QandO
Questions and Observations| « Bite me, Frog-boy | Main | Celsius 250: The Temperature at which Fat Burns » |
|
June 29, 2004 Quick Hits *** Yes, he's kicking a man when his site is down--though I think he'd be amused--but, this is funny.
Having said that, and assuming Kerry wins.... Wouldn't it be wonderful if Kerry won the electoral college, but lost the popular vote? The next four years would be filled with Democrats explaining why it was "different this time", and--come to think of it--so would many Republicans.
--- Edward also makes a good point about Bush's recent claim to have fulfilled our promise... Until there is an elected government in place that represents ALL Iraqi voices, the pledge is not fulfilled. Talk of martial law and loop holes in the interim constitution that may allow more restrictive Islamic law into the final constitution, as well as the added complication of "ensuring" that anything happens in a fully "sovereign" nation make this just another in the long line of premature Mission Accomplished speeches by the President.I don't think the presence of some Islamic values in Iraqi law will render our promise unmet, but his point stands. Until the interim government succeeds in its purpose, our promise is not fulfilled....and, if we are serious about Iraq being "sovereign", we can hardly dictate events to them any longer. As with a teenager, we'll just have to hope we've set them far enough down the right path.....and be there, if they ask for help.
If I was in the Bush administration's communications department, and I knew that things were not going well in Iraq, and I wanted to spin the message my way -- I would set up a number of "Iraqi blogs" and use the information within to sway influential American opinionmakers.In fact, the last time I recall agreeing with Oliver Willis, it was about the exact same thing, when I wrote "I agree with Oliver here, but I'll go a step further. Why are we so sure that all of these Iraqi bloggers are actually Iraqi bloggers?" Don't worry, Oliver.....if you're accused of being a "conspiracy theorist", you can just tell them you got it from me.
...every Friday, a different group of bloggers and more traditional pundits get together and review the week's big stories. I envision a show where people like columnist Michelle Malkin and radio host Joe Kelley are on, as well as people like Stephen Taylor and Lawren K. Mills.Frankly, I think there are, ahem, bloggers here who would be very good on his show. Cam is asking for interested bloggers to participate, so check in with him. (hint: it could only help his prominence if he links QandO. Just sayin'...)
I believe this vindicates my position.
...Q&O made a perfectly reasonable point about James Rubin, only to see the comments degenerate into nasty remarks about Rubin's wife, Christiane Amanpour. I don't like Amanpour, whom I regard as excessively agenda-driven, but I wouldn't want her called names like that on my blog. Which means I'd either have to edit such comments out, or live with it. I don't have the time for the former, and I'm not willing to do the latter.It occurs to me that we've never really discussed our comment policy. That is, perhaps, because we don't really have one. As near as I can tell, our policy seems to be: 1: We delete spam, and duplicate comments. 2: We retain the right to delete needlessly and personally vicious, or libelous comments, though we have no done that yet as far as I am aware. (correc me if I'm wrong, guys) We generally have a very high tolerance for dissent--even disrespectful dissent--and welcome it.....though, we prefer civil dissent. That non-deletion does NOT imply that we support every comment on our blog, though I should think that goes without saying. More relevant, to me anyway, is this... The other problem, which I've seen both at blogs I agree with and blogs I don't, is that bloggers can be captured by their commenters. It's immediate feedback, and it's interesting (it's about you!) and I can imagine it could become addictive. My impression is that often, instead of serving as a corrective to errors, comment sections tend to lure bloggers farther in the direction they already lean. Anyway, I worry about that.I've worried about that a great deal, too. I'm aware that QandO is generally read by right-leaning people, and I've taken great pains to ensure that I do not simply turn this blog into a "preach to the choir" chorus of criticism of Democrats. You will note that each of us has been, at times, vocal in our criticism of the Bush administration and right wing pundits. So, you've been warned. I don't think QandO will ever be a warm ideological cocoon for right-of-center partisans. Or, at least, I hope it won't. |
Done. I actually thought I'd added you a while ago... thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. :)
Posted by: Cam at June 29, 2004 09:02 AM
Bush made the 2000 contest as close as it was becuase he was "warmer" than Gore - who should have romped given the fact that the nation was prospering and at peace.
Kerry is even stiffer and colder than Gore; therefore, if the nation is at peace and prospering the 2004 race will be a romp - 57%-42%-1%, and a cake walk in the EC.
IFF: Iraq or some other front in the GWOT / WW4 is going badly in the weeks (1-3) before the election, and IFF interest rates and employment numbers and stock indexes are ALL heading in "uncomfortable" directions, then Bush can lose.
The MOST critical moment will come when the affable, warm, familiar, natural, plain-speaking and direct Bush confronts the nuanced, complex, cold, stiff, aristocratic Kerry in a debate.
I suspect that EVEN IF Kerry is leading when this
debate occurs, Kerry's ineveitable egghead-like, easternerish, Boston-Brahmin-like, verbal convolutions will turn off most of the voters - and cost him key voters, and this will lose him the election --- just as Carter's weak performance against Reagan's strong performance turned the tide in 1980 - (at the time Reagan trailed Carter by 11%, in some polls!).
If Bush trails Kerry by double digits as the GOP convention begins, I expect Cheney to step aside for health reasons, and for him to nominate Powell or McCain to replace him on the ticket. Or Rice.
This would virtually guarantee a Bush popular vote victory.
Another weird scenario reamins a distinct possibility: A Powell VP candidacy might give Bush enough Black American votes in urban areas to carry the national popular vote, but not enough to carry the urban-voter "rich" and "Blue" states: In this case Kerry might cobble together an EC win - while losing the popular vote 51%-47$-2%.
I think this is the ONLY scenario for this outcome - AND AGAIN: I believe it ultimately depends on horrific events outside Bush's or Kerry's control - like a massive, WMD multi-city-target/mega-terror attack against the USA - here in the USA - or against the UK - and the subsequent ECONOMIC DOWNTURN.
I do not think that - emotionally - Americans will react as the Spaniards reacted - by APPEASING THE ENEMY. But the markets will pullback, and this retrenchment will deny Bush the ability to portray his administration as "in control" and his accomplishemnts in an upbeat way; therefore, Kerry will - BY DEFAULT - become the choice for the straddlers seeking change, and Bush will lose 53%-45%-2%.
A Kerry victory in 2004 would be as good for the USA and the Free World as a Carter victory would have been for the nation and the Free World in 1980.
If Carter had won - the USSR might still be in power, and our hostages might still be held in Iran; oil might cost $5/gallon, every winter easterners would have to don layers of thermal undrewear to stay warm as they wait in long lines to buy gasoline; and inflation and unemployment might still be in double digits.
Kerry is Carter REDUX: he just doen't get it - he overvalues diplomacy and undervalues military strength, which - in the final analysis (and as Reagan's dealings with Gorby prove) - is the only way to make diplomacy effective.
As an anti-War activist and as a left-wing,
anti-Pentagon spending, anti-CIA spending Senator, Kerry is one of the central progenitors of the Vietnam Syndrome which led directly to:
1 - the Fall of Vietnam and 2 million boat people;
(at least that many SURVIVED the boat trips - many more probably attempted to flee Vietnamese totalitarianism, but died in transit!)
2 - POL POT and 2 million murdered in genocide in Cambodia;
3 - the gutting of the CIA and The Pentagon;
4- the fall of the Shah in Iran and the invention of transnational, state-sponsored Jihadism;
5 - the emboldening of the USSR and their invasion of Afghanistan;
5 - the USSR's stepped up involvement/hegemony - and sposorship of totalitarian regimes in Central America, South America, Africa and the Carribean;
6 - the USSR sponsored rise - by coup - of Saddam in Iraq.
This PARTIAL list of the awful results of the Vietnam Syndrome (which Kerry and Fonda and the Left-wing of the DNC created) is damning.
Reagan reversed ALL of these events and the Left-wing "defeatist/accomodationist" trends and saved America, and with Thatcher saved the Free World - and ALSO freed half the world who were enslaved to Soviet hegenony and totalitiarianism.
At the time Kerry didn't get it; he still doesn't get it.
Kerry is still weak on defense and still a "tax and spend liberal". EVEN THOUGH REAGAN AND BUSH 43 HAVE PROVED THAT THESE APPROACHES FAIL.
Clinton "got it" and ran as a centrists = as post-Reagan Democrat. That's why and how he won.
Kerry cannot run this way - because it would be a lie, contrary to his entire public life and political/Senate record. And it would also NOT win him the election, because he cannot triangulate Bush on that tack.
SO: even though the 2004 election maybe close - the difference to our common future is NOT close: Kerry (if we use history as our guide) would be a disaster for the USA and the Free World.
That's why this 4th generation registered Democrat voter is voting BUSH.
Posted by: dan at June 29, 2004 09:02 AM
Cam: Thanks. Consider yourself absolved of all sin. Or, as much sin as is in my jurisdiction to absolve. :)
Dan: Well, that's certainly the GOP spin on Kerry and the election. I disagree, especially with the "57-42" margin. If you seriously believe that, you need to take a great deal less drugs. Or a great deal more.
I make my prediction based on current events. Granted, future events may change that calculation, but I can't exactly predict which time-stream we'll travel down at this point.
Frankly, this election most closely resembles, to me, the 1980 election. With Bush as Carter.
Posted by: Jon Henke at June 29, 2004 09:11 AM
Jon - in effect you argue that Kerry is more Reaganlike than Bush 43 is. That is patently ABSURD!
SO WHO is "ON DRUGS"?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?
(recreational or mental/emotional health-related).
[BTW: I consider such comments stupid personal attacks that advance nothing and belittle those who make them.
I only retorted in kind to illustrate how silly your point is.
TRULY: such personal attacks are beneath you and the normally high-tone of your blog.
DON'T DO IT AGAIN. I do not take drugs and those that say so publicly are slandering me.
Please apologize. Publicly]
Now back on point:
REMEMBER THAT REAGAN BEAT CARTER IN A ROMP!
From being 11% BEHIND!
REAGAN BEAT CARTER because of his upbeat and direct debate performance against the dour and serious Carter.
Gore is a better debater than Kerry,
and GORE LOST ALL THREE DEBATES TO BUSH!!!!!!!!!!
KERRY CANNOT WIN THE DEBATE WITH BUSH ---
NOT STYLISTICALLY AND NOT ON THE FACTS.
Kerry will lose the election in the debate.
Posted by: dan at June 29, 2004 09:33 AM
I am a registered Democrat - have been since 1974.
I have voted ONCE in my entire life for any GOP candidate for anything: Giuliani - in his re-election bid.
I am not going to vote for Kerry NOT because I am towing any GOP line on Kerry -- as you impugn, but because Kerry's record (as a VVAW activist and as a Senator - and which I have followed for the last 30 years) - indicates to me he just doesn't "get it."
Kerry is a left-winger - NOT A DLC DEMOCRAT.
This ain't me spinning or me regurgitating GOP spin.
The Left has considered Kerry one of their own since 1971. I repeat: This is NOT GOP spin, Anyone who claims this is GOP spin is wrong.
Kerry is a left-winger in the "left-wingier" party. These are facts, not spin.
Posted by: dan at June 29, 2004 09:42 AM
Many many thanks for the links... You may also want to check out my example of a classic Moore lie from F9/11 (by omission).
Posted by: HH at June 29, 2004 10:29 AM
in effect you argue that Kerry is more Reaganlike than Bush 43 is. That is patently ABSURD!
- - -Huh? I'm not aware that I argued that. I argue that the conditions, in some ways, echo 1980. Heightened public concern about the economy and our foreign policy, and an increasing disapproval and lack of faith in the current President.
"TRULY: such personal attacks are beneath you and the normally high-tone of your blog."
- - -It wasn't a personal attack. I say the same thing about myself at times, and I don't take anything stronger than aspirin. It was intended as a humorous way of saying "you're off your meds", which is, itself, a humorous way of saying "you're nuts", which is, itself, a humorous way of saying "you're really really really wrong". Etc.
"Kerry is a left-winger in the "left-wingier" party. These are facts, not spin."
- - -As with almost any Senator, Kerry has a record all over the board, though his voting record certainly leans farther left. As President, he would be unable, for a variety of reasons, to be significantly left-leaning. Like Clinton, he'd preach to the left, and govern to the center....he'd have to.
Posted by: Jon Henke at June 29, 2004 10:39 AM
The context Atrios leaves out, by the way, was Clinton saying that Limbaugh "made up" the stuff about Foster when every time he reported what others were saying. The part Clinton is referring to is a rumor that was being pushed (and it was referred to by Limbaugh as a "rumor") by a Morgan Stanley newsletter, which never went to press and Ruddy took down. Bringing in Ruddy, who has been held to account many times for his reporting, to discuss it, isn't "making it up." Also, the American Spectator, which Limbaugh usually agreed with, lost a donor because it ridiculed a book arguing that it was a murder, yet David Brock wrote in "Blinded by the Right" (a tome Atrios pushed heavily) that they embraced the idea that it was a murder.
Posted by: HH at June 29, 2004 10:48 AM
Jon, I disagree with you on the election. I've been following Gerry Dale's site,
http://home.comcast.net/~gerrydal/
and have noticed a trend that seems to go directly against your gut feel. Bush's states are tending to solidify toward Bush, while that's not true of Kerry's.
In fact, some of Kerry's states, like Michigan and Wisconsin, have just about slid into Bush's column, and Minnesota isn't far behind. That's because those three states have had drops in unemployment much bigger than the rest of the nation during May (according to the BLS). If that trend continues in June, then I can see all three of those states go Republican.
I'll grant you that Bush isn't exactly setting conservatives on fire, but he's still electrifying compared to Kerry.
Posted by: Steverino at June 29, 2004 11:22 AM
Oh, one thing I forgot: a HUGE jump in Consumer Confidence this month. Look for polls showing a trend toward Bush over the next 3 weeks, barring some unforeseen bad news.
Posted by: Steverino at June 29, 2004 11:31 AM
I do not know where anyone is thinking that Bush's support is soft. Every poll shows 80%+ support among Bush's base, and only in the 60s for Kerry's base. Kerry had to beg the Hispanics today in Arizona to vote for him.
If Bush can survive the last three months, he will win with ease. Kerry is a sinking ship right before the final wave washes over him.
Posted by: Jan Tallent at June 29, 2004 04:27 PM