder since the beginning of communal living. Some people just can’t get along or don’t like the status quo, but we as a society just deal with these people, one way or the other.

    The US in concert with the rest of the world should have ratcheded up their on-going efforts to rout these people out, which would have included an incursion into Afghanistan, somewhat along the lines we did. The vast majority of the Muslim world would have had no argument with us pursuing and bringing the guilty to justice. But then it was decided we had un-finished business in Iraq, and that’s were everything went to hell.

    My position is that the first four years of Bush and Co. cannot be labeled ‘a job well done’. In fact, they have pretty well buggered things up. Therefore, it is time for the voters to say ‘thanks but no thanks, we would like to try someone else. You had your chance, and it didn’t turn out as expected”. Time to say goodby to #43 and hello to #44.

  106. Chris says:

    Uh, Chuck–this isn’t getting through, obviously. The Jane Mayer article you cited contains two sections where ambassadors and intelligence insiders were blasting the administration for ignoring the hunt for al Qaida in Pakistan (see the paragraph starting with, “To the frustration of many…”), but you for some reason conclude that the words of people in government (who have a stake not to be critical of the administration) is evidence that Bush sees Osama as a priority.

    Here’s the link: http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030804fa_fact

    Remember my earlier post–evidence has to come from a non-self-interested source in order to be credible. I don’t read the India Times, so I can’t comment on the adequacy of that evidence.

    You may dismiss my concerns about the torture memos as “hyperbole”–that is your privilege not to address an issue–but a reasonsed response requires an explanation about why not being answerable to any law or to treaties is not dictatorship. My conclusion is not influenced by anyone’s analysis, but from actually reading the documents–Bush actually noted in his acknowledgement of the memos that he had that prerogative, and the memos explicitly tell him that he has. You may enjoy living in America, but you may not like it so much when the President can unilaterally declare you an enemy combatant, take you somewhere secret, “interrogate” you, and hold you indefinitely without charges. He has already done this to US citizens–another fact.

    This exchange is useful to others, because it may demonstrate that support for Bush shown in these polls is not based on reason, evidence, or even actual personal advantage, but uncritical acceptance of GOP propaganda.

  107. Chuck says:

    No Chris, you’re not getting through because I don’t share your dark bias. The New Yorker article is a great example of reasoned discussion, where BOTH sides present arguments with merit. It is interesting how you only glean what you seek from the same article. It is noteworthy that although you demand credible sources, you also ignore the Times of India report which readily defends my assertion that Bush considers Osama still quite relevant.

    I did read the Walker memo, and I still don’t see a constitution usurping dictator (one who means to obtain absolute power by force–a reasoned response through proper definition of terms) emerging. I again accuse you of resorting to paranoid hyperbole.

    I am not at all worried about the president taking me into a secret place and interrogating me. What is more meaningful to me is that there have been no other attacks on our soil.

    Let me demonstrate to the readers a superb example of bias from so-called objective fellers. A poster named Chris (the source here is…you?) earlier in this page cites the fascist efforts of Republicans to intimidate voters as written in a Minneapolis Star-Tribune report. That same poster completely ignored the multiple court actions taken by the democrats in shutting down Ralph Nader. A superb example of a biased search for the “truth.”

    Your efforts are selective, weak and tiring Chris. I’ll have to dismiss you with one more heartfelt comment. Thanks for voting, thanks for having the courage to speak up and defend your beliefs. Go and pull the lever in November and may the best man win.

    Ed, good to see you still here. But using Bush’s grandfather to evaluate him is likened to using Ted Kennedy’s grannpy or Byrd’s own checkered past, etc. We have 3.5 years of Bush’s presidency and about 20+ years of Kerry’s congressional record. That should suffice for a good comparison.

    Randy, everything has been “going to Hell” for decades, its just we have only recently awakened to it. I am not at all prepared to toss Bush out simply because some things are “buggered up” and elect a man that can’t even be counted on as a good senator. Thanks for being politically engaged.

  108. Chris says:

    To close the discussion on something like an informative note, one should remember that information does not share equal veracity, and it should be disappointingly clear that grassroots Bush supporters appear to lack the skills to evaluate information. This may explain their reliance on ideology (“values”) as an acceptable substitute for reality, which is a statement acknowledged as true periodically in Chuck’s posts. More specifically, the Mayer article does present two sides, but at least one side fails to meet the unself-interested source criterion. Chuck does not explain why he elects to believe manifestly self-interested sources, so one can only conclude that ideology motivated his decision (rather than a reasoned scrutiny of the evidence). This criterion was stated in an earlier post–so my decision to dismiss his evidence was made based on a clearly articulated rule for exclusion and not a “pessimistic” attitude (or ideology) alleged by Chuck. Since Chuck has not shared the link re the India Times (one has to hunt far and wide for good news about Bush, I suppose), or attempted to explain its content, relevance, or its nature of evidence, one should be prima facie skeptical of his claim regarding the excellence of the story.

    There are lessons one can draw, to the extent that Chuck represents a typical Bush supporter in the polls. First, Bush supporters truly believe that reality should conform itself to their ideology. Facts that don’t fit their ideology–regardless of their objective credibility–are simply wrong, or automatically receive less weight. Second, when persistently confronted to give facts, the Bush supporter can be counted on to resort to ad hominem remarks and to avoid arguing the merits of their own case. Third, as is clear from Chuck’s post (actually stated in different language from that of MP, who used to be the neocon troll here), Bush supporters feel justified in giving away their (our) freedoms to Big Government. In short, as some are doubtless aware, it is hopeless to expect Kerry to be able to reason with them, and neither do they any longer respect our tradition of freedom. One can only hope that the few who are still “persuadable” have the skills to tell fact from fiction. But propaganda has become very refined and effective.

    And to Chuck: a positive outlook on the Republicans requires justification based on credible evidence. When you are pleased to share the facts about why you are so optimistic, then you just might convince people that Bush supporters are not actually embarrassingly ignorant.

  109. Chuck says:

    To sum Chris up, I again refer readers to his Sept. 15 post. Read the article he cites and note how he completely leaves out any reference to the dems efforts to block Nader. In spite of his professed desire for arguments of intellect, he uses one of the oldest and dumbest tricks in the books… errors of omission. And he claims to be a libertarian?? This pretty well voids the rest of what he has to say in my book.

  110. Rich says:

    I read Chuck, and I feel like I’m reading the writings of a junior high kid on ritalin. I read Chris and I feel like I’m reading the writings of a mature, discriminating mind. I’m challenged to follow the thought and it always resolves.

    I believe in evolution. Chuck, do you believe in evolution? I have a theory based on the concept of evolution. I believe that this is not a political or informational issue. I believe it is a religious issue. As Sarah Vowel so insightfully observed about religion, “religion is not about belief… it is about agreement.” If you want to belong, then you can’t break the agreements. The actual beliefs don’t matter, it’s just the agreement that matters. That’s why the things which are said by Bush directly after 9/11 are VERY different than what he said during the run-up to the Iraq invasion and occupation. THEY, in turn, are very different from what he says today, and none of this has any effect on those who believe in him. What he says today about Iraq flies in the face of the facts (see: all reporters, vast majority of returning troops, international observers, etc., etc.) of the situation. None of this matters, since it is about agreement. You can belong to this religion as long as you are in agreement with its tenets… (no pun intended). The actual beliefs can change willy nilly, just as long as you are in agreement.

    I spent many years in the technical world as a software developer and a project manager. Among those of us who could see reality, there was a code phrase… “it’s a religious issue”… to dismiss time-wasting discussions about technical issues when the discussions were not based on sound analysis of the merits or detriments of a product, but on a “belief’ in a product or a company. Once the religiosity was discerned, it was a simple matter to get it marginalized and move on to productive discussion based on merits/detriments.

    O.K. Here’s my theory of evolution. It isn’t just physical. Evolution is also spiritual. Differentiation has been happening along spiritual lines for many thousands of years and has actually resulted in a species split. As with most evolutionary changes, the differentiation is enhanced by the individuals’ preference for others with like qualities. People who are religiously based, and I don’t just mean the world’s established religions, I mean those having a deep need to be in agreement without regard to the actual facts, choose others so qualified. People who are practically based seek out similar ones to mate with and reproduce more like us. As with all evolution, it’s not 100%… you will have exceptions, but generally, it holds.

    Chuck, and others like him, are religiously based. Chris, and others like him, are practically based. As a member of his species, Chuck can no more independently analyze and come up with his own ideas (hence his unwillingness to document) than Chris can sincerely believe that which is counter to the observation of his senses and subsequent analysis by his conscious mind.

    BTW, I believe that since the religious species requires blind adherence to a code, and the practical species allows for flexibility and adaptation based on new information, and since light dispels darkness and never the other way around, I predict that the prevailing species will be the latter. In fact, the marginalization has already begun.

  111. Chuck says:

    Holy moly…sounds like Rich spent a little too much time in the lab! I got news for you Rich, your description does not meet the definition of species. In other words, if I was a female, we could mate and likely have children that in turn can mate and have children (a simplistic definition of a species). I think people are a bit more complex than you describe…what about independent voter behaviors for example? Maybe a reading of a basic sociolgical or social psychology text would help you understand some of the more useful explanations of human society and behaviors. Using your argument though, maybe you and Chris just share the same “religion.” I have not heard anybody assert what you claim are beliefs held by “all reporters, the vast majority of returning troops…” etc.

    My undergraduate major was political sociolgy, and I have never heard anything as ridiculous as this to explain voter behaviors. But seeing that I am only in agreement with those with whose beliefs I share (and I don’t argue that), and that I am a junior high kid on ritalin (that’s not nice to those poor kids who are) I doubt I will get it.

    Yes, I do believe in evolution. Read the book of Genesis and it amazingly follows the same order! The only real debate is the definition of time. I don’t worry about that though, I just trust God knew what he was doing, even when he made you. Hey, I love ya, man…

  112. Chris says:

    Glad you’re back. The Nader situation, as far as I know, is not the quite same thing as what happened to the Star Tribune. The link I posted 15 September was where the chairman of the state republican party called for the firing of the director of the Star Tribune poll because it reported results he didn’t like. It is not the prerogative of a political party to pressure newspapers to fire any of their polling staff, no matter how screwed up the results are. It’s an unwarranted intrusion of government interests into the non-government domain, which we Libertarians abhor. With an obviously flawed poll, the public would simply ignore the results or the editor would be trusted to fire the director if the data were clearly collected incompetently. Government intrusion here is not required.

    I wouldn’t tolerate this kind of government interference in the private sector from the Democrats, either. But I’m not sure the two situations are equivalent–the Nader situation was a dispute at the government and legal level between political parties. Nader should get his chance, assuming he satisfied the legal criteria for getting on the ballot (I don’t know if he did–I can’t keep track of everything), but in this situation the Democrats did not use their clout to intimidate a private company to fire another person for just doing his job and reporting something they didn’t like. I still don’t like it, but my alliance with the Dems is a marriage of convenience.

    But none of this is relevant to the real issue about polling, which is why I saw no need to discuss it as it was a distraction–Michael asks that our posts be somewhat relevant to the topic. I simply wanted Chuck to provide evidence that show that Bush should be reelected, and rather than provide any credible evidence (the criteria of which I outlined for his benefit, but which was ignored or not comprehended) he makes ad hominem remarks and continues to conduct a unarmed or factless defense of Bush. If one’s knowledge of Bush comes from GOP propaganda, then just admit it and we’ll move on. If there are credible facts, then that too will be useful for lurkers here to see the substantive reasons behind the support for Bush in order to better understand the poll breaks. I’m willing to admit I’m wrong in why people support Bush–indeed, it appalls me to think that what I wrote in my last post is true–but I require information that meets basic standards of credibility.

  113. Chuck says:

    Chris, I do accept your difference in distinction ‘tween the two, but I think what the dems are doing simply stinks the same smell. The tiresome Rathergate discussions should raise your hackles equally though.

    I could argue all day why I think Bush is the better man. I laid out his health-care policy as one example. I believe his firm and clear moral positions are refreshing and agreeable to mine (partial-birth abortion, for instance). I think his tax policies are reasonable and sound. I like his vision of a democratic middle-east (as hopeless it may seem). I share his desire to make education more accountabIe and successful (in spite of congressional resistance to adequate funding of no child left behind). I like that we have and continue busting Al-Quieda’s a– and that we have yet to see another attack. I wish he was more environmentally focused. I would like to see further fiscal conservatism.

    I have yet to see any good defense of why Kerry is the better man, only arguments why Bush isn’t.

    I would like to take the time to thank Michael for this site. It is without argument the best accumulation and presentation of polling data. What a beautiful piece of work…

  114. Chris says:

    Thanks for the flattery, Rich!

    I’ll make a quick and very qualified defense of ideology, though (even though it’s irrelevant to the topic of polls–or maybe it’s not). A lot of decisions have to be made without quality information, so a personal set of principles is perhaps as good as anything to guide a decision when one doesn’t know what’s going on. The trick, however, is knowing that the principles are (1) generally useful in the real world, and (2) protect one’s own self-interest and/or that of the community.

    But the art of politics is getting people to vote against their self-interest, and so clever people do that by becoming the embodiment of an ideology. Thus, they can suborn it and make it lucrative for themselves. I think this is the case with Bush–I’ve seen some newspaper editorials that literally reverence him as much as Jesus–saying that the two are the same(!). Is it any wonder then that people accept Bush’s pronouncements hook, line, and sinker–even when these pronouncements have catastrophic consequences for the listeners? But to question him would only be blasphemy. So I guess the moral is that one should never forget that politicians are human beings and fundamentally self-interested, and those that posture themselves as the human embodiment of an ideology are probably crooks.

  115. Rich says:

    Well, I meant the evolutionary scenario somewhat tongue in cheek… but not entirely. One would have to hijack the model provided by physical evolution and apply it to the spiritual in order to make it work. I could have been clearer. Your point about the mating sort of underscores what I was getting at. If you were female, I wouldn’t want to mate with you because we’re too different. Of course, as I said, there would be crossover, e.g., Mary Matalin and James Carville, Arnold S. and Maria S., etc. It isn’t something I thought of to describe voter behavior, but a much more general phenomenon. Yes, God knew exactly what he was doing when he made me… it was leaning too far to the right. A-a-a-anyway, I think I’ve beaten this schtick to death and I’ll leave the lab now.

    Chris, I appreciate your “quick, qualified defense of ideology”. Point well taken. So well taken that perhaps I have to revisit my prediction of who will win the evolutionary race! I think you’ve put your finger on why the Bush/Rove machine has been so successful. The times required quick, decisive action and they acted. I know that in Sept. of 2001 I put my distrust of Bush behind me, and felt that we simply needed that kind of leadership. As it turns out, we were more misled than led, and leadership in the wrong direction takes you further from the desired destination than you were before you were (mis)led.

  116. Ed says:

    hi. found this page again (disappeared from google).

    Found a really good article that puts a very different take on why Iraq is failing.


    Should this kind of article really take hold in the mainstream (which it won’t …but I can always hope)
    then I think it would help tip the scales in the Kerry direction.


  117. Chuck says:

    Well there you go, its all explained in that article. Forget about the decades-long terrorists attacks on Americans or the axis of evil (Korea and Iran), our president simply wants to dominate the world to create pax americana. Ed I think most people are going to see this as an interesting discussuion but nothing more and not convincing. If we mean to dominate the world, then we got problems as it is all we can do to dominate Iraq! If ya’ll buy into this stuff, I have a trailer down in St. Lucie I need to sell…

    And speaking of Iraq, I don’t conclude it as a failure. If I am cooking rice and take the lid off too soon, then it fails. That situation is hopefully an emerging success (depending on our level of commitment). One could look at moments in US military history and label the whole thing a failure at certain moments (1862 or 1942, for example). Maybe it ultimately will fail, I think it certainly will if Kerry is elected, as he would have no vision or clear reason whether we should stay or not. That would be a monumental tragedy for the people of Iraq.

  118. ed says:

    huh? we must have read two different articles.

    World domination?
    Pax americana?
    Axis of Evil?

    All the article basically states, taking it as a whole is this…

    1. the idealogues beat out the pragmatists in determining the post war rebuilding efforts and economic model. (initially)
    2. it failed miserably for many reasons, including being illegal, which discouraged insurance coverage, etc.
    3. the pragmatic approach is now taking hold, but there are months or years of setback because many more are now sympathetic and joining the revolt.
    4. Greed was the reason.
    5. Bush allowed it.
    6. Bush is to blame.
    7. Democracy will still take root, it will just take alot longer than it should have.

    At least that is what I got from the article….but I could easily be wrong, since I only read it carefully 3 times.


  119. Chuck says:

    OOOPs, Yes i did read the wrong article, went to the main page and read what I thought was the one you meant. Gonna have to use that copy/paste option like a good boy. Will comment on yours after a good reading. My apologies…

  120. Rich says:

    Ed, I gave the article a quick read and found it most interesting. Chris, I reflected this back onto your “quick, … qualified defense” of ideology. The problem with enacting one’s personal set of ideological beliefs in a representational democracy is that one must trust that those in whom the power is vested are driven by the same purity of heart as one’s self is. Power corrupts. That is never more self-evident than when natural checks and balances on that power disappear. I don’t believe that ideology in national policy should ever win out over reasoned, balanced debate. The founding fathers, in their inspired wisdom, sought to derail the tyranny of ideology by outlawing state mandated religion. They did not imagine the nuanced subtlety of the extremely right-wing Christian Coalition’s attack on reasoned debate, much less the tacit and unspoken, albeit fanatical adherence by the current version of the Republican Party to the religion of Corporatism. One of the results of Americans’ voting based on ideology is a thinly-veiled religious war which is threatening to knock us back to the horrors of the Crusaded. This religious war dovetails neatly with Corporatism’s desire to acquire.

    Pragmatists unite. Flowery words are all very nice until someone you love murdered for someone else’s special interest in profits. If you don’t believe that is why we are in Iraq, I challenge you to encourage the long list of folks with ties to the RNC and/or the Bush administration and/or the Bush family who are directly profiting from this war to divest themselves of any and all holdings which would even raise the appearance of wrongdoing. Honesty would demand it of them. If they don’t do that, then they appear very much to be betraying the trust that the ideologues who ARE sincere have placed in them. And, y’know, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck… where my kids’ lives are at stake… I gotta believe it’s a DUCK! INCOMING! (Whew! that was close!)

  121. Chris says:

    You pointed out the big hole in my defense–what to do when faced with reality. The only time one might be excused for adhering to ideology is in the absence of good information, and then only if the ideology is of some demonstrated value in preserving short- or long-term self-interest.

    In this election, this absence of information clearly isn’t the case. There are a lot of facts about Bush’s fitness as president–all negative–and few reliable (i.e., nonpropaganda-based) facts about Kerry’s fitness. A reasoned decision, IMO, would be to go with someone who at least *might* be a good president, as opposed to someone who is a proven catastrophe. But, for some reason, people are dismissing the known reality of the Bush administration and instead preferring to give weight to propaganda from self-interested sources saying that Kerry is less fit than Bush. Ideology is one plausible explanation. Or else people lack the ability to discern propaganda from credible facts. In either case, I haven’t found one person who could mount anything like a fact-based defense for reelecting Bush, but they all have a propaganda-based or ideological rationale for why they won’t support Kerry. And they don’t see the inconsistency in this.

  122. Chuck says:

    You both know that the information out there is a bewildering array of attack and counter, all seemingly convincing based partly upon the presenter’s and readers’ preconceptions (there are other variables, such as hot-button issues, percieved concerns, etc). Believe it or not, I am not an idealogue, just a student of American politics…and I just happen to have made my mind up that I can’t support Kerry. I have listed a few examples of issues that steer my decision, and could list others.

    If I could wave a magic wand I would love to see a good multiparty race (perhaps in spite of Alexander Hamilton’s truly eloquent arguments for a two-party system), but I know the realities of our political system. When you think of the electorate, think a bell curve. People may shift a tad to the right or left, but most are in the middle. They usually simply select the lesser of two evils but would be quite willing to vote on the other side of or even outside of the curve if for a very good reason in their minds/hearts (note Perot or local elections, for example). I don’t think people are any more stupid, entrenched or sinister than that. Our menu is simply slim pickings.

    In spite of your own best efforts, both of you (Chris and Rich) reveal yourselves not terribly different from the rest of us. You simply do not like Bush for reasons that are valid to yourselves and display your own brands of selective reasoning. Unfortunately you both display apparent astonishment and contempt for those who are not on the same track. I on the other hand celebrate your difference, knowing this is the juice of democracy, and am thankful for your views and guts to argue them. I may challenge inconsistency or downright silliness, but I have no fear at all of your beliefs. I just simply have not been convinced, for example, that Bush and company is profiting from this war or that he has been a catastrophe for the country, or that Kerry would be a better choice. And I think this simple rationale is the primary reason why Kerry has not shifted the curve in his direction and that Bush is going to carry this election.

  123. Chris says:

    I rest my case.

  124. Rich says:

    Boy, howdy!!! Chuck, your desicion to disbelieve the mountains of facts… not evidence… FACTS that they ARE profiting points out the obvious… if it looks like an ideologue, and it walks like an ideologue…

  125. Chuck says:

    Mountains of facts? I see a lot of unsubstantiated and partisan hills of bs, but let’s see how many of these “facts” are brought out in the debates and what effect they have. I tell you, if there is real profit for the president or cabinet (money going into their pocket=profit) in Iraq/Afganistan then I will not vote at all (I just can’t vote for Kerry). The only decent presentation I have seen here regarding this allegation on this site is Ed’s article (still digesting), but it appears from it there is still no compelling evidence that Bush & Co. are profiting, just some of the investors and business folk who happen to be affiliated with Republicans or cabinet members. That’s hardly the same thing. And anyway its a bad thing to invest there? Maybe not the soundest investment in my view, but so what? If you mean oil, the take is paltry so far, and to believe that this has been the primary reason for war is still, well, silly. If this makes me an idealogue then so be it. And you who are free of ideology, good luck in your quest for a suitable forum or candidate. I would like to say I rest my case too, but I just can’t help myself…

  126. Rich says:

    Yeah, really! The idea that anybody in a position of AUTHORITY would ever try to profit from war is patently absurd. Never happened. Never could happen. Ridiculous! $8,000,000,000 (that’s billion with a “b” in case you got tired counting the zeros) contract to rebuild Iraq awarded with no competitive bidding to … VP’s company? The very notion that one might think there might be conflict of interest should be grounds for conviction of the crime of high treason! Positions of responsibility for huge expenditures in Iraq given to 20-somethings picked by the Heritage Foundation? If you think there’s something wrong with that, you should be jailed for giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

    Chuck. The Daddys you adore are good. They seem scary, but they are good. They care about you. They’ll look out for your interests, so long as you keep rooting for them. Go to sleep. Dream nice dreams. Everything is o.k.

  127. Chuck says:

    Sorry Rich, that doesn’t cut the mustard. Cheney is on a fixed severance from haliburton and has no other connection with the company. And just because he was once affiliated, one of the largest and best drilling/exploration companies can’t be involved over there? Where’s Bush profting Rich? Like I say, hills of bs. If you can convict based on a notion (which is all you have) I hope you never serve on a jury! I never said I adore anybody. I simply have been saying between the two, Bush is the winner. You can complicate things to any degree for yourself that you like, but that’s it in a nutshell.

    I actually do sleep very well at night…I say a prayer and know ultimately God is in charge and things will be ok. You sound like an unhappy, angry and scared feller, and I am truly sorry for that.

  128. ed says:


    he owns stock.

    conflict of interest.



  129. Rich says:

    Yes, I know. I’m simply encouraging you to continue sleeping well. Day and night. Don’t let the facts interfere with your reverie.

    And please don’t waste your energy feeling bad for me. It’s just based on your silly assumptions about whomever disagrees with your religiotics. And don’t assume that because I’m angry about the inept, stupid current administration that I’m an angry person. And “scared”? Bless you, you sweet little fool! I can assure you that after what I’ve been through in my life, there is nothing that I waste my energy on being “scared” about. No, I’ve learned that the antidote to both is action. So I always act when I get restive inside. One way I act is to research. I use many sources in doing my research. Long life has taught me that I have to be open to all information. I also use my many years at the upper-middle levels of management (VP/Director) in major corporations such as Schwab, Verizon, etc. to inform my knowledge of business relationships and politics. Y’ see, when someone like Cheney leaves a position like he had at Haliburton, it is only the title that changes. All the relationships remain the same … or in the case of the former CEO gaining the Vice-Presidency of the most powerful nation in the history of the world… the relationship tightens… automatically. I know this is very different from you moving on from the Kwiki-Mart, but trust me. And about the Heritage Foundation placing children (20 somethings) of its members for 3/4 of the positions of importance directing large budgets within Iraq? See, once again Chuck… you don’t offer any documentation, you just offer homilies.

    Listen to http://www.airamericaradio.com for some enlightening and entertaining programming.

  130. nigel says:

    Since it is obvious you are a strident socialist Rich I’m not going to try to convince that corparations are not evil. Someone makes money anytime the government does anything. Don’t believe for a second that other muslim oil producing countries wouldn’t want a free Iraq that is able is sell it’s oil. Every businessman is a Republican. And I’ll skip the Air America Rich, I don’t need a tin-foil hat.

  131. Chuck says:

    You are starting to crack a bit around the edges there Rich. Lighten up! You might research, but I assure you it is selective (such as airamericaradio.com!). Believe me, if there was any real evidence of what you claim, Rather and Kerry etc. would be on it like flies on p—. Why aren’t they? Because they know they can’t string it together, can’t prove diddly. Kwiki-mart?? How’d you get my resume?

  132. Chuck says:

    I am going to help you out Rich and Ed, here’s a couple articles about Cheney and Halliburton. Juror member Rich votes conviction…let the readers decide for themselves.
    I’ll find some more soon…watch the debate and see if its mentioned…

  133. Rich says:

    Every businessman is a Republican? WOW! You ARE more unintelligent than I thought possible. How do you figure out what keys to press to make a sentence? And, Nigel, why is it that every “neo-con” facist thinks that someone criticizing one of their ideas is a “socialist”?

    I’m on my way to a battleground state to register Democratic college students… be back on soon.

  134. Ed says:

    And I quote from the New Yorker…

    Cheney earned forty-four million dollars during his tenure at Halliburton. Although he has said that he “severed all my ties with the company,” he continues to collect deferred compensation worth approximately a hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, and he retains stock options worth more than eighteen million dollars. He has announced that he will donate proceeds from the stock options to charity.

    Sure, Chuck, I’m sure he’ll give some of his proceeds from his stock options (ie dividends) to charity…Probably around 10 percent. But he’ll still retain the actual stock. And guess what. after he left Haliburton, it stock plummetted, to around $10 a share. Guess where it’s going now that it got all the government contracts? Will he donate ALL HIS STOCK SALES to charity? I seriously doubt it, but we’ll probably never know because his old buddy bush signed a presidential decree that they won’t have to ever release their financial statements to the public…so we’ll actually never know.

    BTW. I watched the debate, and I watched the CBSnews live opinion tracker that tracked 200 undecided. and guess what….when Kerry spoke the opinion was positive 2-3 the vast majority of the time (until it broke). When bush spoke it went from positive 1 down to negative 2 (at one point)

    Not sure, but watching the tracking told me something very important….

    no matter the spin… Kerry won the debate, but not by much.


  135. Rich says:

    In my hotel room in battleground state… Chuck… see Ed’s comment about Cheney’s stock holdings. That is clearly a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

    You mention that you will not vote at all if there is real money involved for President or cabinet. As a man of your word, I assume that you will not be voting for GWB?

  136. Chuck says:

    Ed, thanks for reading and summarizing those articles. I don’t believe the debate helped Kerry at all. I can’t be too sure of a man who shakes like a leaf while talking about being our leader. I read and posted those articles about Cheney and Halliburton, and will be postings counter articles soon. No, I am not convinced that Cheney or Bush are profiting from the war or that the desire for profit was the reason for the war. I AM convinced that Cheney receives a fixed severance salary from Halliburton and that he owns significant stock options in the same company. But that is not saying the same thing. Rich, if those stock options lead to signifcant profit (and that depends on if Halliburton makes a meaningful profit from their investment there), and if Cheney pockets money through his stock options (instead of donating it to charity as he claims he would do), then it begins to sour for me, and yes, I will stay at the house 11/2.

    Rich I noticed that you seem to enjoy boasting on your level of placement and advancment in corporate America. You even sound a bit arrogant as that same placement makes (in your mind) you a superior judge of corporate/government misconduct. For me, it just sounds like somebody who has sopped the plate and then spits on the cook. Could be wrong here though…

  137. ed says:

    “I don’t believe the debate helped Kerry at all.”

    Does that even dignify a response?

    It energized the base dude. Even if not a single undecided was swayed (which according to polling and according to comments I’ve read, there are now less undecided’s, most going to Kerry), it got the democratic base do one exceeding important thing, something which will ride all the way to the election. The democrats now see Kerry as a viable alternative, instead of just focusing on getting Bush out.

    That is critical. Definately not putting Kerry ahead of Bush…but before the debate, alot of the party faithful were not really behind Kerry, alot more of them are now.


  138. Chuck says:

    I may be in the minority, but Kerry looked pathetic to me. If that is what it takes to fire up the democratic base, well then fire it up! The proof will be in the pudding, er dude…Gore brought out the base and he lost. The base did not help Carter either. Sorry, but he can’t win on just his base. Honestly the key will be in PA and FLA. The more important (arguable as polls have limited value) data will be the likely voter polls in these key battleground states. I think the other states as they come and go will not change the electoral math to any significant degree. We’ll see…

    Oh Rich did you notice Kerry did mention Halliburton? A very weak implication of nothing once and in passing and of no consequence. Trust me, if there had been meat on that bone, he’d have gnawn it like a hungry hound. There went your mountain of fact…

  139. ed says:


    I guess I’m glad I’m in PA then 🙂

    I completely respect your view of the debate, after seeing more “scientifc polls” I realize that most republicans actually believe that Bush won the debate as well. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder I suppose, and reality truly is 80 percent persective and 20 percent unbiased observation. (which then makes the scientific polls of 65/35 more on target)

    One thing I do notice, is that there has sprung up in the small town I live in a flurry of Kerry signs. Not that it actually means anything, but I mention it only because I’ve noticed them only springing up in the last week or two, and I drive around town ALOT. I’d say they outnumber the bush signs by about 10:1. Most people would brush off this as meaningless…but the more I think about it…the more I think that seeing your neighbor is voting for a particular party is a rather big local identification.

    Please note that I am NOT saying that PA will go the way of the John’s, but that it will be very tight.

    Also I’ve just noticed that rammusen uses LIKELY voters instead of Registered voters, which I reiterate cancels the college students as being part of the polls (with likely being defined as having voted in the last pres election). I have not seen an actual statistic anywhere, but considering the liberal bend of most public instituions, I would suspect that college students are about 80/20 dem/repub. I recognize the fact that this age group i refer to historically does not have a significant voter turnout ratio. But then again…this is not an ordinary election.

    ….amazing…while I was writing this I got a call from DNC headquarters. They were trying to reach the person who formerly had my phone number. We chatted, and I was asked if we needed a ride to the polls. My question to throw out there is this…is this normal? Has anyone ever gotten a call from either party asking if they needed a ride to the polls?…


  140. Randy says:

    Cut and paste this link in your browser and tell me what you think. Who was Bush talking to, other than one of his handlers? It actually explains a lot of the pauses and facial expressions that Bush was going through. Take Bush out of the heavily scripted routines and secure settings where he delivers his un-challenged messages, and this is the Bush you get on Thurs. night. The”Leader of the Free World”? He’s a joke.


  141. Scott Savett says:

    The person who started this thread is an idiot. There are plenty of gore supporters from 2000 that plan on voting for bush. I am one of them, and i know plenty of others.

  142. Chuck says:

    The only advantage at this point in Kerry energizing his base is preventing a landslide. He has to carry MN; WS; IW; and PA just to tie Gore. Florida continues to slip away from him. The numbers of independents are too small and scattered to likely make enough difference. Winning the debate (still arguable) hardly equates winning the election. It is a very interesting election, but hopefully not as interesting as the last one! Can you imagine if it all comes down to FL again and if its close? I would say the electoral college would be under an even more serious fire then. Ed, in spite of local excitement PA is not going to matter w/o above states. So you all can have Kerry.

    Randy, I drew my own conclusions about Bush and the debate and I understood him perfectly. Facial expressions meant a lot less to me than Kerry’s trembling hands. Ever play poker with a man like that? They lose every time. In fact, I think polls are going to indicate that as far as voters and what they are going to do on election day, I’m not the only one who sees this.

  143. ed says:

    The only way the electoral college might get changed to a popular election is if Bush wins the popular, but loses the electoral and the republicans gain 2/3 control of the house. The chances of both of these happening are extremely remote, so I think we’re stuck with the antiquated electoral system for quite some time.

    As far as being in PA, I’m still glad I’m here, if only for all the media and presidential attention we’re getting. Both have come through and stopped in my town, and I’ve gotten around 10 polling calls.

    I guess we’ll just have to see Chuck, if the debate makes a difference, but according to a newsweek poll…it already has, the new poll has kerry ahead by 4 points. (whatever that means)



  144. Chuck says:

    Even then I don’t see the constitution being changed, and its the electoral map that is key. PA is a great state man (except fot the way you all have to buy beer), I’m just ribbing you.

  145. Chuck says:

    I agree with you Scott, that’s why Kerry isn’t carrying all of Gore’s states. What state are you in?

  146. Rich says:

    Chuck, I was about to complain about you calling my reference to my career “boasting”… then I went back and re-read it and have to admit… if I hadn’t written it, I’d have had the same reaction. Maybe I’m too proud of it and it leaks through. Pride is seldom a good thing, and when I think what I’ve done, say, compared to someone who works among the poor, or teaches elementary school (with a true devotion) I’m more than a bit embarrased. Sorry. My intention was to qualify my understanding of the power of inside relationships.

    In fact, it’s a slam-dunk that Cheney will not excercise his options before the election, and likely will not while he is VP. Too much damage to the machine that way. I’d like to see him donate to charity, however, my fear is that it won’t be to the Salvation Army or some other non-partisan organization, but to, for example, the Heritage Foundation… or perhaps the Rush Limbaugh Foundation for Ditto Development.

    And, Chuck, If you place more stock in a man’s trembling hands than in his facial expressions… please, please play poker with me… and bring plenty of money! I’ll even have it catered!

    I took a poll and found 89% of the people polled are voting for Kerry/Edwards. I followed the media’s typical, lazy model and didn’t work to hard to get a scientifically valid sample… but it’s a true representation of the people that I polled. All of them likely voters. So this proves it. Kerry wins in a landslide.

  147. ed says:

    yes chuck. It absolutely sucks. I’m originally from Virginia…Although I had the priviledge of enjoying Yingleng (sp) for a couple of years before it hit the south by storm.


  148. ed says:

    hey rich, how do you define likely? (see my above posts)

    as far as telephone polling is concerned, I just realized something.

    It’s got to be way way off. I say this because I got a call from the DNC today..they thought I was someone who lived in my apartment a couple of years ago. This explains all the polling calls…they aren’t meant for me…but for “the previous occupant”.

    which says something very important about the science of polling in our contemporary context. Considering the historical demographic of democrats, or more broadly, those who typically vote democratic, alot of those people would fall into a transient category…ie not homeowners.

    I would dare guess that a much higher percentage of republican leaning voters are much more stationary (have been in their current residence for more than 4-5 years, thus, having the same phone number for that amount of time)

    So, from this reasoning, would I be wrong in postulating that telephone driven polls are thus skewed towards conservatives?

    This would explain an article I read in which a bush strategist anonymously remarked that it was very important that Bush be 5 points ahead in the polls going into nov 2.

    What is the historical ratio of polling versus election day realities (with the obvious exceptions such as from the 40’s with that conservative newspaper fiasco)


  149. Randy says:


    Been delving into the science of polling because I just have a hard time dealing with the seemingly abrupt changes in poll numbers that seem to occur on a weekly basis when I feel in my heart-of-hearts that 95% of the public has their mind made up in regards of who they are going to vote for. And it probably hasn’t changed much from 4 years ago. Simplisticly, the Bush haters are still against him (and even more so) and the Gore people are the Kerry people.

    What I am interested in is how represented (or actually under-represented) is the mobile fraction of the US population. These would include undergraduate and graduate students (numbering some 18 million- or 17% of the total that voted in 2000), the military, people just entering the workforce that have a more-or-less temporary living arrangements, workers who more or less move from job-to-job and really don’t have a stable residence, the incarcerated population, etc, etc. When you start to add these numbers up, you arrive at a number that is quite staggering! From 20% to 25% of the eligible voting populus resides in what could be considered temporary housing situations. The big question I have for the pollsters is this: are these people being contacted at the same frequency as those people who reside in stable domestic household situations?

    I think not. Most of the major polling organizations claim to have a ‘random’ method’ of reaching the US population. They claim that they take telephone exchanges (the first three numbers of the seven digits in a telephone number (excluding the area code) and then apply a randon number generator to come up with the the last 4 digits. They will then call 1000 – 1500 numbers generated in this manner. They claim if they get a busy signal or no one answers, they will keep trying to reach that number over the course of the survey.

    Are 18 million students, located in dorms and apartments across the country, reached with the same frequency as established households? If they are called, do they blow off the call at the same frequency as an established household. Granted, all of these students are not registered, but do they participate in surveys? Same with the military. Most of these people are overseas. Certainly the incarcerated population is not answering the phone.

    My belief that the commonly quoted variance of poll accuracy of +/- 3% is actually about double that figure. Come Nov. 2 we shall see. But in my opinion, Bush better start rounding up cardboard boxes for the move. 30 days and counting before he needs to reserve his U-haul truck.

  150. ed says:

    That’s interesting, if that’s how they come up with the numbers. I was assuming they are allowed to use voter registration information in order to distinguish between registered voters and likely voters…

    If that’s the case, then maybe I have a little more to say on that method, considering that I own a marketing/telecom business, and I am currently working with a phone data database which is either the same or similar to what pollsters use. It breaks down area code/prefix with demographic information.

    The interesting part of the database which could ultimately affect polling, is that the database I am using breaks down whether the prefix is tied to mobile or landline use.

    This leads me to my question…Are pollsters allowed to call mobile numbers? I would think that they are not….and if they are not, that would definately affect real demographics because their is a high percentage of college students and people in their 20/30’s who do not even have a landline number.
    (you’ll have to trust me when I say that it is a significant percentage…remember, it’s my bread and butter to know that kind of stuff)

  151. Chuck says:

    I’ll bet Michael is jumping for joy. All I can say is WOW!. What a great and on-target discussion developing here about polling. It seems two questions could be answered by Michael here for us. How accurate have previous polls been, and how effectively are transient populations included in the sampling. I have seen a good article or two about national polling, and remember it concluding that essentially they have been correct, but also with some serious errors at times. I’d love to play poker with you Rich (just played with the guys last night and lost!), and yes shaky hands are an excellent indicator of a man’s character (especially if he means to be president).

    Again, in spite of the democrats excitement over the debate and Newsweek’s poll, Bush continues to hold (according to current polls) in key swing states such as OH WI IW and FLA. Until Kerry pulls ahead in these states, Bush ain’t going nowhere.

  152. Chuck says:

    Here’s a link to a great site regarding the historical accuracy of presidential polls.

    I have found a couple of articles softening the argument about Halliburton/Cheney, etc., but I am not going to post them as I don’t think anybody really gives a flip. That’s one of those things like Kennedy and Oswald. You are going to believe there’s something to it or not, regardless of the evidence.

    I am looking for information about how transient populations are polled.

    Of note, the Newsweek poll is the ONLY one of any note that places Kerry ahead. See this link for tons of great polling stuff (especially take a look at their gallery).

    Rich I knew there was a heart in there. Your ability to be humble is admirable and I have really enjoyed debating you. You would be welcome at my poker table anytime, you big lug. LOL.

  153. Betty says:

    I am registered to vote; I watched the whole debate, with great disappointment. This is the first election that I have kept up with. Kerry’s Vietnam service is what sparked my interest, probably because my husband is a Vietnam veteran.

    The first thing that caught my eye is Kerry commercial with him walking through a Vietnamese village, in the jungle with a rifle. My first thought what is a Navy man doing in jungle fatigues in the jungle. The picture didn’t look right to me, especially since I have spent hours going through pictures of Vietnam trying to find a picture with my husband in it.

    I have been trying to learn all that I can about my husband Vietnam experience; my next question is how Kerry got three Purple Heart within four months. Could he be that unlucky, if that is the case I don’t want him running our country?

    Apparently none of his wounds were bad enough to be hospitalized. We have a lot of Vietnam veterans walking around with scars larger than a Band-Aid would cover and they didn’t receive a Purple Heart, including my husband. How did Kerry get three?

    After Kerry received his third Purple Heart, he request to get out of the military. There were men turned down their third Purple Heart so they could stay with their men. Why didn’t Kerry want to stay with his men in Vietnam? If the men he served with in Vietnam couldn’t count on him to stay the course, how can we depend on him to stay the course when things get rough?

    John Kerry has mention JFK several times, which means he admires him, and probably wants to be like him, which will never happen, because JFK came back WWII hero, not a Protester of WWII. Kerry protested the war over 30 years ago, and our Vietnam veterans are still trying to over come the repercussions from Kerry’s actions. All the good that Kerry thinks that he did while serving his country, he destroyed the minute he started protesting the Vietnam War, which many of our Vietnam veterans have been suffering for and still trying to overcome.

    Some people have said that we should forget about something that happen over 30 years, ago. No one would probably care about what happen thirty years ago, if John Kerry hadn’t try to use his Vietnam service to get elected as president.

    Bush’s military service isn’t of interest because he didn’t try to use his military career to get elected as President of the United States, Kerry did. Even though Bush’s military service made no real difference. I downloaded the documents comparing them to my husband’s military papers. It was clear that they didn’t fit in that time period. Bush has no reason to be ashamed of his military career, but Kerry does because of his protest of the Vietnam.

    What has Kerry done for his state, the only think I can find is raise taxes, Kerry’s actions speak louder than his words. Can we expect any different for our country. Probably not.

    During the debates Kerry constantly used the “I “ word, he presented himself to me as being arrogant, rather cocky, and self-centered, a know it all. Not presidential material. This is the first election that I have kept up with the candidates from the beginning. John Kerry didn’t come across as knowing the facts or presenting them correctly. Kerry seems to change his opinion to fit the crowd he is talking to at the time, it is hard to tell where he stands on a lot of issues.

    On the debate it was brought out were he would start bringing our troops home in 6 months another time I heard him talk about bring our troops home in 4 years. Each time I couldn’t believe my ears. All the terrorist have to do is wait until our troops are out and start up again. If we pull our troops out before Iraq is fully back on its feet and taking care of itself. Our men that lost their life in Iraq will have lost their life for NOTHING.

    The men that served in Iraq will have the same problems that many of our veterans have that served in Vietnam. Some feels guilty for making it home from Vietnam, they also feel like the soldiers that died in Vietnam died for nothing, because we pulled out of Vietnam and didn’t stay to win. Many of our Vietnam veterans would like to go to Iraq to try to redeem them selves for what they lost in Vietnam.

    Is this what John Kerry wants for our soldiers serving in Iraq, for our country to have another Vietnam? Our soldiers deserve better, no one wants to loose a son, a brother, a father in a war, but that happens. If we pull out with a clear victory, they will have lost their life for NOTHING.

    We live in the greatest country in the world, will we still be a great country, if we sit on the sidelines and let dictator’s torture people, like they were doing in Iraq and other countries around the world. I would much rather fight our enemies on their soil instead of our soil.

    Which could very well happen. So many have forgotten what our forefathers went through to give us the freedoms. Where would we be today if our forefathers hadn’t made the sacrifices that they did, some gave their life for the freedoms that so many here in the United States are willing to Give up with out a fight.

    Kerry is in favor of separating church and state. We can’t separate church and state because our laws were formed using the laws from the Bible that God gave to Moses. Without such laws our country would be in turmoil. Our country was founded by, Christian men and women, on Christian Principles, which is clearly documented in our history. Our National Motto is “IN GOD WE TRUST”.

    If we listen to Kerry, you would think that the US didn’t have any support from other countries. Kerry states that if he were President he would get support from other countries. There are countries supporting our War efforts in Iraq, but I doubt seriously if they will help with the war effort if Kerry is President. Kerry didn’t seem to care how his words would affect the countries that are supporting us. All he was thinking about was how to make him self look good to the public. He was being an arrogant so-and-so, which means that John Kerry doesn’t care about our country; all he cares about is him self and how to make himself look bigger than life.

    I don’t believe that I understand where Kerry stands on our military; he keeps bring up the number of dead in Iraq. Yet, he voted against our soldiers getting better flakjackets to protect themselves. How many of our soldier’s death could have been prevented if they had better flakjackets, I know of one in our area? Our military can’t do their job, if they don’t have the necessary supplies to fight with, which John Kerry votes against. Instead of giving our soldiers equipment to fight with in defense of this country, so they can have clear victories and come home. Kerry wants to pulls our troops out gradually; without a clear victory, it will be another Vietnam.

    During the Kerry campaign he made this big deal out of seven minutes that President Bush spent with those children during 911. The way Kerry magnifies the situation you would have thought it was 7 days, instead of 7 minutes. I commend President Bush for treating those children with respect and kindness, without alarming them. Seven minutes wasn’t going to make much difference in what was going on during 911, but those seven minutes would make a big difference in the lives of those children.

    The way Kerry would have handled the situation, he would have left those children frightened, scared that something wrong was going on, a feeling that they weren’t worth listening too, this coming from a man that claims to be a family man.

    I thought that George Bush did a much better job than Kerry did during the debates. I watched the whole debate from beginning to end. I was very impressed with President Bush, he constantly used the “we” word.

    From past experience any club that had presidents that used the word “we” became strong vibrant clubs that accomplished much because they worked as a team, the president of the club didn’t consider them selves better than anyone else. The president’s of clubs that constantly used the “I” word, flounder, they didn’t do anything, took the credit for what others did.

    I don’t believe that I would have held my cool as well as President Bush did, I commend him for that. I admire the self-control that he used and how he thought out his words, before speaking. I would have to say that John Kerry had me up-in-arms, several times from comments that he made that didn’t go along with things that he said earlier during his election campaign or during other televised broadcast.

    For months the TV airwaves have been filled with elections commercials. Both sides have been very negative about their opponent. Their negativity is different; Bush seems to use facts, that you can verify things he said. With Kerry you have to keep tabs on his campaign broadcast to know where he stands from day to day.

    I am a register democrat, but this election I have to pledge my vote to President Bush he is taking our country in a direction that I would be proud of. Where as Kerry, doesn’t have the same moral and ethical values that I want in a President of our great country, I want our country to be great in years to come. John Kerry has alienated many leaders of countries that were supporting our country from his arrogant; if Kerry becomes President will he turn against us like he did his comrades in Vietnam.

    We need to keep the Christian symbols scattered through our country that some feel the need to remove from public view. We need to be remind us how our forefathers fought for the freedoms that we now have and that God is the reason that we have became such a great Nation. With out those reminders, it becomes easier to give up the freedoms that we have with out a fight, then our forefather would have lost their life for NOTHING.

    If the soldiers in Vietnam couldn’t count on Kerry in Vietnam, how can we count on him to do anything for our country, but talk. It was Clinton that sent our jobs over sea, if John Kerry was going to do something to keep from sending jobs over seas he should start in his family. It might be his wives business, but if he can do anything to get the Heinz Corp to bring it’s industry to the US how he is going to make a difference with other corporation. If you increase the tax, the only thing that happens is they past the cost down to the little guy. Us the taxpayer.

    May GOD Bless America
    Betty Croy
    Democrat voting for President George Bush

  154. Chuck says:

    Betty I appreciate and admire your courage to speak your mind and heart, it is an example of what democracy is all about. Be prepared to have your arguments cut to ribbons by those who disagree with you. Dont’ take it personally, no matter how insulting they may be. Remember, at heart they simply disagree, and I am sure they are good Americans who are sincere in their beliefs. Unfortunately some may lose sight of the beauty of dissent, and that is the heartbreaking price of liberty, but liberty it still is.
    And fear not, Bush is going to win this election hands down, and of course few people like to lose.

  155. ed says:

    the only thing I have to say Betty, is you might want to trim your argument down a bit. From my understanding, anything that scrolls over two screens will not get read, or at least only the first paragraph and last paragraph. (ive been online doing this kind of thing for over 10 years)

    I applaud your ability to not be a party liner however, that means that you can actually think for yourself, something of which if we had more of, we’d definately see alot less spin, alot less lies, and alot less mud slinging because I thinking rational person won’t fall for it.

    Regrettably, that is not reality, many people do not want to think, (although, with the increasing useage of blogging and the internet…there is hope)

  156. Observer says:

    Betty: please change party registrations. You recite Republican talking points all too well to stay a Democrat.

    Your partisanship is all too apparent. There is no issue you will not spin for Bush. Most of your opinions are fine, but one in particular stands out as too much of a stretch for anyone who claims to be a Democrat:

    Imagine a President, the only person in the US with authority to order commercial planes shot down or to order a nuclear counter-strike, deciding to sit in a 2nd grade classroom for over 7 minutes after hearing the country was under attack. No action. Didn’t ask any clarifying question. Just froze as if he didn’t know what to do without further instructions. If this had been Clinton you would have cited this [lack of] action, and rightly so, as evidence that the man was not competent to hold that authority. Yet because it was Bush, you praise that action.

    There is no defense of that action. None. Nada. Even the “respect the children” argument that you advance doesn’t work because in a combat situation the President is a target. Even if he WERE thinking of the children, his responsibility was to get the hell out of there to protect them.

  157. ed says:

    Surveys USA is now showing that Missouri is in play…11 votes 🙂


  158. Chuck says:

    Observer, I think what is more important than what Bush did for 7 minutes after the 911 attack is what he has done the three years since. Of note is the gutting of the Taliban; Al Quieda; Saddam and the fact that there have been NO attacks since. I don’t know if anyone wasn’t a tad stunned by the news, including Kerry. If he had run out of the classroom, I am sure he would have been criticized for that.

  159. me says:

    90% of the messages here are Democrats gripping.

    I thought this site would have more discussion of actual policies of each major party….not just bitching and moaning.

  160. Chuck says:

    So don’t bitch and moan about it lol!

  161. rich says:

    Chuck, … and Betty, too… you say “be prepared to have your arguments cut to ribbons”, then you say “don’t take it personally”. The problem with ideological thinking is that once a stand is taken, the ideologue CAN’T change it… and anyone who does “cut the argument to ribbons” is considered to be attacking the person! Betty, if your arguments are “cut to ribbons” just review and research. Back up what you feel, then change if the evidence warrants. My father was a wwII marine who fully supported the Vietnam war and Nixon. Late in 1972 he changed his mind… he said “I think the war is wrong, and I think Nixon is a crook!”. I was never so proud of him.

    A good example of the value of changing ones mind: Bush says that Kerry “flip-flopped” on Iraq. The news media pick that up and it has become part of the nightly jargon. Kerry thought one way… then, when new information became available, he analyzed it, and changed his perspective based on that. To, IMHO, the correct perspective, not only on the war in Iraq, but Vietnam as well.

    Bush, on the other hand, has never changed his mind about anything. Oh, and he has never made a mistake. Sounds a lot like the infallibility concept the Church attaches to the Pope. Very ideological.

    And Betty! Goodness gracious! This country was founded on the principles of separation of church and state. Don’t confuse God with church. God is not so confined and limited. Similarly, don’t confuse the country with the government. You can’t be a traitor to your government, you can only be a traitor to your country. GW Bush is proof of that.

  162. ed says:

    Betty, if you want a good reference to another perspective on Christianity and politics, check out Sojourners. http://www.sojo.net

    Their the ones who give out the bumper sticker: God is not a Republican … or a Democrat.

    Zogby Poll is giving 3 point edge to Kerry.

    BTW, Zogby was within .1 percent of the 2000 election.

  163. Chuck says:

    Ed, as I have said all along, what is going to matter are a few key states, not the national numbers. There have been several presidents without an electoral plurality, but I don’t even think that is going to be the case this time. I agree that God has no party affiliation, and I trust that whoever wins is by his will, and that things will ultimately be ok.

    Rich, if anyone is an idealogue here, it would have to be you, as evidenced by the sources you have cited in earlier posts…Airamerica? Kerry changed his direction based not on any conviction, but more on the direction of the polls. His strategy is a political one, whereas Bush’s is a visionary one. The government was not so much formed on the basis of separation of church and state, but more so to prevent tyranny of government, including through a state church. And that was the extent of it. It was never meant to be absolutely apart from religion (the purpose of the free establishment clause). Thus the many current and historical references to God by government. The founders feared government, not God or religion.

  164. rich says:

    Chuck, if you have church mixed with government, you automatically have tyranny. That is because religion is ideological by definition. Government must not be. Government must be thought out rationally and logically, and according to the rule of law. If you read much Constituional law, you’ll agree that the separation of church and state was a very deliberate and deeply considered underpinning of our very unique form of democracy. If you read much about the lives of the founders, you’ll see that they were not, by and large, the sort of “Christians” we have romping around today, foaming at the mouth and writhing on the floor speaking in tongues (Ashcroft), or dropping bombs on children because they live in a non-christian country (Bush). In the words of Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, “Question with boldness even the existence of a God.” No, these were humanists influenced mainly by the humanistic philosophical writers of the Enlightenment, such as Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire. You’re right, God has no party affiliation… AND she’s black.

    Chuck, you’re right that it’s going turn on a few key states. That’s what makes election night so exciting. I don’t think it should be that way. I don’t like excitement. I like simple, straightforward things. This reminds me of the ancient Chinese curse… “May you live in interesting times”.

    How about apportioning electoral votes according to popular vote? Anyone for that?

  165. Chuck says:

    Rich, reading your latest post sent chills up my spine, I thought I was reading some bolshevik crap from 1925! You are absolutely wrong about the founders. Yes some were arreligious, but most were quite devout. And again, their fear was tyranny from the state, not God. And yes, I have studied constitutional law at the undergraduate level.

    No, I don’t support the popular vote for president.

  166. ed says:

    well, Chuck, if you want to talk about something that is completed outdated. The Electoral College would be it. We have the technology now that didn’t exist when it was invented. In fact, it could easily be argued that we are LESS of a democracy because of it. But regardless of the fact, it won’t get changed unless something drastic happens that would require it.

    And as far as the founding fathers….George Washington was a true Christian. But Thomas Jefferson was a deist, as were many. The Deist theology fit very well within the framework of their time period, that of tyranny and oppression by the Church of England. The Deist believed that God existed, but did not communicate or interact with humankind. In fact, Jefferson wrote a “Deist Bible” in which he removed the sections where God interacted with man. (which meant removing a substantial amount)

    Much of the Sepparation of Church and State arose out of this theology, and is extremely obvious in our founding documents.

    As for myself, I would like to see a breakdown of religious affiliation among the signers of the Constitution, if it exists. I think that would quell much of the debate.

  167. rich says:

    Chuck, maybe you studied Constitutional law at the graduate level, but you certainly didn’t understand much of it. And you do show your hand when you say that the founders were “devout”. Here y’ go… again…


    … although I have no doubt that you will read this as you have read law in grad school… you will absorb the PROs and not even notice the CONs…

    May the many gods bless you.

  168. Chuck says:

    That was undergrad school, and its the free excercise clause. Just wanted to clarify that. The most salient critique (and yes Rich, I did read that page, both pros and cons) is that a tiny fraction of the fathers are listed, and then their discussions and meanings are debated. There were nearly 200 founders (including one of my ancestors), and their views have equal weight, and yes, most were quite devout. I will post a few good discussions of the issue later, and please read them. The bottom line is the purpose of the constitution (especially the bill of rights) is the limitation of government, not the people. And that the founders intended in the First Amendment to ensure that the government not establish any demonination or church as a state religion. At the same time they meant to ensure the government had no means to abridge the people’s right to the free excercise of any religion. It was in no way to mean that religious faith had no place in government. I will be happy to research and post a breakdown of the religious affiliation of the founders for you Ed, as well as a some of the most common arguments for continuing the electoral college.

  169. tig says:

    hey can u give me some stuff about how in usa how do public opinion polls positively affect the election process or like email it to me thnx bye

  170. Chuck says:

    Ed, here’s a great page that includes (among many other things) the religious affiliation of the signers of the declaration and members of the constitutional convention and other founders, more stuff to follow:
    here’s one site discussing the framers and the first amendment, especially deism:
    see also:
    Note: my gggg-grandfather (a continental soldier), was a cousin of William Hooper, who represented NC in signing the declaration

    Some arguments about the electoral college, both perspectives for and against:

    Rich, if you would free your mind from your own ideological shackles, you would see that at the least, no argument is as simple as you would like it. There are many layers to any discussion. I may not agree with you, but I will listen to your arguments, not so much from ideology (although I don’t deny my own ideological leanings), but from reason. America has always and still is a deeply religious nation, yet has done a remarkable job of avoiding a “state church.” It has only been in recent years, when the free excercise clause has come under relentless and absurd assault by so-called civil libertarians, that religion and government have become perceived as a “problem.” What of another possibility? Could it be that radical leftist thought (neo-marxism) has simply seen its opportunity to attack the institutions that have formed a solid bedrock for the country, and that what is really going on is a war between two fundamental ideologies? How else can one explain the endless attacks on the structural foundations of society by the movement to institutional (state) care—nursing homes for our elders; day cares for our children; the bloated growth of the Federal “daddy?” Or the destruction of societal glue: the family (liberalization of divorce, abortion, welfare, etc.); the church; local government and communities. These are real events that oddly coincide with the shift of the democratic party to the far left essentially staring with FDR and blossoming under Kennedy and Johnson. Just a set of interesting questions to ponder. I assure you one can answer these a multitude of ways, depending on…yes! ones own ideology.

  171. Chuck says:

    As you can see Ed, hardly any of the founders were deists, especially by your definition of the term. And what specifically in the “founding documents” supports your assertion?

    Good question tig, I’ll work on that for you. But I can tell you that the debates tend to fire up or disappoint a candidate’s base, and rarely shift an election in any major way. There have been notable exceptions, such as the Kennedy-Nixon debate. Great question!

  172. rich says:

    Chuck, I’m happy to concede that you are right about the small sampling in the group. I believe I’d be able to do better research and support my point better, but I’m REALLY BORED with this discussion.

    I think there are people who believe that religion is important, and those who think religion is fundamentally, if not evil, at least one of the two last refuges of a scoundrel… the other being, in Samuel Johnson’s immortal words, patriotism. I fall into the latter group.

    I think religion is and has always been a problem in the evolution of mankind. So much evil has been done in the name of “God” and really, if there is one single sentient being sitting “up there”, I’m sure he, she, it has no religious affilliation. I’m sure he, she, it …, whatever, would not be caught dead in a church, mosque, synagogue or any gathering place where people are saying and doing things in his, her, its name.

    I’ll keep looking here for good insights into the polling results and arguments about the different prognositcations.

    Love and Peace,

  173. Chuck says:

    Bless your heart. He’s everywhere, all the time, even right now he’s next to you. Its mankind that works evil, not God. Regarding polls, Bush is pulling ahead again, Kerry is going down the tubes (how ’bout John Edwards the healer?!). You’ll have to find something else to bitch about soon.

  174. John Moszyk says:

    Bush will lose in a lanslide to Senator Kerry. First of all the majority of voters in 2000 for Gore will stick to Kerry. Florida will vote for Kerry because many African-Americans had their vote negated last time. Ohio will go for Kerry because of the huge manufacturing job loss there as will West Virginia. New Hampshire is pratically a suburb of Boston so it will go Kerry and half of Colorado’s vote will go Kerry because their split electoral vote ballot will win. This is all Kerry needs to win. Kerry will overwhelmingly get the union vote, the pro-choice vote, the African American vote, the Gay vote, and the military vote because of the over 1080 dead Americans in Iraq. Also don’t forget Log Cabin Republicans didn’t endorse Bush this year as in 2000. That adds 1 million more votes for Kerry. We can say goodbye to Bush and war-profiteering.

  175. Chuck says:

    My final electoral prediction…Bush will carry every state except CA OR WA IL MI ME VT NY CN MA RI DC MD DE CT. Not sure about PA MN or NJ, but I bet he picks up at least one of those too. That’s 188 EV’s. So even if Kerry wins the above three that’s 234 ev’s, still a long way off. Tonight’s debate will do nothing to help Kerry, yet Sinclair’s movie could drive the final stake in Kerry’s forlorn bid.

    Some of my original predictions (8/27 post) that will not prove true: falling oil prices; increasing Iraqi stability (although somewhat offset by the wonderful Afghan election, what an amazing event); and perhaps low dem turnout and voters turning more to fringe parties (will have to wait and see). Not bad for a Smoky Mountain hillbilly…

  176. ed says:



    we shall see.

    My prediction is that there will be a surprise state for Kerry…either Virginia or Missouri.

    Kerry 300 plus.

  177. ed says:

    hasn’t been verified, but apparently Nader has been kicked off the ballot in PA and OH, due to signature fraud.

    Looks like PA and OH might be sealed for Kerry now.

    Great…can’t wait for the ads from both sides to be taken off the air. I’m sick of em.

    “My name is Ed, and I approved this message”

  178. Kevin says:

    I live in Ohio, and as far as i know, Nader is not on the ballot, which is definitely a good thing. But I don’t think that for sure seals Ohio for Kerry. It’s going to be extremely close. Whoever wins my state wins the election. Hands down.

    Also, if Kerry was persuasive enough in the second debate in St. Louis, maybe he’ll pull ahead in Missouri. That would have a HUGE impact.

    And watching the debate tonight, I can’t imagine how a neutral/undecided voter could opt for Bush. He’s always on the defensive…the only time he attacks Kerry is when he speaks of Kerry’s senate records. Kerry has Bush strangled on the debate floor, as Bush’s domestic programs have quite frankly sucked. Bush should not be defensive, as he is the current president – he should be attacking Kerry on how he can’t lead or at least something like that. Kerry’s got my vote, that is if I could vote…..I hate being 17

  179. Chuck says:

    Ed did you read those posts? You make this sweeping conclusion about the founders being deists and the documents supporting this, and my posts clearly refute this. I also provide links to sites that make good and modern arguments supporting the electoral college. You aren’t even able to defend your assertions! And Rich, you make an argument, then when its refuted you get “really bored.” How old did you say you were?

    The comments about the debates are a great example of their relative ineffectiveness for either candidate. Why? Because perfomance (or lack of) is in the eye of the beholder. I thought Bush creamed Kerry. And Kevin Bush’s comments about Kerry’s senate record are quite relevant. Take a look at his record. I mean go into some good source (non-partisan) and take a look for yourself. The guy is 1) a huge spender 2) grossly social liberal 3) brutal on defense spending 4) and lazy. This is not rhetoric. Seriously, take a look at it. I do agree Ohio is a key state this year, but I think Bush is going to carry it.

    It doesn’t bother you Ed that the democrats have fought like dogs to keep Nader off the ballot? Just like they fought to not count the military absentee voters votes in FL in 2000. That doesn’t give you the creeps?

    John I disagree with you almost entirely. I do agree that Kerry will win the rainbow vote, but Repubs are repubs and they will vote Bush. There will be no landslide for either candidate. New England and the union sheep would vote for Hitler if he was a democrat, but that ain’t gonna win an election. West Virginia?! The military? O lord…

  180. ed says:

    chuck. what is wrong with you?

    Why are you responding twice to me?

    I didn’t even bring it up again..

    but now that you have brought it up again…

    yes I did read what I found from those links you gave me…

    and 2/3 links that I found (although they were buried) dealing specifically with founding fathers and religion that you GAVE me actually supported the deist argument.

    The only one that did say that most were Christians…was also arguing that Sepparation of Church vs State was never an issue, which is clearly a weird statement.

    “I shake my head at you”

  181. Ed says:

    And as far as Hitler goes, I think facism is in fashion this year, which is apparently why Repubs get the neo nazi vote.

  182. Chuck says:

    Ed, a more reasoned question is what is right with you? I asked you to tell me specifically what in the “founding documents” supports your assertion that deist philosophy and separation of church and state are obviously supported? You also said if you could see a list of the founders and their religious affiliation, that should rest the point. You in fact miss the point entirely and completely ignored the list! There is no way a careful reading of those links and other (rather simple) research demonstrate a dominance of deisim in the founding documents. Well over 90% of the founders were affiliated with an established denomination, and the majority demonstrated some level of devotion to their religion. Again, it is critical to understand the purpose of the constitution was to limit the rights and powers of government, not to deprive the people of their rights.

    And who gives a rat’s behind who the neo-nazi party supports? There are all kinds of fringe groups supporting one party over the other. I could just as well ask, but with more weight, who do the terrorists want to win the election? Is that why they haven’t attacked us yet?

    I can’t say what I am shaking at you, but it ain’t my head…

  183. Ed says:

    I went back through.

    Thomas Jefferson was definately a deist.

    Of course, you probably don’t think he was “that important”. I mean, he only wrote the declaration of independence.

    As far as what is right with me…not much…central tenet for being a Christian…I’m a sinner.

  184. Chuck says:

    Well, that’s answer enough Ed. You know, for a while there I thought you had some smarts about you, but I was wrong. This stuff is right in your face and you ignore it. There were over 200 framers, and you select 1 and make a conclusion. You have yet to point out where and in what part of what document the separation of church and state and deism is supported. In other words, you just tried to feed us a line of bull and you know it! Gonna give you a piece of advice bud, if you really want to get a good basic handle on the constitution, read Max Farrand’s “The Framing of the Constitution.” There is tremendous effort on the part of the neo-marxist left to paint America of the late 1700’s as blanketed by the Age of Reason and essnetially churchless, which is complete crap. This is pathetic, time for a new topic…

    Looking more and more like a tight race, as I predicted. Kerry must win Ohio, and needs Iowa and Wisconsin. I don’t hink he’s going to do it.

  185. Ed says:

    Well, I guess the only thing I appreciate about you is your honesty.
    You said “hardly any of the founders were deist’s”

    Well, Franklin and Jefferson were. not sure if that qualifies as “hardly any”. That’s all I was saying. Approximately a dozen had theological training, and one was a minister. As far as the “founding documents” I include the Declaration of Independence, which was written exclusively by Jefferson. My only argument is, many evangelicals paint the picture that the country was founded as a Christian nation. If that was the case, Jesus would be in the original documents…but he is not. The founding fathers specifically left Jesus out not because of their belief system, but they were afraid of creating a system of government that would end up like England.

    I also have always had issue with that outlook, especially considering I am part Native American…I don’t celebrate Columbus Day, I celebrate European Conquest Day. Don’t get me started about that.

    You can insult my intelligence all you want if that makes you feel better about yourself.

    Now, to get back on the topic of this thread before it gets closed

    According to Zogby, Arkansas is in play as well as Missouri


  186. ed says:

    Zogby Oct 7 EV report: Bush 207, Kerry 278

    Florida, Ohio, Arkansas not included in total because too close to call.

    According to Zogby,

    “Mr. Kerry lost the lead in none of the nine states he controlled in the interactive surveys of Sept. 21, and grabbed tiny leads in two states that had been counted in the Bush column in the last round – Colorado, with nine Electoral votes, and Nevada, which boasts five.”

    And where are the two parties right now?



  187. Ben Rees says:

    Kerry will win all the states that went for Gore in 2000, except for these adjustments: Kerry loses Wisconsin (10), but picks up Ohio (20), W VA (5) and NH (4). That scenario gives the election to Kerry 279-259. Kerry could possibly pick up Florida (27) and Nevada (5) but that’s if voter fraud and the relentless fear campaign of the Bush administration has little impact. That would make a landslide for Kerry 311-227.

  188. Ed says:

    Kicking tail in Florida.

    Up by 4 points according the the blogfather.


  189. rich says:

    Ed, I think it’s patently clear what is the matter with Chuck. He doesn’t follow lines of reasoning very well, and he’s delusional. We can”t hold that against him, though… it can’t be easy when your parents are close genetic relatives … … …to each other!!!

    All kidding ass-side, Kerry in a landslide.

    Did y’all here the one about the GOP organization masquerading as the real “America Votes” organization, signing up people to vote in battleground states, then discarding those who registered as Democrats. Kerry in a landslide.

    Did y’all hear the one about the right wing media group, The Sinclair Group, forcing it’s 67 stations nationwide to pre-empt programming to air a smear piece on John Kerry 2 weeks before the election? They think they own the airwaves, because they own the company, but the airwaves are licensed to them for free in order for them to server the public good. So the big company gets a resource free of charge from the government, then uses it to advance the government’s agenda. That’s the textbook definition of fascism. Kerry in a landslide.

    See, God doesn’t like liars and cheaters. At least, my God doesn’t abide it… and he is actually ranked higher than the Fundamentalist (accent on mental) Christian God. He’s actually 3 or 4 pay grades above him. He’s supreme allied commander of all gods and goddesses. And the nice thing about him is that he doesn’t sneak around playing nasty tricks on people, then hiding from them using his invisibility cloak. Nope, he operates out in the open where you can see him clearly. So watch out, Chuck… look to your left… see that great big glowing guy? He’s God and he’s gonna smack you in the head with a Kerry landslide.

  190. rich says:

    Oh, wait. Forgot about the Diebold factor.


    Bush in a landslide.

  191. Chuck says:

    Rich I learned learned long ago that the more anxiety in an individual, the more prone they are to childish and desperate remarks such as the silly ones you made about my parents. Based on that all I can say is you need to get that ativan refilled stat. No, that’s not a textbook definition of fascism, look it up. Democrats suing Nader off the ballot or CBS’s Rathergate aren’t at least equally unsettling to you? Your God? When I look to my left all I see is a refrigerator with a calender on it that says 17 more days until one of us says, O well, I was wrong. I can say that if Kerry is elected (but he won’t be) the people have spoken and he is the new c in c, and ultimately, things will probably be just fine. See how easy it is to be nice?

    Ed, you do a fine job insulting your own intelligence, don’t need any help from me. So now its two founders? And your evidence of deism in the founding documents is that Jesus Christ is not mentioned by name? This is debate? Maybe in the 4th grade.

    There will be no landslide either way IMO, instead watch OH WI and PA I think they will decide the election.

  192. ed says:

    OH and WI will decide. I think PA is out …GW has apparently conceded PA. 100k new dem registers in Philly alone.

    4th grade? apparently I do need help…

    maybe you should actually read my post instead of thinking about how to respond to it instead, cause I didn’t argue for Deism because of Jesus Christ’s absence in documents…don’t know where you got that.

  193. Chuck says:

    I surrender in the peeing contest re founders, I’m just too tired of trying. I hate it when I resort to silliness, I know you mean well Ed. Hope you are having a great Sunday, its beautiful here in the mountains today. Yes PA may be forgone, its down to OH WI and maybe IW. Here’s links to a couple great polling sites. By looking at them closely, you’ll see why I think Bush is going to pull a squeaker. He is still ahead in most polls nationally, and has trended ahead since the convention. Kerry has made a mild surge, but weak and not enough. Kerry must hold all Gore states AND win a significant number of EV’s to make up for FL (27 ev’s) and the reapportionment changes (net plus 7ev gain for Bush). Interesting that nearly 2/3 military favors Bush.

  194. rich says:

    Chuck says that 2/3 of the military backs the Prez. If that were true (and it’s not) that would not be a very strong mandate from the soldiers in the field for the Commander-in-Chief during a war! I say it’s not true, because here’s where Chuck get’s his info:

    USA Today: 10/3/04 — http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm

    An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel by Army Times Publishing shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. (n.b. the word “unscientific” … read further to find out why it’s called by USA Today “unscientific”)

    1. (Army Times Publishing is owned by Gannett, which also publishes USA TODAY.)

    2. “Army Times Publishing sent e-mails to more than 31,000 subscribers and received 4,165 responses on a secure Web site. The publisher cautioned that the results are not a scientific poll. Its readers are older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole.

    A much better and more reasoned (ah, there’s that word again Chuck… the one you can’t seem to really understand… “reasoned”) one can be found at:


    See, folks, these young men and women whose lives are being put in jeopardy every day- most of them- entered the military in order to take advantage of the benefits massively marketed by the military in 2000 and 2001… a college education… a respectable job… things which had been taken away in large part by the failure of the Bush administration’s recession. They either signed up for 3 years (small cash bonus), 4 years (larger cash bonus) or 5 years (largest cash bonus … $5000 dollars). They never suspected that there would be a war, and if there was, they fully expected that it would be like the first gulf war and would be over quickly. They never thought that when the end of their enlistment came they would be “stop-lossed” and do multilple rotations in an insane occupation of an un-occupiable area of the world. This according to Cheney (1992) and Rumsfeldt (1991). These young people know they are being used in a very unethical way, and they know it. The results will be seen in their votes…

    I happen to live in a fairly conservative area, and I happen to have a 23 and a 20 year old. They each have many friends, several of whom took the step of entering the military. While they initially were sort of gung-ho, as young people tend to get when they see a piece of hardware up close, they have been for the most part, disillusioned. I also have several neices and nephews of that age group two of whom went to Iraq and one of whom received a silver star and bronze star for heroism. He won these awards a result of distinguishing himself during a fire fight in Karbala in October that claimed the lives of several of his friends. He is, I will add, a very scarred young man. He now believes he was lied to about Iraq… and he is not alone. So… Chuck… no one gives a sh*t about how a few career officers dutifully respond to a poll constructed by a right-wing news corporation in to create a news story that looks like the “military favors Bush”. The right has so discredited itself that, even if it were to win this election, it has no credibility going forward, and any legitimate gains it has made are devalued and discredited for many generations to come. Pax Americana is not going to work. Not in this Internet dominated world.

  195. nigel says:

    It all comes down to OH and FL. Bush has to win both as I see it. Kerry needs to win just one. Since it seems that Kerry is going to lose in Ohio he should probaly go down to FL and have his wife hand out hundred dollar bills. He only needs to give out about 538 of them.

  196. Ben says:

    Kerry will win all the states that went for Gore in 2000, except for these adjustments: Kerry loses Wisconsin (10), but picks up Ohio (20), and NH (4). That scenario gives the election to Kerry 274-264.
    In case Kerry also takes Wisconsin, he wins 284-254.

    Despite all the polls, Bush will end up like his father, a one-termer, for 2 simple reasons: he will not win 2 out of 3 OH-PA-FL required for him to win; and voter registration will provide the edge needed in a close election to the benefit of the democrats.

    Another significant metric, the right direction/wrong direction poll, is running an -11% to -16% gap. Historically the most accurate of the polling questions to determine presidential outcomes, this gap is large and indicates voters will vote for change in November.

  197. Chuck says:

    I agree with you Ben, except you forget the ev’s Bush gained in the census reappotionment (7 net gain), and you neglect Iowa and New Mexico. Also, Ohio and NH are not at all assured for Kerry. All in all a very interesting election. I happen to think all of those states will vote Bush. And voter registration doesn’t elect a president, voter turn-out does. That is another factor that’s going to kill the dems this time, especially in the senate, house and local seats. Note the breakdwn of some of those key states here:


    The voters simply don’t like Kerry. In spite of the debates, Bush’s recent surge.



    You know, for once you nailed me Rich. I should have said this is not a scientific poll and does not represent the entire military vote. And I have a nephew who sounds similar to your son’s friends (to whom am I grateful for their service). BUT, I also know several recent veterans who have been proud of their service and a couple are even going back. I’ll bet you two things: one; that Bush truly will recieve a large majority of the military vote and, two; one would probably find that most simply are voting the way they would have anyway. My nephew has always been left wing, whereas these two boys I know that are going back are redneck right like their daddy. I’m going to look a bit deeper here…leads to an interesting inquiry. And the kids I know admit they know full well what the military is for and that their mission has not been to accumulate benefits, but to fight for their country. I seriously have yet to meet a one who seems surprised about this. Here’s the article btw.


    The end of your post is just plain junk.

  198. rich says:

    Chuck, you seem seriously flawed… (hence the suspicion about inbreeding). You quote the same article, by the same company (Gannett) that I quoted as the source of an unscientific poll PRESENTED AS NEWS!!! Son, they are disqualified, o.k.? I mean c’mon… fool me once, shame on.. shame on … y… you… fool me… fool me… CAIN’T GIT FOOLED AGAIN!

    You are just not looking in the right place for the majority of disillusioned soldiers. O.k., military vote is not a big piece of the action… numbers wise… but it sure as hell is an important metric. Soldiers who feel misled… and despite your attempts to dissuade, a large percentage most emphatically do… are a powder keg of political dissent.

  199. Chuck says:

    You must not have filled that script yet Rich. You darned right I am flawed (though not inbred, unless my mom and dad jived me), but oh how I do love getting your goad (its easy). I posted it for the benefit of the readers here. If they read it they will see it is not as simple as you describe. And yes, although the survey is not scientific, it is interesting and of course its newsworthy. I don’t know about any powder keg, I just say that I would be willing to bet you that most military will vote Bush. Of course there are dissenters, I would hope and expect so. What is important is that they are even less sure of Kerry. I’ll keep my eye out for further data, especially post-election results, as I think this is interesting.

    Did you check out those polling sites? Kerry is slip sliding away, as I predicted. The dems could’ve done better, but they chose about as bad a candidate as possible (for Hillary in 08 maybe?). More bad news for you bud, both the senate and house are tilting to a significant GOP run. Data on state offices looks bleak for dems as well (governors and state legislators). You can look that one up for yourself. Happy days are here again!

  200. theresasp says:

    I read through this board and am astounded by some comments — but it is the usual — the democrats calling the republicans what they are and accusing the republicans of what they are doing. I’ve been so dumbfounded by their media spin machine and wonder how they get away this.

    The “stealing of the Flordia election” in 2000 is a classic example — the Voters News Service called Flordia for Gore “mistakenly”. Then the major networks called the state for Gore before the polls were even closed. Many of the counties that were still open were in northern Flordia and had a republican base that reported when they heard the election called for Gore they didn’t bother to go vote. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a096d852f70.htm.

    I believe the new law The Help America Vote Act, enacted by Congress after the 2000 elections will cause this election to be a nightmare — the dems have already brought lawsuits wanting to count the provisional ballots on election night — but, some states only have one day to verify if the provisional ballots are valid! So imagine if the tight state races get bombarded with these “provisional ballots” This is how you cheat — people who shouldn’t vote get to vote and if that doesn’t work only recount districts that favor your party and extrapulate the state vote from there. You can also accuse of voter irregularities even when there is no evidence just to start your legal machine up and running. http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc.jpg So, obvious that the dems will do anything to win. The what — 8 recounts proved that Bush was the real winner in Flordia but the dems gave it a good college try and still use the untruth that the election was stolen and their base continues to drink their kool-aid.

    Mainly, the repbulicans have been enforcing the election rule of law — if your in the wrong disctrict w/o id or you didn’t register in the legal time frame you don’t get to vote — that is not “cheating”. The dems motto coined by Daily ““vote early and vote often.” is still in play today.

    One post in this forum stated the one democratic talking point that makes my blood boil — “the republican attack machine” they have the media spin machine it’s still a force to be dealt with but it use to work much better before the internet and FoxNews. Now the public isn’t forced fed the dems kool-aid.– again the republican attack machine is merely the rule of law — the same rule of law that impeached Clinton — yes, he lied to us all and deserved the impeachment. The dems don’t want to talk facts and the law they want the rhetoric and screaming tactics. The same rule of law that pertains to elections. One Good example of the dems wordy rhetoric was in the Edwards/Chenny debate:
    EDWARDS: May I respond briefly?

    What the vice president has just said is just a complete distortion. The American people saw John Kerry on Thursday night. They don’t need the vice president or the president to tell them what they saw.

    They saw a man who was strong, who had conviction, who is resolute, who made it very clear that he will do everything that has to be done to find terrorists, to keep the American people safe.

    He laid out his plan for success in Iraq, made it clear that we were committed to success in Iraq. We have to be, because we have troops on the ground there and because they have created a haven for terrorists.

    CHENEY: Your rhetoric, Senator, would be a lot more credible if there was a record to back it up. There isn’t. And you cannot use “talk tough” during the course of a 90-minute debate in a presidential campaign to obscure a 30-year record in the United States Senate and, prior to that by John Kerry, who has consistently come down on the wrong side of all the major defense issues that he’s faced as a public official.

    WELL SAID — just the facts please — look at Kerry’s record not his debating skills — he learned how to be a professional politician in his senate career but what did he accomplish! –Look at the facts — watch him flip flop his own words:
    find out how he ticks read Kerry’s books — whooo that man is scary!

    Is the republican attack machine the same attack machine the dems use?.
    Let’s see… the dems get up on the senate floor and scream about the president lying and they are using evidence produced by cBS. All year I hear Bush lied, betrayed the country…. but in fact they are the ones hurting this country so power hungry they can’t get any work done … and so disrespectful — if they don’t follow the rule of law and common decency how can they expect the people to — it appears they have the attitude that if they aren’t in power no one will get anything done and the whole country can go to hell in a handbasket for all they care: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134592,00.html

    The UN OIl for food scandal is a story I’ve been following closely but not cnn, msnbc, cbs, nbc, why because it vindicates Bush’s decision to go w/o the bribed countries approval. I did see a small story on MSNBC by LA Times reporter last week and they only brought up that oil companies in the states are accused — but they rec. the vouchers and did get some oil … oh, and the unbiased anchor also got in an unrelated barb about Haliburton — geez — not a mention of Frances in Russia’s huge part in this scandal. The businesses in their countries were making billions and the officials were bribed and personally profiting. The Duelfer report bringing attention to their doings and the whole report mostly in Bush’s favor — but, of course the liberal newspapers spin it just the oppostie way .. read the report for yourself here: (Also tried to find the report on CNN and CBS there were burried articles but there were no links to read the report for yourself — keep drinking their kool-aid)

    OK — this brings me back to my main point… the republican attack machine — I believe the republican attack machine is based on facts and the rule of law and trying to enforce the dems to follow it …. the dems attack machine is spin and the major networks help in propping dems and Kerry up … going to the point of forging fake documents (can’t believe this is the first time) — well cBS may not of forged them but there is enough evidence to prove they knew and went with the story anyway — to hurt Bush. Talk about bias just read the CNN transcripts — Bush attacks, relentless attacks … but Kerry accuses, states and asserts …. such BS …. cBS lite. ABC thinks Bush has the advantage so they tell the political reportes to not report fairly — give Kerry a break. http://www.drudgereport.com/mh.htm

    Fox News has really hurt the cause of the dems in the media … as the masses aren’t forced fed the dems kool-aid. I first realized the medias bias after the 2000 election my first time voting for a republican … I woke up that morning like everyone else wondering who won the election … I turned on CNN and watched for four hours … confused … online I found many with my opinion but on the news everyone was saying Bush was trying to steal the election … etc… no one in four hours had my point of view …. I went online and reported my observation and got some LOLs and advice … watch Fox News …. how refreshing … I heard the facts, the dems and republican talking points … interesting…. I was hooked. Another thing the dems like to call the republicans is closed minded, facishist etc… but when hearing other Dems talk about Fox New you’d think it was run by a satanic cult — but when I ask my left leaning friends if they’ve ever watched they say NO WAY. What facist propaganda the dems put out and the uninformed believe w/o question or watching the network themselves — All lefties should watch they would hear their parties talking points but have to withstand the republicans talking points and the facts. The facts are by the way what the republicans have to use in their “attack machine”. The truth really hurts those who have very little charchter or back bone — e.g. John Kerry the man who truly betrayed this country and has the same M.O. regarding the Iraq war and would sell out to the UN w/o question.

    The major news media would like you to think that Kerry is going to win …. don’t bother to vote if your voting for Bush. That ploy and Kerry preaching to the Dems choir in the black churches bringing up SS and draft issues really just shows how desperate the dems are oh, not to mention the last minute lawsuits in Flordia to allow provisional votes to be counted the night of the election … desperate. The evangelical Christian voters if they all vote will be a big force for Bush. Churches around the country have been very concerned about this election and know its importance for our country’s future. I think the base of young people Kerry is depending on historically isn’t strong — and go one way then another at the drop of a hat … and hey, they may have better things to do on election day .

  201. Chuck says:

    Tell it brother! I think Kerry will lose, but you are right, the oil for food program shows one of the huge dangers of the dems addiction to one world government. What is amazing is the near absolute effectiveness of the liberal press in blinding less thoughtful voters (see Rich’s posts, for example). These poor folk have been bamboozled and it is just plain fun forcing them to justify/explain their positions, because they can’t.

  202. rich says:

    Well, I’m starting to get the gist here: theresasp… you citing foxnews as a source would be like me citing “The Nation”. I don’t suppose anyone would fault me for not reading your 3 and 1/2 pages of tripe mixed in with fox citations.

    And Chuck… I understood your reason for re-citing the usa today article… as though they are going to be disingenuous in one part of this political piece and honest in another. They have been disqualified because of their disregard for the truth. So go ahead, they are a real professional news organization. I’m sure that somewhere out there are more ditto heads like you who will say… “O.k., so these paragraphs were misleading, but this last sentence… between the 5th word and the 12th word… that looks true! and it matches my ideology! Must be true!!!”

    The clear indicator of the right’s inability to think critically is summed up in your reference to the oil for food program. Two simple facts:
    1) Cheney was very happy as CEO of Haliburton to trade illegally w/ Iraq because they could find a loophold and make a bundle.

    2) (and here’s the IMPORTANT one.) The Republicans talk about Iraq gaming the oil for food program as though that would have been a valid reason to go to war vs. Iraq. Be honest. (It’s tough, huh?)… if we were able to turn the clocks back to before invading Iraq… and I mean really turn it back so EVERYTHING was as it was… and Bush came out and said… “We’re now gonna focus on Iraq because they are gaming the oil for food program”. He’d have had no support. We were interested in killing Osama Bin Laden. The only way to get our attention off that one, was to threaten immenent mass destruction at the hands of an obvious lunatic.

    I should stop wasting my time here. Anyone who still can’t follow the bouncing ball won’t be able to any time soon. Kerry is called a flip-flopper. When I read his comments leading up to the war, they are still valid, true and consistent with what he says today:
    Force as a last resort.
    Build a coalition.
    Plan for the peace.

    If you want to see true flip-flopping, look at what Cheney says in 1992, vs. what he says now.


    This is actually a test. If you can read this and not see MUCH more of a flip-flop than Kerry ever did, and for the VERY reasons… POLITICAL… that Kerry is accused of… then you are a true believer ideologue. You are likely awaiting the rapture and don’t need to be thinking about logic or reasoned argument. You are part of what Bush calls his “core”. You are there, and no one can persuade you no matter what the facts are. Because being there, in accord with the others (ditto-heads) is all that really matters. (This is where you jealously say “Democrats only do what is popular”, being yourself unable to think critically and come up with your own ideas)

  203. ed says:


    to try and make an ATTEMPT to keep this thread ON TOPIC. (ahem)

    latest zogby: national race tied
    latest rammussen: national race tied

    zogby battleground: Kerry up by 2-3 pts
    rammuseen battleground: tied

  204. ed says:

    I also maintain my prediction: Kerry +300 EV’s.

  205. Chuck says:

    Ed, here’s the latest of several polls, Kerry is fading, and I say good riddance.

    Rich, your lengthy comment is unworthy of reply. You are totally lost in your own partisanship, absolutely unable to think outside your box. Its downright creepy to hear you sometimes. 15 days!

  206. ed says:

    try again.

    zogby…LV’s..45/45… 10/17


  207. Chuck says:

    Ed, its fine by me if you won’t look at the picture being painted here. Its funny you ignore newsweek (50/44) Gallup (52/44) USA today (54/46) and on and on. Remember me saying how some see what they believe where others believe what they see? You illustrate clearly which camp you fall in. I am sure that for all of us the poll on 11/2 will be the one that matters. Its just interesting to me that despite Kerry “winning” the debates, it did him no good (as I predicted). His latest desperate remarks, especially regarding social security, are a sure sign that he knows he’s slipping. Now its getting fun. I still think a handful of states are key, but they more and more are tipping toward the president. If it weren’t for such stinkholes as Pittsburgh and Philly, PA would would be an easy one to call. I thank God every day I don’t live in some place like that…

  208. ed says:

    New WSJ/NBC Poll: LV: 48/48

    To answer your question, I did consider Gallup and USA Today (same poll there dude). I’m glad you mentioned it.

    I’m sure you disagree, but as a fourth grader,

    I find it a very odd poll result not only becaues it shows a 10 point change within 1 week of it’s previous poll, but because it stands out against most of the other national polls, which on average have bush with a 1 point lead.

    I did some research about the internals of the Gallup to try and understand the weirdness of a 10 point shift, and discovered a number of things.

    1. It’s likely voter methodology depends on prior voting history, which discounts 18-21 year olds. Of course, historically this is not a big voting cohort, but I think this election will go down as one of the biggest turnouts in recent history.

    2. although Gallup does not weight its polling by party id, it does use demographic information, which is skewed significantly from 2000 (note 2000 numbers are in () )

    Over $75,000: 32% (28%)
    $50-75,000: 16% (25%)
    $30-50,000: 26% (24%)
    $20-30,000: 11%
    Under $20K: 9%

    And if this wasn’t bad enough,

    White: 85% (81%)
    NonWhite: 15% (19%)
    Black: (a subset of NonWhite) 8% (10%)

    So either they are building in voter suppression into their sample, or they actually believe fewer non whites will vote this year (personally, I find that very hard to believe)

    3. Furthermore, if you do look at gallup’s recent party id percentages as a kind of reliability indicator of a particular poll, they are also off from 2000. Considering this years, massive party registrations effort, which conservatively is 60/40 in favor of Dem’s, then the number should be more in Dem’s favor, and not less:

    By Political Ideology:
    Conservative: 41% (29%)
    Moderate: 41% (50%)
    Liberal: 18% (20%)

    Party ID:
    GOP: 39% (35%)
    Dem: 35% (39%)
    Ind: 26% (27%)

    4. IF that’s not enough…merely by looking at the previous weeks polls Party ID breakdown, you find an amazing thing!

    GOP: 37%
    Dem: 37%
    Ind: 26%

    Wow! according to this poll…2 percent of the country changed party identification with 1 week.

    Wow…that’s amazing!

    I guess you right Chuck! Bush is definately kicking ass! According to the poll, millions of people changed parties overnight! Amazing…


    However, I do agree with you and think Bush does have the popular vote (by a slim margin). I attribute this primarily due to his focus on those 4-5 million evangelicals that did not vote in 2000. However, due to this focus (which is either a reality of his turning into a fundamentalist, or just a Karl Rove/policy election strategy) I think he has lost many moderates (including myself).

    Iraq is still an albatross of course, but less so recently with the focus on domestic problems, the horserace, and other issues, which would also help explain his rise in the popular vote.

    However, as you stated above in another post…Popular vote does not matter, it’s the battlegrounds that matter, and at this moment in time, Kerry has turned NH blue, and is on his way to turn AK and OH as well. I stand by my projection. Kerry +300 EV’s.


  209. Chuck says:

    Great analysis Ed, but it still ignores the other polls. And I do agree, its going to come down to OH (I think FL is in the bag for Bush). No way on Ark. so though. Another interesting number is the doubling of the African-American swing toward Bush (18% now). Just have to wait and see. I for one am getting a serious case of election fatigue. Just brought my sis home with hospice and my wife is losing her brother! Hard times. I do want you to know I admire yours and Rich’s guts to speak and defend your positions, I know the debate has been heated at times. But you know something? I know we are all Americans, and things are going to be ok. If we were in the same foxhole together, all this would go out the window and we would stick together. So don’t take my arguments to seriously, I am sorry for my over the top remarks at times. Have a good night Ed…

  210. ed says:

    sure. If it’s one thing you have helped me do Chuck, is to get me started on a blogging kick, and doing research to figure out my positions on things. (don’t know if that is good or bad yet, since I haven’t done any real site dev work (coding or graphic design) for over a week now.)

    btw, I only ignored newsweek, USA today is the same as Gallup. (and the only reason I ignored it is because I can’t find any internals on it)

    as far as Arkansas, I thought the same thing until recently.

    WSJ’s new battleground polling has Bush leading by only 1.3 percent.
    and Zogby has Bush leading by only 1.4
    (I think those numbers are right, i know that they are both sub 1.6)

    Now these are both LV’s, not RV’s, and one of my presuppositions about this election, is that voter turnout will be incredibly high, and that throws a big wrench into every single poll that is based into LV polls. My quick and dirty estimate is to give a net gain of 2 pts to kerry, which I think is a fairly educated guess. Basically, then, if W is getting less than 49 in the poll, then I give the state to kerry.

    But yeah, we would throw that aside…but my ultimate fear is that if W is reelected, that the foxhole meeting has a higher chance of happening.


  211. Chuck says:

    Man if they call somebody like me up, then the s— really has hit the fan and they will be digging the very bowells of the barrel. My barber made an interesting observation the other day. Since his vote to Ike, he says that no matter who the president has been, it really has not made a whole lot of difference. When you think about it, stepping back and looking at the big picture, he’s right. I think Lincoln and Roosevelt may be the only two presidents that I can honestly argue are exceptions. Kind of a reassuring thought.

  212. rich says:

    I really appreciate the sentiment, Chuck. I share the spirit of what you express. I’d say it a bit differently, but I agree in principle and spirit. I appreciate your steadfastness in defending your view. I think if this election cycle went on for much longer, we might learn much from each other, as I’ve already learned from you.

    I truly hope, but don’t automatically assume… power and corruption being such good friends…, that the election is done fairly and accurately. If so, I am happy to live with the results either way. If a majority of Americans want GW as President, so be it. I can disagree with his … well, everything, but I will still support him as the pick of my brothers and sisters in this country. I will admittedly be much, much happier if (when?) Kerry is chosen.

    I don’t entirely agree with your barber about the importance of who is President. I think it’s a little short sighted. But it’s one of those things I think is ultimately true. After all, as my Mom used to say, “a hundred years from now, who’ll know the difference?”.

    Anyway, enjoy the race.

    My prediction:
    Kerry in a squeaker. Lawsuits lined up at the SC and being batted out one by one like Red Sox hitters mowing down Yankee “pitching”. Results announced Jan 17th. Kerry sworn in Jan. 18th. On Jan 19th 5 Republican-appointed judges retire because the election lawsuits almost killed them. On Jan 20th Kerry nominates 5 activist judges (all gay black women seniors) who have sworn loyalty oaths to vote the Dem’s way on each issue. Just one of many possibilities.

  213. ed says:

    This won’t get reported in the SCLM (So Called Liberal Media), but John Zogby, in a speech given somewhere in Asia (I think in Japan), stated the other day that John Kerry will win. Considering that Zogby has been the only professional polling firm to call the past two elections within a point, and considering that both candidates use his “expensive/extensive polling expertise” in their ‘internal polling” strategy, I think it is safe to say that John F. Kerry is going to be our next POTUS.

  214. Hunter says:

    As Americans we endured two terms of Clinton policy surely Two terms of W” will not break the bank. I must admit I can’t seem to decide who would protect our rights as Americans . As a hard line Bill of rights advocate , trust of either party just seems false.

  215. ed says:

    I have two words for you Hunter…

    “Patriot Act”

  216. Chuck says:

    The Patriot Act was a congressional act passed by wide bipartisan margin. It has been a critical component of the war on terror. It has been upheld by the courts. Thus, all three branches of government are behind the measure…

  217. Richard Reddy says:

    I think Kerry will beat Bush 60/40. I am using the polls to get this number.

    People who don’t like the way things are going number 55% or more. There are some other factors.
    1. moderate republicans know that defeat is the only way to break a conservative stranglehold on the party. Many republicans are environmentalists, support choice, want religion out of government, or worry about what trends like downsizing or outsourcing might mean to them personally. No need to speak out, and wreck social or business associations–we have a secret ballot. I think 3-4 percent might support Kerry instead of Bush, especially deficit hawks.
    2. Undecided usually break for the challenger.
    3. New voters–many of them young people–are not adequately represented in polls.
    4. Actions speak louder than words. Bush is losing his grip on Evangelical Christains, who are increasingly skeptical on the question of values. This group is not so reliable as some imagine–they want to make choices consistant with religious values, and Bush has overused charity and goodwill.

    Add it all up, and I smell an upset. Dirty election, though.

    I put the ballot in the box, but place my faith in human nature. That means you! Want meaningful change in the world? Make something happen yourself!

  218. Rachel says:

    Articles like this may help to sway some conservatives who continue to have real concerns with this administration:

    Scott McConnell is the executive editor of The American Conservative.A Ph.D.in history from Columbia University, he was formerly the editorial page editor of the New York Post and has been a columnist for Antiwar.com and New York Press.His work has been published in Commentary, Fortune, National Review, The New Republic, and many other publications.

    By Scott McConnell

    There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

    But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.

    It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.

    Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

    During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.

    Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

    These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.

    I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?

    The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.

    But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.

    If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past—and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.

    George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.

  219. rich says:

    Nice article, Rachel. Ordinarily, I’d offer a comment to suggest you post a link instead of the whole article… but in this case, I think it’s important to have the whole thing right in front of the eyeballs.

    However, your thought that it might help to sway “some conservatives who continue to have real concerns with this administration” I fear is a somewhat misplaced hope. I think we’re down to the hardcore supporters vs. the thinking public. It’s scary, but true.

    My belief is that Kerry will win the election, but that voting machine malfeascence will throw the whole thing up for grabs, with the courts heavily stacked in Bushco’s favor. On the other hand, it may be such a majority that the bad guys will have a hard time fudging that much data. Stand by to see how much more pain the thinking public can stand!

  220. ed says:

    Well, thank God for small favors Rich.

    It has come to my attention through kos that Diebold was thrown out of Ohio last year.

    In Ohio we’ll only have to deal with election polling stalling tactics.

    Looks like Florida will once again be the place to watch.

  221. Chuck says:

    A reading of the article posted by Rachael does nothing she purports it would do, at least as far as this conservative voter is concerned. Why? Because its full of untruths at best and nonsense at worst. For example, there have been tax cuts across the board, especially the middle class tax cuts recently passed again (for which Kerry did not vote either way). Doling out of war profits? Is this Halliburton again? Can you name an American company that could have done the job and absorbed the associated risk any better? Iraq under Saddam was no threat to the US? Sure, he wasn’t going to launch missles. But no threat?? Should we have waited for him to become one? Immigration…So should we adopt Kerry’s proposal to grant illegals citizenship? The US degraded internationally: I see, so kow-towing to our competitors in Europe or to the grossly corrupt and impotent UN is better policy? And you know something, as much as we are “degraded” internationally, people are still crawling over themselves to come here. They still look to us for help and leadership. Degraded my hind end. Even if one could grant that Bush is indeed the first president to take pre-emptive action based on “falsehoods” (and I do not at accept this at its face), its simply baloney. One needs only to look at the Gulf of Tonkin, or the actions of McKinley and the Maine, etc. etc. and see there have been others of a more blatant nature. The numbers of Iraquis killed by their own people (including Saddam) and terrorists far exceeds those killed by Americans. Given that the people who despise us already do so hardly justifies surrender to terror. The comments implying Bush being on a holy war to bring on the final days are too ridiculous to credit. Contrary to what this writer and Bush bashers may hope, most conservatives I know are thoughtful people who care about their country and their future. Their values may be different from those on the left, but they are no less or more blinded by ideology. By and large they look at the two, shake their heads and say there just is no way they can vote for an obvious old-style pandering liberal. Its not much more complicated than that. And guess what, the majority of the country (which would mean others than conservatives) agree. Watch and see if this isn’t born out in the election. Not even a nice try Rachael, just the same old hash in a different can.

  222. rich says:

    Chuck… did you skip your medication again?

    Point one: In the business world it is unacceptable to award a contract without bids. The reason is simply that even the appearance of wrongdoing must be avoided. See, son, money and power have a corrupting effect on so many people. Oh, not the politicians that you hold in such awe, your guys would never cheat…but many, many others would. Some of us do not trust absolutely in a leader simply because he states that he trusts in god and prays for guidance. Responsible people recognize that that is between the leader and his god… only… and is none of our business. SO… he and his must be subject to the same scrutiny and transparancy standards as the rest of us. More so, because it’s government and not business.

    Point two: A cost-plus contract is only awarded to a company that you already have significant other business with which, if they perform poorly on the cost-plus component, would be at risk. And this only in the case that the work is not particularly attractive to the contracting firm… e.g., it is not up their alley (not their core-competency) and they don’t really stand to gain much by taking the contract… in short, it can act as an incentive to get someone to save your ass.

    These 2 points demonstrate that the method of awarding the contract is more than a little suspect… (at least it does if you can follow the complexities. I know this leaves you out, but hell, that’s just you)

    Point three: It appears that they are cheating big-time on the deal. According to first-hand accounts from people I personally know to be trustworthy AND who have nothing to gain from lying, Haliburton trucks regularly drove empty from one location to another, then returned empty… WHILE being guarded by U.S. military whose lives were at risk. It turns out that the company gets paid by the trip. Cost plus. They are currenly under indictment for stealing even more from the military by over-charging for gas!!!

    I’ve seen the feeding-frenzy from the inside. I was with a big5 firm during the heyday of providing auditing and IT consulting services to the same company. I know it’s nature. It feeds on itself. And it is massively abusive. Now, I made some good money as a result, but it depleted shareholder value. Business has no morality nor should it. It is up to government to create an environment which reflects our values as a society, and to require compliance with the laws created to express those values.

    For the administration to award the contract that it did to Haliburton is immoral, abusive of the public trust and does not reflect our values as a society. If it did, it would be the norm.

    As to your question about who else could have stepped in… it is irrelavent. It’s not up to you, or me, or the administration to make that decision. That’s what the bid process is all about. Transparency. Put the Request for Proposal out there. Evaluate the responses. If only one responds, you still have options… you can change the RFP to make it more accessible and attractive. If no one responds, THEN and ONLY then do you go a’courting with sweetheart deals and promises of cost-plus services. Maybe Haliburton would be the only one capable of doing the job (I and most other observers don’t think so) but if so, why not take the inexpensive route of proving it? (This is a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious)

    The tax cut issue is funny. I am in the middle class. I got a tax cut. Didn’t mean crap to me. It’s like when I got $600 dollars reward when Bush was given the presidency. That money was gone before I even cashed the check. It meant next to nothing to me. What means a lot to me, though is the extreme cutback in services of all kinds we in . The people who received tax cuts of millions of dollars don’t give a crap about government provided services. They live in gated communities and send their kids to private schools.

    So yes, the middle class got a tax cut, but also the loss of many, many jobs. Also a president who is a proponent of sending jobs offshore.

    Yes, Chuck, …there is a parallel universe… and it’s called reality. Go back on the meds.

  223. Chuck says:

    The only med I am on is an anti-hypertensive, thanks to guys like you Rich LOL. Just kidding friend. I suppose I deserve the med crack. I disagree entirely that it doesn’t matter which company it is. Halliburton is the only one for this job, unless you can name an adequate competitor? And, no, its not a squeaky clean company, but that’s no surprise or horror. People you know? What kind of source is that? If so, yes its wrong, and your sources have an obligation to come forward and make their case. Hopefully wrongness will be proved and punished. And the connections with Cheney have long ago been discussed on this page.
    For some of us, it is important that our president is a man of sincere faith. Kerry has been to church in the past few months more than he has been in many years combined! Pandering to blacks in their churches is just pathetic. My reality is clear as a bell, and shows a clear Bush victory. So I’ll bet you that at least a bit more than half the country see things like I do. That, my friend, is a sweet reality. Back to sleep Rich…

  224. ed says:

    I finally have my ev prediction in hand.
    Kerry takes OH, PA, and FL.

    The surprise state is WV,

    and Kerry wins 303 – 235.

    I hate to call you out on the carpet on this CHuck…

    But do you have Kerry’s Church attendance record on hand?

    I read the Bible alot, and am even 4 classes away from a masters in mission.

    I’d say, based on kerry’s views (minus abortion) that his are closer in line with the synoptic Gospels than Bush’s.

    It also appears that the lines also blur a bit after this weekend. Bush revealed that he supports civil unions on a talk show on Sunday (guess he wasn’t in Church this weekend huh).

  225. Chuck says:

    I saw this somewhere on this site, but here’s something highlighting my main point from the same site (Catholics against Kerry).

    Minus abortion?! Gee that’s not much (OMG)! A “masters in mission?”

    Bush said what he has been saying all along. He proposes civil union laws be left to the states, but seeks to prevent the judiciary (either state or federal) from redefining MARRIAGE by proposing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Now perhaps that is not in line with the syncoptic gospels, but it is something the American people would expect a man of God to support who also happens to be President.

    Bush will win FL and OH is my prediction. He also will probably win IW WI and MN. He might even win MI and HW! I smell a Kerry rout…Bush with close to 300 ev’s and the pop vote 52 47. Thank God its only days away…won’t you be relieved?

  226. B.D.Sweed says:

    Amen Chuck!..
    I have found in most cases that Kery supporters are just like the canidate,They are quick to point out
    problems in the management of the country no matter how small or how old it is,Yet they really think that canning the whole works and starting freash with “some guy that is NOT Bush” is the answer to all of their problems.Crazy!
    One of the “worst things” they seem to hate about Bush is,That when he says he’s going to do somthing he does it without giving them a call and making sure they won’t be upset with him if he makes a choice to do good for the majority of the country.
    Bill clinton on his inagural address said he would get me a card that will insure healthcare anywhere
    in the country for free,Did’nt happen,He said we will keep sadam in check,Did’nt happen,He promised alot of great things that did’nt happen..Ronald reagan promised alot of things that never happened.
    Jimmy too…But the reason I think Bush will win in a landslide is ,That when he says he is going to do somthing for me ,it happens. and he says he is planning on winning!
    Also all priest are basicly good men (minus the pedophiles.)….Thanks for the vent.

  227. ed says:

    and what did he do for you BD Sweed?

  228. rich says:

    Yessirree, Chuck. I will be delighted to have my regular life back after next week! But you missed my main point about Haliburton. It’s vital that everyone who does business with the government follow the rules. Read Eisenhower’s prescient farewell address where he warns against what he invented the term “military-industrial complex” for. It’s a very powerful statement. It’s not trivial stuff. It’s vital.

    Now, if the Red Sox drop the next 4 straight and the Cards become the second team in baseball history to come back from 0-3 to win it all… I’ll begin to think that Bush might win… just because weirder things will have happened. Otherwise… Kerry in not even that close a call. That make sense?

    And, brother, coincidentally, I’m also on blood pressure med!… and also because of a guy like me. Me. 😉 (are emoticons still cool? I’m old… I don’t know)

  229. Chuck says:

    If this was a baseball game it would make sense. But its a presidential election that comes down to the unique electoral college process. I believe Bush will carry the few needed key states. The electoral college map Michael has posted I believe is (Ark. will vote Bush) what the electoral map will look like Tues. night. How do you like the UN meddling in our election and Kerry supporting it? This whole “weapons stockpile” thing is an example of what Kerry means by a “global test” (=one-world government). And a great example of classic desperation politics.

    I have read Eisenhower’s warnings, but I think your concern about Halliburton is inflated for partisan reasons.

    Rich, do you take lisinipril? If so try cozaar, more effective w/o the nagging throat tickle. Hey man, you are only as old as you think you are…

  230. rich says:

    Well, if you read the votemaster’s comments… and I would if I were you… you’d realize that the likelihood of that being the final picture is very, very slim. N.B. the verbage on FL. IF you move FL over to Kerry … voila… President Kerry emerges.

    No. I take a low dosage of a diuretic combo called HCTZ/Triamterene for BP control. Effective w/ no physical side effects.

  231. Chuck says:

    Again, I predict Bush will carry the swing states of OH FL IW WI CO WV AR and maybe MN. Early voted today! My home state of NC, like the rest of the south, is solid Bush. Guess who I voted for lol…

  232. B.D Sweed says:

    Well Ed, it may sound simple but the tax relief alone was a big eye opener to me,(no i am not in the upper1%)But just to see it happen so fast after he said it would happen,just shows me how simple this government can run if you got the right boss in charge.

    Any fool can run for the position declaring “I have a plan”,”I want what you want”,”The current boss is bad”,….I have seen Bushs’ record and it may not all benifit me but i don’t choose a canidate on what they can “do” for me. I have also seen Kerry’s record (20 years of it) and i can tell you that it has got to be the biggest scam ever,That’s why he will not talk about it.
    I will be glad to see it come to an end,but i’m also glad that it gives people time to study the canidates well,so that they will cast a more informed vote……Take MI, Take PA. But OHIO belongs to BUSH.

  233. Me says:

    You idiot. Some people vote for a candadite based on what they have to offer and what they plan on doing to help the country. Not just because they’re for some political party. I voted for Gore in 2000 because I agreed with his plans to help environmental issues. I’m voting for Bush now because I agree with his war on terrorism and because I think Kerry is a hypocrite and a weak leader. I don’t really care what party they’re for and I think there are a lot of people out there that think the same way.

  234. sweed says:

    Yes, very good,good example of learning how to vote for the majority good.
    I’m glad you learned how to spot a hypocrite. I knew Gore was one by 1994,by 2000 he was
    at an all time high.(Yes,on the environment).

  235. rich says:

    Well, B.D., did it do anything for your eye-opening to see how fast a record surplus became a record deficit? Yes, a government which has no checks and balances (i.e., all 3 branches Republican/conservative) can do things fast… don’t dream that Bush is a brilliant executive, or that he doesn’t surround himself with yes-men. Mussolini was lionized in Italy for making the trains run on time! (then he was hanged for the WAY he made the trains run on time).

    Instead of parroting catch-phrases about Kerry’s record, why not make some specific references from your vast store of information?. While it’s hard to see any details in any of Kerry’s rhetoric about his plans, they are STILL greatly more detailed than ANYTHING Bush has ever said.

    Bush people concede that Kerry is a better debater, then dismiss it like it was nothing. It is something. The better debater is the one with better command of the facts and the ability to respond to the opposition, in addition to having the ability to think analytic on one’s feet. Exactly the qualities we want in our leader, instead of a latter day convert to “churstianity”, who relies on God to guide him. God helps those who help themselves… There will be no such help forthcoming if we don’t re-defeat Bush.

  236. ed says:

    let’s take trip through time…to…
    CNN: Monday, November 6, 2000

    BLITZER: And now, let’s take a look at the latest poll numbers. The new CNN/”USA Today” Gallup Tracking Poll results are being released at this hour. It shows George W. Bush with 48 percent, Al Gore 43 percent, Ralph Nader with 4 percent, Pat Buchanan with 1 percent.
    And those numbers are similar to other tracking polls. Take a look: ABC’s poll has Bush at 49 percent, Gore at 45 percent; The Washington Post, Bush at 48 percent, Gore at 46 percent; the NBC-Wall Street Journal tracking poll, Bush at 47 percent, Gore 44 percent. And both the CBS and MSNBC-Reuters-Zogby tracking polls have Bush at 46, Gore at 44 percent.

    That was the day before Gore won the popular vote.
    Things that make you go …hmmm….
    Looks like the handwriting is on the wall folks.
    Even Tucker Carlson, fabled right wing attack dog of crossfire fame, is publicly calling it for Kerry.
    He says Kerry will get 51.5 percent of the vote and W will get 48.

    What I don’t understand is that he calling the EV count much lower than his popular vote.
    Oh well…at least he has more brains than I thought he did.

  237. Chuck says:

    Just 72 hours and hopefully the last and most meaningful poll will tell all. I still say Bush by a narrow margin. Think of the great joy you will get to experience if I am wrong! For me, I know everthing’s going to be ok. Have a great weekend guys!

  238. Ricky Ray says:

    5{nks John Kerry is any different than Benedict Arnold is just like Kerry, a bonified catsup sucker! His voting record is anti military and anti middle class; in his own words “Go Figure”! If you don’t like what I say well {look in your gut}

  239. Chuck says:

    All the way until this last map I had high respects for Michael’s work. But this last map is simply contrary to most polls I am seeing (see realclearpolitics.com). Unfortunately at the last minute he has slung off an excellent non-partisan piece of work in a weak attempt to portray an inaccurate picture. Not dissimilar to CBS and CNN, too bad. If he is proved right, then high respects will come his way. But if he is wrong (which I suspect he is) I and others will be back to remind him of how he muffed it in the end for partisan sakes. Just a reminder too readers, that the polls of 1980 showed a close election the Friday before. What happened? Reagan stomped Carter.

  240. rich says:

    Well, you ARE old, Chuck! You remember Reagan vs. Carter! 😉 … I remember Eisenhower winning in ’52. I was 6 years old and had an “I Like Ike” button that I wore proudly as I ran up and down the street in my Brooklyn neighborhood yelling at the top of my lungs, not understanding or caring what it meant, “I Like Ike, I Like Ike”. That was the last time I supported a Republican for President.

    You think Michael is suddenly tanking his responsible approach. Why do you think that? Is it because he reports that it looking good for Kerry? Would you have the same opinion if he had it looking good for Bush? I think not. I think you’d just call that being accurate and non-partisan.

    Do you disagree with his report because all the information that you have been able to gather from Fox, CNN and USA Today tell a different story? Hm-m-m-m.

    Either way, by this time next month… maybe we’ll know… maybe.

  241. Chuck says:

    Yes I feel real old here lately Rich (I have teenagers). No, I cited the source of my dissent. I think Michael has taken a tail-spin in impartiality from a long-running decent analysis. Regardless of my hope for a W victory, take a look at the site (especially the tab under each state that says “show all polls” for each swing state). Its simply inexplicable and dissappointing that he ultimately abandoned his science. But its his neck and tomorrow he will either be thoroughly discredited or be proven a wizard. Is it not a bit revealing and creepy to you that Usama supports Kerry? Hmmm…

  242. Chuck says:

    Oh yeah, my revised final tally of swing states: Bush will carry FL OH WS IW NM NV and HI, result Bush with 302 ev’s. So even if he loses FL or OH, he still wins. Nitey nite.

  243. Chuck says:

    Oh yeah, my revised final prediction of swing states: Bush will carry FL OH WI IW NM NV and HI, 302 ev’s for Bush. Thus even if he were to lose FL or OH he would still win, and Kerry’s 10k lawyers be damned. Let’s see how that compares with Michael’s map. Nitey nite…

  244. rich says:

    Chuck, Chuck, Chuck! Bin Laden supports Kerry?

    Chuck. The Bushes have always supported the Bin Ladens and the Bin Ladens have always supported the Bushes. They need each other.

    The best thing that could happen for the Bush campaign now would be to have the most reviled character in American history come out in support of Kerry. Many dumb, weak minded people would say… “oh, he wants Kerry? Screw him! I’m voting for Bush!”

    The best thing that could happen for Bin Laden now would be to have Bush re-elected. Bush will continue acting in ways that create a recruiting bonanza to fill the ranks of Al kida (that’s how I spell it, anyway). That, coupled with Bush’s down-home, yokel-assed stupid incompetence to manage ANY phase of the Iraq situation would have me coming in my pants if I was bin laden. See the symbiosis? Four more years of this W twit and he’ll have his global jihad, and Bush will have his Biblical armageddon. I wish every one of the jerks who read that “Left Behind” sh*t would finally disappear and leave the humans alone.

    No, the Bush’s and the Bin Laden’s have always worked together and they always will. I find it more creepy that we spent 2 months in Afghanistan, passed on the opportunity to kill bin laden, then ran over to Iraq for no good reason, leaving the bogeyman alive to have something to rally us against. As if the finest military machine in the known universe can’t find one 6’4″ muslim in the middle of the desert dragging a dialysis machine around behind him!

    Personally, I don’t really give a sh*t who bin laden says he’s for or against and neither should any thinking person. Furthermore, for you and others like you to play along with that crap in order to advance your political agenda proves you to be petty, stupid, downright hateful, inhuman AND I’ll add … a traitor to the United States of America.

    Yes, I think Kerry would be a better leader in war and in peace than that crapload of a pansy-assed cheerleader ever could be. In any case, if I found myself back in a war zone and had to follow one or the other. I’d pick Kerry. Then I’d send Bush out on patrol by himself and, when he got into the middle of enemy territory, I’d broadcast a statement to the enemy to “BRING IT ON!!!”. If Johnson had made a statement like that while I was in Vietnam, I’d be in prison for life for asassinating him when I got back. (hint, hint to you Iraq vets whose lives were personally endangered by the macho, frat-boy prankster president)

    No, Chuck. Osama’s statements are Bush’s October surprise. The fact that the timing is totally lost on you, in addition to the real effect of it is not in the least surprising to me.

    Ok, Chuck. Now, get busy, be a good right wing ditto-head and pick out one point I make, find some other context to cast it in and mount a defense. Bore me.

  245. Chuck says:

    You need to get you some help Rich, you a sick man dude.

  246. rich says:

    Thanks. I am quite sick of Bush and “help is on the way”.

  247. ed says:


    you are rich.

    “Now, get busy, be a good right wing ditto-head and pick out one point I make, find some other context to cast it in and mount a defense”





  248. Phil says:

    Bush will win!

  249. ed says:

    not according to the RNC.

    They are already telling staffers to expect to lose.

    that bit of info from a friend of a friend who’s inside the campaign…

  250. Chuck says:

    Beautiful smoky mountain morning here. Well Ed and Rich, all I can say is about 9 gop seats gained in the house, at least 5 (prob more) governor gains, five or more senate gains and of course FL and OH and a presidential victory for Bush. What does it all mean? That you are WRONG. ARK and WV did not vote as you predicted. Rich’s nonsense is totally rejected by the people. I only missed WI. Its so great to see guys you like you proven wrong…See you in four years ! AH HA HA HA!!Hoo Hoo hee hee heeee gonna sleep good tonight

  251. nigel says:

    I did not log on today to gloat. I just wanted to say that i acknowledge that nearly half this country does not agree with my ideology. But at this point i would only ask that you join with we republicans to make this country better. I’ll give you a day or so to lick your wounds.

  252. Chris says:

    My big hope is that the Republican leadership share your sentiments of reaching across the aisle. At least I heard Bill Frist on CNN announce something to that effect, and he almost sounded sincere.

    Instead, my heart (and the history of the past four years) tells me that the future bodes more along the lines of the childish gloating of Chuck in the previous post. That is, based on the deeds of the past four years, I believe that “working together” to Republicans means that all critics should shut up and go along with the chief executive or be silenced, circumvented, and/or treated with contempt (irrespective of the validity or reality of their concerns).

    Although Ohio has not been called for either candidate as I write this, I don’t think Kerry will get it; I congratulate the Republicans on their win. Via a simple majority, the American people have spoken and have given Bush his mandate. For better or worse, the past and future consequences of Bush’s policies now rest squarely on the shoulders of the people of the United States. We have validiated before the world the deficit, the tortures, the unnecessary war in Iraq, the rising costs of fuel and health care, and the destruction of our environment. It is all on us, and not just a clique of politicians.

  253. rich says:

    Very typically Republican gloat, Chuck. I’m sure you’re joined by Osama in that joy. And my “nonsense” as you call it was not “totally rejected by the people”. If it was totally rejected, Kerry would have gotten 0%. As it was, a sitting President in the middle of a war (admittedly of his own making) had to resort to (is it too early to coin Carl’s name into a new word?) extreme rovery and spend huge sums of money just to stay in office. Compare to the results of the ’96 election. Hardly a gloatable success story.

    My take is that the American people simply have not suffered enough of the fruit of that tree. More deprivation, more war, more death, more denial, more repression, please. We can’t kill Indians or enslave Africans anymore, so… Eastward ho! Middle, that is. When we are sick of the stench of rotting corpses and economic ruin, we will vote for a change. As for me, I’m in it for the long hual. Got my kids to think about and my roots. I fought for my country once before (not from a control room or a safe, secure battleship 5 miles out to sea, but on the ground in a combat zone.) I’ll just continue fighting for my country. Truth will win out over money and power. It’s just a matter of time.

    For anyone still interested, there’s a wonderful speech given by Bill Moyers, which puts things in a historical perspective.

    Bill Moyer’s MP3 Audio — High Quality (for high speed connections)

    Bill Moyer’s MP3 Audio — Lower Quality (for dialup connections)

    Enjoy it.

    Finally, to reflect back on something Chuck said a while ago, about it not meaning much who is President… I’m oddly drawn to that now… 😉

    As individuals, we will all find what we need within us to sustain us through the most difficult times. I’m sure it was not easy for Kerry to have experienced beaching his boat, getting out and pursuing the enemy and then killing him… only to have his service record dragged through the mud by Carl Rove (bush’s brain). But he will find that within himself, unchanged, is the same love and strength that allowed him to perform that act of heroism. It’s his nature. It’s in him, as it is in me and so many others. “Totally rejected”? I think not, Chuck. As for those who bore false witness against Kerry (or anyone else), they get to be that… forever and ever. It reminds me of the old W.C. Fields bit from one of his movies. Two guys want to buy Fields’ land from him and come to pay him a visit. Fields’ character has been warned that these guys need the land badly and will pay a high price. Fields was always known for his heavy drinking.

    Guy One: “We’ll pay you $1000 for your land!”
    Fields: (taking a sip from a bottle) . ‘No, I don’t think so.”
    Guy Two: “O.k., we’ll give you $2000!”
    Fields: (another heavy sip) “No, don’t think so.”
    Guy One: “All right, $5000! And that’s my final offer”
    Fields: (a long guzzle) “No. And that’s my final ‘no'”
    Guy Two: “You’re drunk!”
    Fields: “Yeah? And you’re crazy. And tomorrow I’ll be sober, and you’ll be crazy for the rest of your life.”

    Kerry will be a war hero tomorrow, and those who thought any behavior on their part justified the end result will be what they are for the rest of their lives.

  254. ed says:

    fear won.
    welcome to the fourth reich.

  255. rich says:

    First order of business… raise the debt ceiling! Fkuc the children. We got our war on.

  256. gOtRiCeBiOtCh?!?!? says:

    aw shit bush won. sadness. i was really counting on kerry. guess we didn’t pull through for him. dissapointed…

  257. Chuck says:

    The fat lady has sung. Total repudiation of the dem party. 13 house seats, 5 senate, numerous governor and state legislatures and 11 states defining marriage. Not JUST a Bush victory. Instead of whining, dems would be wise to analyze themselves and their party. Why such total routs in two election cycles (don’t forget the sweep of ’02)? If bitterness and entrenchment becomes the prevailing mindset of the left, they will never see control in Washington again. Unity has to work both ways, it can’t be won by fighting the Civil War all over again. Americans in these and other elections have shown that they do care about issues of morality, whether some on the left like that or not. Understanding your own country outside the hate mantra could go along way toward achieving a greater unity. I gloated for the benefit of those like Rich and Ed who clearly represent this way of thinking…so filled with hate and bitterness that they can’t even explain it! I mean you guys no harm, just having a bit of sport ’cause you essentially asked for it. In truth I am sorry for the way you feel. My suggestion would be to find love in your hearts and begin from there. This is a beautiful country, filled with an abundance of such love and strong in its values, and our democracy works. This should be celebrated, not scorned and feared. Such nonsense as a fourth reich or Bush wanting to screw the children for a war reflect exactly what I am talking about. You guys have to get past that or you will never have a listening ear, I promise you that. Enough debate, its over now. I have argued long and alone on this page, and ultimately I was vindicated. Got no pride in that, just able to have yet another thing (among so many) to thank God about. God has and I pray will continue to Bless America! One last word to Michael…thanks for the site, but you really embarrassed yourself with the last map before the election. That was astonishing and disappointing and excellent proof that academians can be just as FOS as the rest of us lol!

  258. ed says:

    “My suggestion would be to find love in your hearts and begin from there”

    love is all i have. I have no hate in my heart…only anger. anger. anger that this country is so full of fear. It is fear that elected bush again. Fear of OSB, fear of terrorism. fear of gay people. fear of reason. Fear that Kerry is evil (as painted by Rove)

    Think what you wish Chuck. But this country is no longer Christian. Far far from it. It is now ruled by fundamentalist dominion driven power hungry psuedo new age “Christians”.

    Jesus said…”You cannot love both God and mammon, you will either love the one and hate the other…” “the love of money is the root of all evil”.

    I give you charge to go feel smug (vindicated..whatever). Just know that I pray that one day you see the truth. I’ll stay in the wilderness as a prophetic voice for as long as God gives me charge to be so.

  259. B.D.Sweed says:

    Again i say AMEN! Chuck, I’m sorry that I found this thread a little late in the game.
    by the time i got here it was already a hostile environment,So I became a silent bystander.
    I have been talking with hundreds of people in the last few months and working the phones all night
    for the Ohio republican party. I have found that all we had to do is reach a base of people that was already there and ask them to try to get one person interested in voting and promise to help them do it and make sure that they get to the right place to vote..I’m sure that those who made that happen was a great help. The base itself is now stronger than ever.So if I could give any advice to the Dem party i would have to say,”simmadownow and get a better canidate the next time”.
    As I said before any fool can say “I have a plan” but if you want more votes, spend some of that time and money to make people well aware of what that plan consist of..Kerry could have won.
    No Chuck, you were not alone the past week,I was checking in every day to see a real champion of
    democracy at work. Also to giggle like a school girl when Rich started to fall apart.
    Thanks for the words of wisdom.
    Rich, I have to give you the respect that a vet deserves.You seem very well educated in history
    but theres no time like the present to give up the hate brother.
    Ed,Stay out of the middle of the road,you will get run over. Peace! Out!

  260. ed says:

    Well. Jesus said that the way is narrow and that the road to hell is wide.

    I’ll stay prolife from conception to death, instead of conception to birth (right) and birth to death (left)

    Chuck once said that I must have thick skin to be hit from both sides.

    Well, if that’s the case. I must be doing something right.

  261. Chuck says:

    Ed, you need to rest son. Instead of a voice from the wilderness, you sound like a man lost in the wilderness. Something has gone terribly wrong for you somewhere sometime in your life, I hear it in your angry voice. As a Christian you should know to “fear not” and that you can turn this anger over to God. You must know this election was His will, or it would never had happened. If what you say is really how you feel, you are in a hopeless situation…surely you see that. I say instead find comfort and hope in knowing you are a child of God and you live in the greatest country in the world. Man just that should have you happy beyond measure. I have a teenage son like you. He just bitches and moans about everything, never once thinking of what he has, only what he doesn’t. Tell me- do you live in an urban area? I find that for some reason city people are the angriest bunch. Is it because of all the crap that goes with living in such a place? If you are in the country, then go outside and celebrate the beauty of God’s Earth. Maybe that will cheer you up.

    Hey Chris, remember this…”I rest my case?” Well, now I rest mine lol.

  262. ed says:

    I think God is big enough to handle my anger.

    Anger is not a sin. If it was then 1/3 of the psalms would be invalid.

    “Lord, grind mine enemies bones to dust …”

    Jesus got angry too…and he did something about it…”you have made my father’s house a den of thieves”.

    As far as being the “greatest” country in the world…sorry…I’m an idealist… There is no such thing as great compared to the glory of God’s Kingdom. To even think that we are the greatest implies superiority which implies pride, and we know what happens to it….”prides goes before the fall”.

    Remember…Rome was the “greatest empire too”….as was Greece…as was Egypt….

    Yeah I guess I am angry…but I’ve know America was the great whore of Babylon ever since I had visions of it as a child. I guess Armageddon is upon us.

  263. Chuck says:

    Did I actually hear you say our country is the great whore of Babylon?? Have you gotten any sleep since Tuesday? Are you undergoing any treatment? I’ll tell you, based on that, there is no way there will be any consensus or compromise for a man with that kind of thinking. Ed, my final conclusion about you is that you are simply an angry little fool shrouding himself in the phony cloak of a fake religion. As Trump would say…”You are fired!” No more replies to your foamy blathering.

  264. ed says:

    It’s a joke. Iraq…site of Babylon. We invaded…now we are it’s “whore”….Do you really think I interpret Revelation literally? Come on, you have to give me a little more credit than that.
    As far as being angry…It’s called going through the grief cycle. But I wouldn’t expect a judgmentalist like you to emphathize with me in that regard.

    As far as being Christian…I guess we’ll see who’s right and who’s wrong when Jesus sepparates the sheep from the goats. (Matthew 25:31-46)

    Considering the “real purpose” of this thread. I leave you guys with an exit poll a friend of mine just sent me. Not sure if it’s accurate..or a joke…or a combination of both…but it’s probably dead on (with exception of the evangelical vote…I think Kerry took about 10-20 of that)

    Kerry 96%    Bush 4%

    Exceptionally Smart People:
    Kerry 75%    Bush 25%

    Smart People:
    Kerry 60%    Bush 40%

    At Least Rational, if nothing else People:
    Kerry 50%    Bush 50%

    People who Need Constant Supervision:
    Kerry 25%    Bush 75%

    People who Wear their Name on their Shirt at Work:
    Kerry 15%    Bush 85%

    People who should Never be Allowed to Reproduce:
    Kerry 5%     Bush 95%

    Born-Again Christians:
    Kerry 4%     Bush 96%

    People who get all their news from Rush Limbaugh:
    Kerry 1%     Bush 99%

    People who Think the Earth is only 2004 Years Old:
    Kerry 0%     Bush 100%

  265. Chuck says:

    I owe Michael an apology, I somehow assumed that he was the author of the electoral map at this link
    I originally got to this page from the above link and made the erroneous assumption that he was responsible for the screwy map the night before the election. I am sorry professor!

  266. rich says:

    Chuck, you really are such a smarmy self-righteous little prig. Why don’t you go outside and breathe the fresh air yourself? While your doing it… seriously… think of a family in Iraq trying to eat dinner with what has to pass for a little peace and enjoyment. A mother putting the finishing touches on some dish or other, the dad more than a little tense knowing that this family, which he is responsible for, is in constant danger, but he has no options for emigration or improvement. There are 3 kids there; a 9 year old girl, a 6 year old boy and a 2 year old boy. The kids are laughing about something the 2 year old just said and for a moment, the parents are able to drop their constant fear and enjoy the moment. Think of their house blowing up a moment later and all becoming darkness, dust and fire with the children screaming… 2 of them anyway… and the parents and the 2 year old dead and dismembered. Blown to pieces. This happens all the time there. You don’t know about it because you watch the Fox Propaganda Channel and MSNBC. That’s the reason for my… and I imagine Ed’s… anger. Jesus Christ said to forgive one’s enemy, offer the other cheek, and to love one another. (And just to pre-empt one of your psuedo-clever turntable mind-games, being angry is not the same thing as blowing up innocent babies… no matter what the cause.) You can rationalize all you want, but Jesus Christ did not/does not approve of this filthy little war. Some people who actually experience empathy for others are horrified and angry about it. I can guarantee that one of those folks can enjoy a sunset in a quick sidelong glance at it for 2 seconds far more than you can in 30 minutes of sitting there with your stupid simpering self-righteous monologue clanging around in your otherwise empty head. O.K, go back inside now… almost time for O’Reilly to come on.

    You don’t really know your ass from a hole in the wall. I feel bad for your teenage son. He obviously DOES think about what he has… you for a dad… and if I was him, I’m sure I’d spend most of my time bitching, too. Here’s the difference between us… I also happen to have a teenage son. He’s just turning 15. I find him delightful. He thinks I’m so-o-o-o uncool. He thinks my music is dorky. He has to be told to do things 3 or 4 times before he gets it. I wouldn’t change a thing… not a thing… about him. He asks me questions about stuff and I answer him. Much of what I say hits a note of harmony with him. He often teaches me by how he reflects things back. He still sees things through the simple eyes of a child and I am the beneficiary of that. I’m honored to be his dad. I can’t imagine characterizing him in such a nasty way as you characterize your son. I think it has to do with your inability to empathize. Instead of being so quick to offer someone else your lame observations about what must have happened in their lives, after presuming to know how they feel… perhaps after all you should be the one seeking therapy.

    I do so much wish you and/or BD were anywere within dope-slap range of me when you take that self-righteous tone you are both so good at. But I don’t really have to worry too much about it. You son will be dope-slapping you soon enough… provided you don’t emasculate him first.

    And BD… I don’t have too much to say to you. You are clearly not that bright a person. I assume you are a female, as I don’t have to stretch the imagination too much to visualize you “giggling like a school-girl”. I think of women as being more empathetic about children being blown up, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    And to all. Winning is not “vindication” as Chuck calls it. Hitler won for many years, but he was never vindicated (except by Arian-Moron Brotherhood types). Sometimes good loses. Chuck blithely believes that whatever happens happens because God (his personal God) wants it to happen. Chuck is wrong. God can’t stand him, and yet he suffers listening to his self-righteous crap.

  267. ed says:

    thank you rich. Yet all is not lost. For the next four years W can no longer blame Clinton, or the liberals, since the GOP and the 4th Reich now own the whole darn show. From what I gather, now Delay wants to pass their national sales tax initiative. Guess W forget to borrow daddy’s phrase “Read my lips, no new taxes”. Combine that, with Iraq, with economy, and we’ll see what happens over the next 4 years.

  268. Chuck says:

    Rich, I forgive your bitterness and hate-filled bile toward me. I know its sour grapes, I expected victory and knew the reaction would be devastation for folk like you. There is no peace in your heart and that’s a sad thing. There is no further need to post on this page nor to read any more of your hateful junk; the people have spoken and your view is the minority voice for YEARS. Peace…

  269. God says:







  270. Rich says:

    Wow! Did you guys see that? Like a bolt from the blue! I wonder if He’s ever posted on the ‘net before? I’m gonna do some research. Too bad that spineless jellyfish, Chuck didn’t stick around for another day to see THAT! Probably too busy beating his son into submission to his will.

    Ed, yes I’m sure they’ll run it into the ground. My fear is mostly around Supreme Court and Constitutional Ammendment stuff. Maybe there won’t even be enough left to salvage in a few years.

    But I’ve been thinking lately about the phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them (the people) under absolute despotism, it is their (the people’s) right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” — words in parentheses are mine to afford clarity for the pronouns quoted out of context—

    This is clearly a call to a second American Revolution. I think it’s the only way. Remember, by the way, that the majority of Colonists did not support the first one, either. I will spend the next several months working to draw up a new Declaration modeled after the original, with referneces to the tyrannies of the new King George.


  271. Pingback: delta airline ticket

Comments are closed.