September 16, 2004

Stray Voltage
Posted by McQ

Who’s Bill Burkett ... well if you want a pretty complete picture, don’t rely on the MSM, check out Ace of Spades instead. And excellent run down on the man suspected to be the source for the forged memos.

--------------------------

The Kerry Spot on NRO reminds us that there is a race for the presidency going on and it seems the news is getting worse on the Kerry side of the ledger:

While all of us are focused on exposing Dan Rather as a blatantly dishonest hack, the polls are, by and large, falling apart for John Kerry.

We reported earlier that a poll has Bush up in New Jersey, down by only four in Illinois. Now we notice Bush is up 6 in Florida, up 4 in Nevada, tied in Minnesota, up 3 in Pennsylvania, Bush up by 2, 6, or 8 in Wisconsin. The three most recent Ohio polls have Bush up 12, 3, and 9.

This doesn't mean the election is over — not by a long shot.

Heed the last line. But last line included, it is not looking good, at this time, for the Dems.

---------------------------

Robert Novak is having trouble figuring out the Kerry/Gun Control gambit. His essential question is “why”? Its mostly a loser, yet he continues to return to it. His analysis:

Last Friday, Sen. Kerry abruptly returned to the safely buried gun control issue by decrying President Bush for permitting the assault weapons ban to end. On Saturday, he addressed the Congressional Black Caucus with a liberal harangue. On Sunday, Kerry rested. On Monday, Kerry was back boosting gun control, scolding Bush for letting the assault weapons ban expire at midnight.

Only two explanations are possible, and neither is reassuring to worried Democrats. Kerry could be making a conscious, though counterproductive, decision to reassure his liberal base. Or, he could be trapped by the calendar of events -- talking gun control because a deadline had been reached and talking civil rights because the Black Caucus invited him. Democratic strategists are particularly concerned by the latter explanation, suggesting a mindless campaign.

With the reported “civil war” raging inside the campaign, it appears the candidate himself is adrift. So he’s reduced to “issues of opportunity” since there’s no real direction to his campaign?

Not a good sign for Kerry/Edwards.

-------------------------------

I read it in today’s Atlanta Journal Constitution and Whizbang is reporting that it was also in the Washington Post that there may be more “documents” about to be released concerning Bush’s Guard service.

In a related development, White House press secretary Scott McClellan hinted that more documents regarding Bush's National Guard service may soon be released. Asked whether officials in the White House have seen unreleased documents, McClellan called that "a very real possibility." Other officials with knowledge of the situation said more documents had indeed been uncovered and would be released in the coming days.

I use the scare quotes on “documents” because it remains to be seen whether they’re real or not.

---------------------------------

Hurricane Ivan roared into Mobile Bay last night sending 53 foot waves crashing toward the shore. We here at Q and O send along our hope that all who were and are in Ivan’s path remain safe and healthy.

---------------------------------

Kofi Annan sounds like a Kerry echo chamber, or is it the other way around? From a BBC interview:

Q: Are you bothered that the US is becoming an unrestrainable, unilateral superpower?

A: Well, I think over the last year, we've all gone through lots of painful lessons. I'm talking about since the war in Iraq. I think there has been lessons for the US and there has been lessons for the UN and other member states and I think in the end everybody is concluding that it is best to work together with our allies and through the UN to deal with some of these issues. And I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time.

Q: Done without UN approval - or without clearer UN approval?

A: Without UN approval and much broader support from the international community.

Annan goes on to say he considers the war to have been “illegal”. He forgets to mention that UN resolution 1441 included language which essentially said that any member nation of the United Nations was allowed to take military action against Saddam Hussein if the provisions of all the resolutions are not completely complied with. They weren’t and the rest is history.

TrackBack

Comments

One day I went cherry picking and lo and behold, I picked some cherries.

From the WSJ:

Sen. John Kerry and President Bush are now enjoying almost equal levels of support, according to the latest Harris Interactive poll.

Immediately after the Republican convention in New York, several polls showed Mr. Bush jumping ahead of Mr. Kerry with a clear lead of between six and 11 percentage points. There's no such "convention bounce" for the president in the latest poll by Harris.

The Harris poll, conducted by telephone Sept. 9-13, shows Sen. Kerry leading Mr. Bush 48% to 47% among likely voters nationwide. The poll also found that a slender 51% to 45% majority doesn't believe that Mr. Bush deserves to be re-elected.

****

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Could the American people be finally waking up to the fact that Bush is losing us the War in Iraq?

46 American KIA's this month alone. And now it turns out we cannot even keep the Green Zone safe.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e0214956-074f-11d9-9672-00000e2511c8.html

Americans may hate effete, Northeastern liberals. But the one thing they hate even more is a loser - especially in a war. Especially one who is so out of touch he doesn't even know he is losing.


Posted by: mkultra at September 16, 2004 10:37 AM

Kofi Annan for it before he was against it.

Posted by: Slacker at September 16, 2004 11:30 AM

mk, do you understand the concept of an outlier poll?

(I'm guessing not, so try to surprise me.)

Posted by: Steverino at September 16, 2004 12:17 PM

And it would help tremendously if all of us really thought we were "losing" the "war" in Iraq.

The only thing Kerry knows for sure on a given day is that he might have been in Cambodia but maybe not.

Posted by: looker at September 16, 2004 12:27 PM

Sullivan says:

"The president has no excuse for not knowing the disaster that his conduct of the war has unleashed, as his own internal assessment has been bleak. But he refuses to ackowledge reality - perhaps the most dangerous characteristic in a war-president. At this rate, it won't matter that John Kerry seems unable to make the case against the president. The shambles that this president has created in Iraq war will do it for him."

And then he says:

"But if the voters realize at some point in this campaign that the president is simply living in a dreamworld, they might vote for someone who, for all his faults, is at least able to recognize reality."

Ditto. Remember why Bush I lost? Because he seemed out of touch. Of course, Bush I had actually won a war, so his being out of touch wasn't the threat to the United States that his son's is.

But let's let Bush I speak for himself. From a Bush I speech in '98:

"Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours -- and then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

The non-sins of the father are visited on the son.


Posted by: mklutra at September 16, 2004 01:26 PM

MK, Congratulations you found a poll that suited your paradigm, here's a poll that shows Kerry up by a grand total of 6 points in a three way race--in New York. I'm sure others will use it to tell everyone that Bush is going to run away with the election. I'm sure if I had the time or if I cared enough, I'd be able to find more. Look I work heavily in statistics and as we like to tell our business leaders, one point does not a trend make. That's what both your link and the one I put in above represent.

Posted by: Curt Mitchell at September 16, 2004 02:16 PM

Are you purposely missing my point?

I think polls are crap too. On the eve of the 2000 election, the polls said Bush would win the popular vote.

My point was is that IF you are going to cite polls, why not cite all the relevant polls, or at least a representative sample. The problem with McQ is that he cites only those polls that prove his point - and ignores the rest. And then, when I attempt to bring a little balance, I get some idiotic response that I am being selective in the polls I cite. Of course I am. DUH. That's my point - to show there are other polls out there.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?

Please stop making my head hurt.

Posted by: mkultra at September 16, 2004 02:49 PM

Actually MK I brought up a story at the Kerry Corner which cited a poll. Make of it what you wish. Or, as you've done, trot out a red herring instead.

Posted by: McQ at September 16, 2004 02:54 PM

My point was is that IF you are going to cite polls, why not cite all the relevant polls, or at least a representative sample.

This is hysterically funny coming from someone who just mentioned ONE poll with the best numbers for Kerry and tried to pass it off as representative.

You didn't answer my question about outlying polls, mk. Did you not understand it? Or do you not know what an outlier is? Do you understand how a polling service can conduct a valid poll and still produce a result that is more than its MOE off?

Tom Bevan over at RealClearPolitics.com has a list of all Presidential polls, going back over months. The mean of the last 9 (including your precious Harris poll) shows Bush up 48.8% to 43.8%. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: Steverino at September 16, 2004 04:07 PM

And it would help if the popular vote meant anything.

And thank God it doesn't.

Posted by: looker at September 16, 2004 04:09 PM

I will say this one more time: I didn't try to pass of the poll I cited as representative. I cited it in order to bring some balance to McQ's cited polls. My hope was that together the cited polls would be representative.

Just having to explain this three times is indicative of a larger problem with some who post here.

Posted by: mkultra at September 16, 2004 04:59 PM

Looker said:

"And it would help if the popular vote meant anything.

And thank God it doesn't."

Spoken like a true right-winger. We wouldn't want the majority deciding anything, now would we?

Posted by: mklutra at September 16, 2004 05:02 PM

A little over 6 hours ago I posted that there have been 46 American KIA's this month.

Now the number is up to 51. And there is not one goddamm news story on the subject. Tell me again that we are winning. Tell me again how the MSM hates Bush so much that they would write story after story about our troop losses just to hurt him.

Posted by: mkultra at September 16, 2004 05:05 PM

Spoken like a true right-winger. We wouldn't want the majority deciding anything, now would we?
I don't think either party has a lock on that particular issue. Gay marriage, anyone? (I support it, btw)

Posted by: Jon Henke at September 16, 2004 05:05 PM

Precisely right, MK ... we wouldn't. That's why the folks who founded this place put together a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.

BTW, when you get time in your heavy load of shotgunning comments on blogs you disagree with read Federalist 10 by James Madison. He ably explains why there was a real desire to ensure rule by the majority never took place.

Its called "minority rights". As a lefty you'd think you'd be up on something like that.

Posted by: McQ at September 16, 2004 05:05 PM

MK - TRUE democracy IS
6 wolves and 2 sheep voting about lunch.
End of story.

A "majority" of white people can then decide one day that it's a great idea for the BLACK people to be slaves again, is that it?

You're depending on the majority to make good decisions. That just does not happen. What would have happened to the Arabs in the U.S. the day after 9/11 if we'd had a simple democracy and someone had put it to a vote about what to DO about them. I can tell you I heard more stupid comments about using NUKES on 9/11 than I've heard in my cold-war life.

"We wouldn't want the majority deciding anything, now would we?" Spoken like someone who wasn't paying attention in government class, and also spoken like an Al Gore for President in 2000 voter. I am personally horrified that the former Vice President of the United States DIDN'T UNDERSTAND this concept, and you should be too.

I have no intention of seeing a government in place where the populations of about 10 states can dictate policy to the other 40.

Posted by: looker at September 16, 2004 06:03 PM

Jon, I support gay civil unions rather than calling it marriage. This only because moving the foundation from under the people who are all exercised about the semantics of the word Marriage is going to be virtually impossible.

There's no reason these people shouldn't enjoy the benefits of a legal 'couple' as long as they go and make it official.

And as long as I'm going on record for shit - the war on drugs is a big waste of time and money. We used to allow people to pop, shoot, snort, and smoke and we managed to expand from the east coast to the west, spanned the continent by rail, built the Panama canal, etc.

Posted by: looker at September 16, 2004 06:17 PM