John Kerry has one last chance to control his own destiny in the first Presidential debate later tonight. By now it's clear to all but only the most optimistic supporter that Kerry is both behind and in big trouble. (And for those of you that think differently, call me: I have a fresh round of swampland to sell you in Florida.) But he has one last chance to change the momentum with a big victory in the first Presidential debate tonight. Make no mistake: it has to be tonight, because the viewership will go way down for any future debates, absentee votes are being cast, and if there's no shift by tomorrow there will simply not be enough voters left to sway.
Because of this, Kerry can’t go into tonight to just “win” the debate any more than an up-and-coming heavyweight boxer can expect to win a decision in a closely-fought contest. Human nature works against him in several ways:
1) The majority of voters have made up their minds, and once people make a decision they tend to look for things to reinforce it, not change it.
2) The few remaining undecided and “leaning” voters know what they’re getting with Bush. If they hated him, they would already be in the Kerry camp. So they might as well be assumed to actually be leaning towards Bush. If it’s a tie in their minds, that’s where their votes will go.
3) Regardless of the reason, Kerry’s negative numbers are almost as high as Bush’s. He isn't going to get someone’s vote because they like him personally, as might happen with John Edwards. (Though for the life of me I can’t understand why Edwards gets such high likeability ratings.)
So if I were on Kerry’s coaching staff, here’s the gameplan that I would draw up:
-Keep it simple. If you feel like you need to explain the nuances of your answer, it’s a bad answer.
-Forget about Vietnam. The people who can’t let Vietnam go have already made up their minds. No one else cares, nor will they vote for or against you based on what you or Bush did in Vietnam.
-Do not underestimate your opponent. George Bush is already taking the Lou Holtz strategy by telling everyone what a great debater you are, and how he hopes to somehow hold his own. Don’t believe it. Bush may not be a classic debater, but he’s a clever one. He’s fooled a lot of people into thinking he’s a dumb ass. He’s not.
-Outline your plan for Iraq. Not a wish list, and not some diatribe that conjures up memories of Hillary Clinton's health care plan. Right now, there is not one person in this country who has an inkling on what you plan to do. Take a cue from the RNC: Bush outlined a plan for his second term. He didn’t give every specific detail about how it would be accomplished, but it did not come off as pie-in-the-sky either. (Except for how to pay for it.) This is the foreign policy debate! If you can’t articulate an Iraq plan that Joe and Mary Beer Can will be able to grasp you will be headed for the south end of a landslide.
Oh, and by the way, I don’t think his handlers appear smart enough to make leaps this basic and necessary. To use an NFL analogy, Kerry is being coached by the equivalent staff of Norv Turner, Dave Wanndstadt, Marty Morninwheg and Dennis Erickson. Too bad he’s Jay Fiedler instead of Joe Montana.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
WHY SENATORS MAKE BAD PRESIDENTS
Only 5 Presidents, Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson were Senators before they were elected President. Of those Harding never held another elected position, and Truman only held a judgeship and the Vice-Presidency. Why?
Perhaps the reason lies in what makes a successful Senator: a diplomat. Unfortunately, “diplomat” and “leader” don’t make good bedfellows. Rare is the Senator that can a) strike the populous as a leader of the country, and b) can execute once they get there. History has not been kind to Harding or Lyndon Johnson, and the jury is out on Nixon and in some circles on Kennedy.
The point? John Kerry. He seems to have the makeup of a successful Senator: flexible, nuanced, a horse trader of sorts. Yet he doesn’t have what appears to be the makings of a good President: decisiveness and direction.
The Liberal Colorado Friend lamented a few days ago about the Democratic Party. “What happened to standing up for the little guy? That’s what the Democrats were always about. Instead, I have this eastern, blueblood, upper-crust pansy who seems to have absolutely no connection to the common man, and the guy that is connecting with them is another East Coast blueblood upper-crust pansy. One opted out of service, and the other took film of everything he did.”
Alas, I couldn’t agree more. Bush in a nose-holding landslide. Ahhh…shades of Nixon…the ex-Senator.
(Note to self: this one sounds like a true “blog” as opposed to an editorial. Must consult with the Conservative Wife.)
Perhaps the reason lies in what makes a successful Senator: a diplomat. Unfortunately, “diplomat” and “leader” don’t make good bedfellows. Rare is the Senator that can a) strike the populous as a leader of the country, and b) can execute once they get there. History has not been kind to Harding or Lyndon Johnson, and the jury is out on Nixon and in some circles on Kennedy.
The point? John Kerry. He seems to have the makeup of a successful Senator: flexible, nuanced, a horse trader of sorts. Yet he doesn’t have what appears to be the makings of a good President: decisiveness and direction.
The Liberal Colorado Friend lamented a few days ago about the Democratic Party. “What happened to standing up for the little guy? That’s what the Democrats were always about. Instead, I have this eastern, blueblood, upper-crust pansy who seems to have absolutely no connection to the common man, and the guy that is connecting with them is another East Coast blueblood upper-crust pansy. One opted out of service, and the other took film of everything he did.”
Alas, I couldn’t agree more. Bush in a nose-holding landslide. Ahhh…shades of Nixon…the ex-Senator.
(Note to self: this one sounds like a true “blog” as opposed to an editorial. Must consult with the Conservative Wife.)
Thursday, September 23, 2004
THE POWER OF THE MEDIA
So, you don't think that Big Media actually has much sway on you, and if they are so bold as to tell you how to think you're smart enough not to buy it? Then explain the latest NBC News/WSJ poll on the presidential race. It offers some interesting fodder for just how much Big Media skews people's opinions, even to the point where the public ignores logic and their own observations in favor of what B.M. is shoving down their throats.
The best example I see in this particular poll relates to people's perception of the economy. We can all recite what B.M. has been telling us for the past 2 years: Bush runs up deficits, jobs are being outsourced overseas, the economy is horrid…translation: we are all doomed unless a change is made. Fair enough, maybe even accurate. But let’s take look at the polling data. (And incidentally, I will e-mail the entire .pdf file to anyone that wants it; that way you can look beyond these excerpts and draw your own conclusions.)
NOTE: Everything in blue is taken from the poll. The number at the front of each question is where it was in order on the actual poll:
10d. I'm going to mention two sets of issues. Please tell me which set of issues is more important to you in deciding for whom you will vote in the presidential election?
Set A: Terrorism and social issues and values
Set B: The economy and health care
Set A/terrorism and values more important...........44
Set B/economy and health care more important....44
Both equally important...............................................11
Not sure .........................................................................1
This establishes that the economy is at least on equal par with terrorism as an election issue. B.M. has intimated for over 2 years that Bush is lousy with the handling of the economy. And, the polling data seems to back that up:
9a. Overall, do you think the country is better off or worse off than it was four years ago?
Better off................................................35
Worse off............................................... 55
No difference/about the same .............6
Not sure ..................................................4
21. Over the past twelve months, do you think that the nation's economy has gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed about the same?
Economy has gotten better.....................29
Economy has gotten worse.....................36
Economy has stayed about the same....34
Not sure......................................................1
14. Now I'd like you to compare George W. Bush and John Kerry on a few issues. For each one, please tell me whether you think that George W. Bush or John Kerry would be better on that issue. If you think that both would be equally good or that neither would be good on a particular issue, just say so:
Jobs and Unemployment
BUSH..........32%
KERRY.......48
EQUAL.......10
NEITHER....5
NOT SURE..5
The Federal Budget Deficit
BUSH...........28%
KERRY........45
EQUAL.........8
NEITHER....11
NOT SURE...8
So the public apparently agrees that Kerry would be better with the economy. But now, take a look at these 2 items:
22. During the next twelve months, do you think that the nation's economy will get better, get worse, or stay
about the same?
Economy will get better................... 43
Economy will get worse.....................13
Economy will stay about the same...33
Not sure.............................................. 11
23a. Would you say that you and your family are better off or worse off than you were four years ago?
Better off................................................44
Worse off ...............................................35
No difference/about the same .......... 20
Not sure....................................................1
How can this be? How can between approximately 65% of the people say that they are better off or holding their own AND believe things are getting better or staying consistent, yet also say in almost equal numbers how bad the economy is? Simple: B.M. has beat into their heads so much that the economy is awful and they're doomed that they actually buy it, despite their own personal observational and empirical evidence to the contrary!
There is plenty of polling data in the .pdf and we all know how easy it is to manipulate results if there is enough data to work with. I'm willing to listen to any of you who want to refute what I have to say. Keep in mind, though, this isn’t an indictment or an endorsement of any candidate or issue, but rather pointing out just how much influence we have allowed B.M., talk radio and others with an agenda to sway our thought process. To punctuate this further, note that NBC didn’t see fit to put their own poll on their site, opting instead to only give the readers their spin.
As thinking citizens of this country, we have to be more questioning and less gullible. And at some point, we have got to hold Big Media’s feet to the fire.
The best example I see in this particular poll relates to people's perception of the economy. We can all recite what B.M. has been telling us for the past 2 years: Bush runs up deficits, jobs are being outsourced overseas, the economy is horrid…translation: we are all doomed unless a change is made. Fair enough, maybe even accurate. But let’s take look at the polling data. (And incidentally, I will e-mail the entire .pdf file to anyone that wants it; that way you can look beyond these excerpts and draw your own conclusions.)
NOTE: Everything in blue is taken from the poll. The number at the front of each question is where it was in order on the actual poll:
10d. I'm going to mention two sets of issues. Please tell me which set of issues is more important to you in deciding for whom you will vote in the presidential election?
Set A: Terrorism and social issues and values
Set B: The economy and health care
Set A/terrorism and values more important...........44
Set B/economy and health care more important....44
Both equally important...............................................11
Not sure .........................................................................1
This establishes that the economy is at least on equal par with terrorism as an election issue. B.M. has intimated for over 2 years that Bush is lousy with the handling of the economy. And, the polling data seems to back that up:
9a. Overall, do you think the country is better off or worse off than it was four years ago?
Better off................................................35
Worse off............................................... 55
No difference/about the same .............6
Not sure ..................................................4
21. Over the past twelve months, do you think that the nation's economy has gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed about the same?
Economy has gotten better.....................29
Economy has gotten worse.....................36
Economy has stayed about the same....34
Not sure......................................................1
14. Now I'd like you to compare George W. Bush and John Kerry on a few issues. For each one, please tell me whether you think that George W. Bush or John Kerry would be better on that issue. If you think that both would be equally good or that neither would be good on a particular issue, just say so:
Jobs and Unemployment
BUSH..........32%
KERRY.......48
EQUAL.......10
NEITHER....5
NOT SURE..5
The Federal Budget Deficit
BUSH...........28%
KERRY........45
EQUAL.........8
NEITHER....11
NOT SURE...8
So the public apparently agrees that Kerry would be better with the economy. But now, take a look at these 2 items:
22. During the next twelve months, do you think that the nation's economy will get better, get worse, or stay
about the same?
Economy will get better................... 43
Economy will get worse.....................13
Economy will stay about the same...33
Not sure.............................................. 11
23a. Would you say that you and your family are better off or worse off than you were four years ago?
Better off................................................44
Worse off ...............................................35
No difference/about the same .......... 20
Not sure....................................................1
How can this be? How can between approximately 65% of the people say that they are better off or holding their own AND believe things are getting better or staying consistent, yet also say in almost equal numbers how bad the economy is? Simple: B.M. has beat into their heads so much that the economy is awful and they're doomed that they actually buy it, despite their own personal observational and empirical evidence to the contrary!
There is plenty of polling data in the .pdf and we all know how easy it is to manipulate results if there is enough data to work with. I'm willing to listen to any of you who want to refute what I have to say. Keep in mind, though, this isn’t an indictment or an endorsement of any candidate or issue, but rather pointing out just how much influence we have allowed B.M., talk radio and others with an agenda to sway our thought process. To punctuate this further, note that NBC didn’t see fit to put their own poll on their site, opting instead to only give the readers their spin.
As thinking citizens of this country, we have to be more questioning and less gullible. And at some point, we have got to hold Big Media’s feet to the fire.
Monday, September 20, 2004
IN PRAISE OF BLOGGERS
There’s a war going on internally. I have to admit that the Machiavellian side of me is thirsting for Dan Rather’s blood as an example of lousy, partisan journalism. He and CBS have been pushing forth an agenda for years that, regardless of your politics, is an insult to what journalism is supposed to be: impartial, fair, and balanced. Sadly, precious little of the media adheres to that criteria. We are in a code yellow: yellow journalism.
However, I did mention an internal war, and there is that other side: the side that’s embarrassed to watch the demise of true journalism. I suppose this is offset to a large degree because I'm proud to be in the blogging community. We the bloggers are now the ones who now are keeping the journalists honest, making a once-honorable-now-lazy-and-partisan profession have to re-examine itself for those journalistic principles that many of its reporters and editors have sadly lost.
Of course, bloggers aren’t subject to the same scrutiny that journalists are (or should be). Bloggers can, and do, write anything they want, no matter how outrageous. But this makes the whole Rather/CBS scandal even more stunning: “amateurs” are exposing a man and a network that so want to see Bush defeated that they skipped basic journalistic scrutiny and ran a story with so many holes in it that 30 Dutch boys couldn’t save it.
Bloggers have become the watchdogs of this lazy journalistic environment that we now live in. Their watchdog are others who read their columns and make public comments. And that’s as it should be. America is possibly coming to a new reality, where bloggers do the research that used to be done by ethical journalists, and are then checked by their readers. Unfortunately, those who continue to get their news solely from major networks and big city newspapers are the equivalent of dumb asses being led around by the nose.
However, I did mention an internal war, and there is that other side: the side that’s embarrassed to watch the demise of true journalism. I suppose this is offset to a large degree because I'm proud to be in the blogging community. We the bloggers are now the ones who now are keeping the journalists honest, making a once-honorable-now-lazy-and-partisan profession have to re-examine itself for those journalistic principles that many of its reporters and editors have sadly lost.
Of course, bloggers aren’t subject to the same scrutiny that journalists are (or should be). Bloggers can, and do, write anything they want, no matter how outrageous. But this makes the whole Rather/CBS scandal even more stunning: “amateurs” are exposing a man and a network that so want to see Bush defeated that they skipped basic journalistic scrutiny and ran a story with so many holes in it that 30 Dutch boys couldn’t save it.
Bloggers have become the watchdogs of this lazy journalistic environment that we now live in. Their watchdog are others who read their columns and make public comments. And that’s as it should be. America is possibly coming to a new reality, where bloggers do the research that used to be done by ethical journalists, and are then checked by their readers. Unfortunately, those who continue to get their news solely from major networks and big city newspapers are the equivalent of dumb asses being led around by the nose.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
IN PRAISE OF AUSTIN
I wasn’t searching for it, but I have found a place that still seems to understand the basic principles that the Democratic Party has forgotten: Austin, Texas.
For those who haven’t been there, here’s a brief snapshot: Austin's population is similar to Indianapolis, Nashville or Baltimore, yet is vastly different from any of those cities. For starters, there’s a mass transportation system that actually makes sense, with buses that are clean and run logical routes and are very easy for tourists to navigate. The city has kept a lot of green space instead of wall-to-wall buildings. There is an outpouring of support for independent businesses, typified by the movement to “Keep Austin Weird”: support the little guys instead of the Wal-Marts and retail chains. There is live music everywhere (Austin bills itself correctly as the “live music capital”); a large percentage of the live players are doing originals instead of cover tunes. And unlike Nashville, local residents come out to actually watch performers, and there’s an absence of the wannabes that cities like Nashville and Los Angeles seem to have on every other corner.
So what does this have to do with the Democrats? The reasons that Austin is such a hip, easy, safe place start here: people actually care about their neighbor, they don’t just pay lip service to helping the underdog, and they don’t throw money at everything thinking it will help. Maybe the key is that there’s a blend of Texas independence thrown in. Differing opinions aren’t seen as taboo or stupid if you can back them up, and not every single person or group is actually considered deserving to feed from the public trough. The net result is that Austiners believe that some people need a support network to achieve their dreams and are deserving of it…if they’re willing to work for it. The residents and local governments of Austin are prepared to help in those circumstances.
Contrast that with the current Democrats who, at least at the federal level, have become elitists that believe they can come down from the mountain and help the “little people” without any clue as to what the “little people” are even all about. No wonder the Hollywood Democrats are so enamored with the current incarnation: they’re kindred souls. And there don't seem to be any filters when it comes to the groups the Democrats claim to represent. They are equally likely to cry foul for a group just looking for space at the trough as for one who is actually aggrieved.
To be fair in this analogy, Austin isn't free of problems. Too many people still refuse the mass transit option in favor of clogging the roads. The city planners attempted to control sprawl by not putting in infrastructure in outlying areas, and it didn’t work. Now they will have to put in roads, sewers, etc. with residences and businesses already in place: much tougher & more expensive. They’re going to have to figure out a balance between allowing large residences and corporate campuses to take desirable land and keeping that coveted green space for all.
But I have little doubt that most of these will become blips because the city and residents will find ways to grow and thrive without losing the sense of who they are and what Austin is all about. I’d love to think that federal Democrats could spend a few weeks there and maybe learn a little bit. Alas, I think that too many of them are so out of touch they wouldn’t even see the things at street level that the rest of us can enjoy.
For those who haven’t been there, here’s a brief snapshot: Austin's population is similar to Indianapolis, Nashville or Baltimore, yet is vastly different from any of those cities. For starters, there’s a mass transportation system that actually makes sense, with buses that are clean and run logical routes and are very easy for tourists to navigate. The city has kept a lot of green space instead of wall-to-wall buildings. There is an outpouring of support for independent businesses, typified by the movement to “Keep Austin Weird”: support the little guys instead of the Wal-Marts and retail chains. There is live music everywhere (Austin bills itself correctly as the “live music capital”); a large percentage of the live players are doing originals instead of cover tunes. And unlike Nashville, local residents come out to actually watch performers, and there’s an absence of the wannabes that cities like Nashville and Los Angeles seem to have on every other corner.
So what does this have to do with the Democrats? The reasons that Austin is such a hip, easy, safe place start here: people actually care about their neighbor, they don’t just pay lip service to helping the underdog, and they don’t throw money at everything thinking it will help. Maybe the key is that there’s a blend of Texas independence thrown in. Differing opinions aren’t seen as taboo or stupid if you can back them up, and not every single person or group is actually considered deserving to feed from the public trough. The net result is that Austiners believe that some people need a support network to achieve their dreams and are deserving of it…if they’re willing to work for it. The residents and local governments of Austin are prepared to help in those circumstances.
Contrast that with the current Democrats who, at least at the federal level, have become elitists that believe they can come down from the mountain and help the “little people” without any clue as to what the “little people” are even all about. No wonder the Hollywood Democrats are so enamored with the current incarnation: they’re kindred souls. And there don't seem to be any filters when it comes to the groups the Democrats claim to represent. They are equally likely to cry foul for a group just looking for space at the trough as for one who is actually aggrieved.
To be fair in this analogy, Austin isn't free of problems. Too many people still refuse the mass transit option in favor of clogging the roads. The city planners attempted to control sprawl by not putting in infrastructure in outlying areas, and it didn’t work. Now they will have to put in roads, sewers, etc. with residences and businesses already in place: much tougher & more expensive. They’re going to have to figure out a balance between allowing large residences and corporate campuses to take desirable land and keeping that coveted green space for all.
But I have little doubt that most of these will become blips because the city and residents will find ways to grow and thrive without losing the sense of who they are and what Austin is all about. I’d love to think that federal Democrats could spend a few weeks there and maybe learn a little bit. Alas, I think that too many of them are so out of touch they wouldn’t even see the things at street level that the rest of us can enjoy.
Monday, September 06, 2004
CONSPIRACY THEORY PREDICTIONS
Now that the conventions are over, the Spinmeisters will be in high gear. And given their normal proclivity for such things, look for the right-wing talk show hosts to begin a new round of Conspiracy Theories, and maybe even some of the liberals will have their own wacko scenarios.
Let me make very clear that I don't believe in the below conspiracy theories. (For starters, our government has to be the worst in the world at keeping secrets.) Nonetheless, I would wager on some versions of these being floated out by the nutcase talk-show faction, if Vegas is giving odds:
1) CLINTON'S SURGERY IS A RUSE
The motive: Bill Clinton wants Kerry to lose so Hillary can run in 2008.
The evidence: the heart surgery came out of nowhere, and everyone was trying to keep all details a secret; Clinton's support of Wesley Clark late in the primary campaign.
The spin: The Clintons were in a Catch-22: campaigning for Kerry and helping him win would negate any chance of Hillary running in 4 years, but not campaigning would lower the Clinton's stock (especially Hillary's) as selfish, non-team players. How else do you explain Clinton's sudden support of the ultra-weak Wesley Clark after Kerry was already steaming towards the nomination? So, the spin will go, that the Clintons want to do as little as possible in the hopes that it won't be enough to change the outcome of the election but will still be seen as being on board.
So, Bill shows up at the DNC, makes a marvelous speech. Dems get all excited about Bill campaigning. Then, immediately following the RNC, when it's apparent that the Republicans have all the momentum, Bill mysteriously has chest pains and is whisked away to a New York hospital for heart surgery. The word from the Clinton camp already is months of rest, no visitors, blah, blah, blah. In other words, Bill is off the hook! 2008 slogans already underway! With Hill and Bill we surely will!
2) CHECHNYAN TERRORIST ACTS ARE DESIGNED TO BRING THE U.S. TO RUSSIA'S AID
The motive: Russia wants to drag the U.S. into supporting its conflict with Chechnya.
The evidence: 2 plane crashes and an elementary school standoff come right on the heels of the RNC. The Russian government astonishingly lets the state-run press criticize the administration's handling, so as to get their citizens ready to fight.
The spin: Russians have had their problems with Chechnya for a decade, but because of years of hostility towards the Soviet Union the U.S. and most of Europe have been unsympathetic. Likewise, when Russia opposed the Iraq conflict the U.S. drew further away. But Putin and Bush are friendly. Bush could use help from Russia, and the Russians could be helped by U.S. support as well, even if it's just turning a blind eye to how they deal with Chechnya.
The planes that went down have been completely devoid of outside sources confirming what happened. Likewise, the news of the taking of the schoolyard and the subsequent loss of 350 (and counting) hostages and children have been filtered completely through the Russian news sources. And, with one exception, all of the terrorists who stormed the school have been killed, so no one can spill the beans about what really happened.
Americans now see images of Russians sorrowed and angered, eerily similar to what we went through after 9/11. Tass, which is run by the state government, openly critcizes the government for the slow handling of the situation. All reports from Interfax (a British puppet, the Spinmeisters will say) and Tass point to Wahabi Muslim extremists. Since these reports undoubtedly are orchestrated by Putin he must have a goal. And it's simple: to draw America's sympathy. In the long run, they'll end their rhetoric and help us with new information about our enemies and guarantee us oil. In return, we help them by not blowing the whistle on the heavy-handed way they are about to deal with the Chechnyans.
3) BIN LADEN CAPTURED & BEING HELD AS INSURANCE
The motive: News of Osama bin Laden's capture at the right time would go insure a Bush victory.
The evidence: There has been little news coming out of Afghanistan for months, and the Pakistani Army seems to have rounded up everyone else associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in their area. Things are too quiet and peaceful for bin Laden to still be around.
The spin: The U.S. captured bin Laden months ago, but with the capture of Saddam Hussein hitting the news the Bush Administration decided to keep bin Laden's snaring a secret until a later date. They will release the news somewhere in mid-to-late October to further ensure that Bush wins the election. If Osama was still around, there would be new videos, audio messages, or coordinated attacks in Afghanistan or even Pakistan. However, everything has been peaceful. The Afghans are preparing to vote. The Pakistan government is cozying up to the U.S. This is all hard to believe unless bin Laden has actually been taken out of the equation.
Whether or not any of these are floated about remains to be seen. But you can be reasonably sure that some sort of conspiracy theories will hit the airwaves soon. That, unfortunately, is the state of our media and the people who swallow it whole.
Let me make very clear that I don't believe in the below conspiracy theories. (For starters, our government has to be the worst in the world at keeping secrets.) Nonetheless, I would wager on some versions of these being floated out by the nutcase talk-show faction, if Vegas is giving odds:
1) CLINTON'S SURGERY IS A RUSE
The motive: Bill Clinton wants Kerry to lose so Hillary can run in 2008.
The evidence: the heart surgery came out of nowhere, and everyone was trying to keep all details a secret; Clinton's support of Wesley Clark late in the primary campaign.
The spin: The Clintons were in a Catch-22: campaigning for Kerry and helping him win would negate any chance of Hillary running in 4 years, but not campaigning would lower the Clinton's stock (especially Hillary's) as selfish, non-team players. How else do you explain Clinton's sudden support of the ultra-weak Wesley Clark after Kerry was already steaming towards the nomination? So, the spin will go, that the Clintons want to do as little as possible in the hopes that it won't be enough to change the outcome of the election but will still be seen as being on board.
So, Bill shows up at the DNC, makes a marvelous speech. Dems get all excited about Bill campaigning. Then, immediately following the RNC, when it's apparent that the Republicans have all the momentum, Bill mysteriously has chest pains and is whisked away to a New York hospital for heart surgery. The word from the Clinton camp already is months of rest, no visitors, blah, blah, blah. In other words, Bill is off the hook! 2008 slogans already underway! With Hill and Bill we surely will!
2) CHECHNYAN TERRORIST ACTS ARE DESIGNED TO BRING THE U.S. TO RUSSIA'S AID
The motive: Russia wants to drag the U.S. into supporting its conflict with Chechnya.
The evidence: 2 plane crashes and an elementary school standoff come right on the heels of the RNC. The Russian government astonishingly lets the state-run press criticize the administration's handling, so as to get their citizens ready to fight.
The spin: Russians have had their problems with Chechnya for a decade, but because of years of hostility towards the Soviet Union the U.S. and most of Europe have been unsympathetic. Likewise, when Russia opposed the Iraq conflict the U.S. drew further away. But Putin and Bush are friendly. Bush could use help from Russia, and the Russians could be helped by U.S. support as well, even if it's just turning a blind eye to how they deal with Chechnya.
The planes that went down have been completely devoid of outside sources confirming what happened. Likewise, the news of the taking of the schoolyard and the subsequent loss of 350 (and counting) hostages and children have been filtered completely through the Russian news sources. And, with one exception, all of the terrorists who stormed the school have been killed, so no one can spill the beans about what really happened.
Americans now see images of Russians sorrowed and angered, eerily similar to what we went through after 9/11. Tass, which is run by the state government, openly critcizes the government for the slow handling of the situation. All reports from Interfax (a British puppet, the Spinmeisters will say) and Tass point to Wahabi Muslim extremists. Since these reports undoubtedly are orchestrated by Putin he must have a goal. And it's simple: to draw America's sympathy. In the long run, they'll end their rhetoric and help us with new information about our enemies and guarantee us oil. In return, we help them by not blowing the whistle on the heavy-handed way they are about to deal with the Chechnyans.
3) BIN LADEN CAPTURED & BEING HELD AS INSURANCE
The motive: News of Osama bin Laden's capture at the right time would go insure a Bush victory.
The evidence: There has been little news coming out of Afghanistan for months, and the Pakistani Army seems to have rounded up everyone else associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in their area. Things are too quiet and peaceful for bin Laden to still be around.
The spin: The U.S. captured bin Laden months ago, but with the capture of Saddam Hussein hitting the news the Bush Administration decided to keep bin Laden's snaring a secret until a later date. They will release the news somewhere in mid-to-late October to further ensure that Bush wins the election. If Osama was still around, there would be new videos, audio messages, or coordinated attacks in Afghanistan or even Pakistan. However, everything has been peaceful. The Afghans are preparing to vote. The Pakistan government is cozying up to the U.S. This is all hard to believe unless bin Laden has actually been taken out of the equation.
Whether or not any of these are floated about remains to be seen. But you can be reasonably sure that some sort of conspiracy theories will hit the airwaves soon. That, unfortunately, is the state of our media and the people who swallow it whole.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
Bush Speech part 2: the aftermath
Continuing the Thursday night stream-of-consciousness diary. This was watching the Kerry-Edwards speech in Springfield, OH right after the RNC ended:
10:49pm – John Edwards is speaking in Springfield, Ohio. He’s a much better speaker than George Pataki. Yet, he still makes me feel like I need to bathe just for watching & listening.
10:53pm – John Kerry takes the stage. How stupid is this so-called intellectual and his campaign manager? No one is covering this except for MSNBC. That includes CNN, Fox News, PBS, and all of the major networks. Why would you make this speech right now when you’re competing against Bush’s speech? Why not wait 24 hours?
11:00pm – I can’t let this go. Kerry had the temerity to say the Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover who had lost jobs. What??? Gerald Ford?? Jimmy Carter?? Give me a break. The 70s were crappy on employment no matter what party you were from. Saying that no one since the 30s had “lost jobs” on their watch is so untrue that Kerry should be handcuffed now and led away. You know, here’s another thing. Kerry is wearing a wonderful suit coat and a reeeallly expensive shirt. He actually believes that by not wearing a tie no one will notice. Edwards is at least wearing a shirt & coat that look like he could be “one of us.” Kerry just doesn’t get it at any level. The Democrats have likely lost a very winnable election.
11:09pm – MSNBC has broken away. CNN has picked Kerry up. Back on MSNBC, Chris Matthews, who is no conservative, is giving up on the Democrats. “Democrats no longer have the numbers, and the Republicans are better at organizing and business.”
11:32pm – Ron Silver: “Bush gave a speech of moral clarity, which is what drives people mad. But we look back at the great speeches of our presidents and they’re all full of moral clarity.” Ahh….no shock here, “Convention Historian Doug Brinkley” is a friend of John Kerry’s who wrote a book about him. Doug Brinkley is telling us that this is Kerry's opening salvo of the campaign, and that historically this is where John Kerry shines: the last 60 days. The same sentiment is echoed by Terry McAuliffe, DNC chairman. No collusion there. What’s funny is that Ron Reagan, Jr (a definite liberal) just has this defeated look on his face while he’s interviewing these 2 guys.
11:40pm – Jeanine Garofolo has the best response: “The RNC videos and their platform don’t speak to me. I have no proof of this, but I feel like he’s lying to me.” Ron Silver has a good response to her: “You might not like the man, but if you read the 9/11 Commission report, he did not lie to you. He might have been misinformed, but he didn’t fabricate information.”
12:11am – Ron Silver and Ron Reagan, Jr are debating. My conservative friends think Ron Silver is a ridiculous left-winger. I’m beginning to think that Ron Silver and I are kindred souls. Joe Trippi has really undergone a makeover. He used to look exactly like the guy who would run Howard Dean’s campaign: unkempt, bad diet, no sleep. He now looks like every corporate executive. He’s done better than his former boss.
FRIDAY Sept 3rd
2 new pieces of information: Time shows the Prez now leading 52%-41% among likely voters. So much for the dead heat, at least for a brief period of time. And how's this for bad news: the latest unemployment stats show an increase in jobs of 144,000 in August, and that unemployment is down to 5.4%, it's lowest since October 2001. Kerry actually tried to spin that today by quibbling over the 6,000 difference (the original estimate was 150,000). So, let me get this straight: the Democrats have now abandoned the war criticisms, at least temporarily, and have picked this day to switch to focusing on domestic agenda.
Any candidate that clueless does not deserve to lead the country. Maybe the Dems will put up someone in 2008 that I can actually respect and vote for. I'm not holding my breath.
10:49pm – John Edwards is speaking in Springfield, Ohio. He’s a much better speaker than George Pataki. Yet, he still makes me feel like I need to bathe just for watching & listening.
10:53pm – John Kerry takes the stage. How stupid is this so-called intellectual and his campaign manager? No one is covering this except for MSNBC. That includes CNN, Fox News, PBS, and all of the major networks. Why would you make this speech right now when you’re competing against Bush’s speech? Why not wait 24 hours?
11:00pm – I can’t let this go. Kerry had the temerity to say the Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover who had lost jobs. What??? Gerald Ford?? Jimmy Carter?? Give me a break. The 70s were crappy on employment no matter what party you were from. Saying that no one since the 30s had “lost jobs” on their watch is so untrue that Kerry should be handcuffed now and led away. You know, here’s another thing. Kerry is wearing a wonderful suit coat and a reeeallly expensive shirt. He actually believes that by not wearing a tie no one will notice. Edwards is at least wearing a shirt & coat that look like he could be “one of us.” Kerry just doesn’t get it at any level. The Democrats have likely lost a very winnable election.
11:09pm – MSNBC has broken away. CNN has picked Kerry up. Back on MSNBC, Chris Matthews, who is no conservative, is giving up on the Democrats. “Democrats no longer have the numbers, and the Republicans are better at organizing and business.”
11:32pm – Ron Silver: “Bush gave a speech of moral clarity, which is what drives people mad. But we look back at the great speeches of our presidents and they’re all full of moral clarity.” Ahh….no shock here, “Convention Historian Doug Brinkley” is a friend of John Kerry’s who wrote a book about him. Doug Brinkley is telling us that this is Kerry's opening salvo of the campaign, and that historically this is where John Kerry shines: the last 60 days. The same sentiment is echoed by Terry McAuliffe, DNC chairman. No collusion there. What’s funny is that Ron Reagan, Jr (a definite liberal) just has this defeated look on his face while he’s interviewing these 2 guys.
11:40pm – Jeanine Garofolo has the best response: “The RNC videos and their platform don’t speak to me. I have no proof of this, but I feel like he’s lying to me.” Ron Silver has a good response to her: “You might not like the man, but if you read the 9/11 Commission report, he did not lie to you. He might have been misinformed, but he didn’t fabricate information.”
12:11am – Ron Silver and Ron Reagan, Jr are debating. My conservative friends think Ron Silver is a ridiculous left-winger. I’m beginning to think that Ron Silver and I are kindred souls. Joe Trippi has really undergone a makeover. He used to look exactly like the guy who would run Howard Dean’s campaign: unkempt, bad diet, no sleep. He now looks like every corporate executive. He’s done better than his former boss.
FRIDAY Sept 3rd
2 new pieces of information: Time shows the Prez now leading 52%-41% among likely voters. So much for the dead heat, at least for a brief period of time. And how's this for bad news: the latest unemployment stats show an increase in jobs of 144,000 in August, and that unemployment is down to 5.4%, it's lowest since October 2001. Kerry actually tried to spin that today by quibbling over the 6,000 difference (the original estimate was 150,000). So, let me get this straight: the Democrats have now abandoned the war criticisms, at least temporarily, and have picked this day to switch to focusing on domestic agenda.
Any candidate that clueless does not deserve to lead the country. Maybe the Dems will put up someone in 2008 that I can actually respect and vote for. I'm not holding my breath.
Friday, September 03, 2004
Bush speech, Part 1
Yes...there will be a second part tomorrow. You think this is long...
I’m watching MSNBC because a) the major networks have eschewed all convention coverage to date, b) CNN is a cheerleader for Kerry, c) Fox News is a cheerleader for Bush, and d) PBS leans so left that they’re sorry that Nader can’t get coverage. So, my evening online diary:
8:10pm – Since I haven’t looked, I ask out loud who might be speaking before Bush. The Centrist Dudette postulates that it will be George Pataki, because “it would make the most sense to continue beating the 9/11 drum.” Sounds plausible.
8:14pm – Tim Russert & Tom Brokaw have already conceded that there will be a big bump for the Republicans and they have stolen the momentum. They talk about how Kerry and Edwards are going to campaign in Ohio tonight so that the Republicans can’t define them. Well…there’s the pro-Kerry media spin. Too bad it’s too late. Now they’re talking about how Kerry is so great at closing and using Iowa as an example. One problem with that, of course: Dean’s numbers were inflated and he was less electable than Kerry or Bush on their worst days. This reminds me of the line from the book ‘Bias’ as relayed to my by Conservative Friend Bird earlier this week; it is attributed to a high-ranking executive at CBS News a few days after the 1972 Presidential election: “I don’t understand how this happened. Everyone I know voted for McGovern.”
8:34pm – George Pataki will indeed introduce Bush. Let the drum beating continue.
8:36pm – Convention Historian Douglas Brinkley is speaking with Chris Matthews about what Bush needs to do. How do you get that gig: Convention Historian? It’s not like there’s a college degree for it. Douglas is saying what he thinks Bush needs to do, which is Media Code for “let me tell all the swing voters where Bush has failed to date.” I love the media; they have no clue just how biased they are.
8:38pm – Oh, my God…as Pataki is introduced the cameras show a shot of the New York delegates. And in the middle is…Jim Kelly, former Buffalo Bills QB. ACCCK!! I’m now voting for Kerry.
8:39pm – So Pataki opens with all of the good things that other states did for NYC after 9/11. Of course…they’re all swing states: Oregon, Iowa, & Pennsylvania. How gauche. I’m trying to convince the Centrist Dudette to continue watching for the comedy value. She’s not listening. Frankly, I’m too busy quelling the urge to barf.
8:43pm – I’m now noticing that if you look away from the TV, Pataki sounds almost exactly like Al Gore. God, please don’t let this man ever run for President. The networks are missing the boat in their fight to unseat Bush. They should be putting Pataki on TV, and people would vote Democratic in droves.
8:49pm – A shot of Guiliani in the crowd. He has this look contemptuous on his face that says “Please let Bush shoot this man when he steps to the podium.” The camera focuses on 2 female delegates with long, bleached hair, facelifts, and fake boobs. The oft-overlooked “Porn Stars for Bush.” Seeing it in print, maybe that one should have been obvious. Wow…5 black women in a row with cowboy hats on screaming “Four More Years!” See…it’s the party of inclusion. Pataki says “I’m a New Yorker.” NOOOOO!!
8:58pm – Thankfully, Pataki is done. Rudy Guiliani is hugging Ron Silver. Guess that says just how far away he and Pataki really are.
8:59pm – Joe Scarborough (the token MSNBC centrist) has a great comment: why would Kerry come out with his big speech in Ohio tonight when he is guaranteed to have to share front-page space with the President? Could it be because he’s a dumb ass? Why didn’t he do it a week ago? Or at this point wait until tomorrow when he'll have the headlines to himself? Oh, now Fred Thompson is doing the opening for the video on Bush. Time to get serious and pay attention. NOTE: A quick flip through the stations, and all of the major networks are steering clear of this, so that we can hear George Snuffleuppagas (ABC), Tim & Tom (Russert & Brokaw on NBC) and some gray-haired guy (CBS).
9:11pm – Bush takes the stage in arena rock fashion. Think there’s a significance to the time? (Probably not, it’s in New York.) The Centrist Dudette realizes that Dick Cheney looks like an overweight version of The Conservative Mississipian Friend. She also suggests that W. hasn’t found out his mother is actually a transvestite.
9:18pm – “Government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives.” I agree. So what’s with the Gay Marriage Amendment? “In our world and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.” My liberal friends recoil in horror at the Neo-Conservative reference.
9:21pm – "(Our institutions) were created for the worlds of yesterday, not the world of tomorrow.” This could be good if he gives specifics. “We will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy.” You’d think after 31 years we’d actually have done that. “We must protect small business owners from the frivolous lawsuits that drag down our economy.” I agree. I wish I could believe him on that one. “In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.” Ok…I haven’t heard that yet from a serious candidate. It won’t happen in 4 years, but I’m all for opening the dialog for a change. “We’ll increase funding for our community colleges.” Great idea, but that’s at odds with reducing federal spending, though. Ahhh…details, details.
9:26pm - “More than half the uninsured are small business workers and their families. In a new term, we must allow small businesses to join together to purchase insurace at the discounts available to big companies.” George, you now have my undivided attention. “I will insure that every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.” Again…how does that jibe with reducing federal spending? “We must pass medical liability reform now.” Take that, John Edwards. “We will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, DC.” Rhetoric. This is more like a State of the Union speech.
The Centrist Dudette takes exception to an increased home ownership plan: “That’s right, George. You just need to keep building more and more Stack-A-Shacks.” (This is a C.D. code phrase for “cheap-ass condo.”)
9:32pm – Bush has gone into “I’m really a Democrat” mode. For someone who talks about cutting federal spending, he’s sure got a lot of places to add money. However, I have a difficult time disagreeing with his comments about continuing to reintroduce and hold students and teachers to testing standards. His line about the poor Georgia school that expects their students to succeed as the answer to “ the soft bigotry of low expectations”…brilliant. Someone tip the speech writer.
9:36pm – “Anyone who wants more information on my plans can find the details online.” Again…brilliant. The Centrist Dudette is majorly impressed by his ‘plainspeak’ in this address. Bush is picking apart what Kerry wants to roll back item by item. Very smart. Denzel Washington is in the crowd. I'm amazed the cameras haven’t focused on him before. Oh, wait…the networks don’t want to show celebrities supporting a Republican. How stupid of me.
9:39pm – “Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of charity and compassion….Because I believe in the union of a man and a woman deserves an honored place in our society... I support the protection of marriage against activist judges.” At least he’s smart enough to put all the religious crap in one paragraph. Ahh…quoting Kerry as saying “Ronald Reagan was 8 years of moral darkness” is another brilliant line.
9:42pm – Bush says he will never rest in how to better defend this country. The crowd cheers. Guiliani now looks like he’s thirsting for someone’s blood. “We are staying on the offensive, striking terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. And we’re working to advance liberty in the Middle East.” This brings a disruption in the convention by some young female. Bush acts like he's ignoring it, but he’s been shaken a bit. He’d have been better off if he had Guiliani’s or Reagan’s penchant for ad lib.
9:47pm – Now, Bush discusses Iraq. Another disruptor, another removal from the building. (Note to self: how did these people get in? Who’s the head of RNC Security?) Bush rolls with this one better. “We are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East.” The Liberal Friends all look for hurl buckets. Al-Jazeera looks for a friendly, popular dictator. A side note: According to the Wall Street Journal a few days ago, Afghanistan has 9 million people. So far, 9.9 million have registered to vote. Bush says 10MM. Who's quibbling? All liberals should be happy that Afghans have apparently learned democracy from Democrat Richard Daley.
9:52pm -“…and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.” No Vietnam comments here. Nosirreee, Bobby. In reference to Kerry’s vote on funding troops, and his subsequent explanation of ‘It’s complicated’, Bush says “There is nothing complicated when it comes to supporting our troops in battle.” “My opponent says our coalition is one of the coerced and bribed” and then goes on to name well-known western allies. Good line.
9:58pm – “(Our enemies) know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate.” My anti-NeoCon friends now have the dry heaves. “Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel.” And the flames are re-lit. But a bloc of Florida voters are now happier.
10:01pm – A jab at the New York Times about a 1946 editorial referring to Germany: “Maybe that person is still around writing editorials.” Quite funny, and appropriate. Bush followed it with “fortunately we had a resolute president named Truman.” Ooops…followed that up with “freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world.” Maybe the religious references are just my knee-jerk reaction, but I can't help but think that he could back off of it.
10:05pm – “Even when we disagree, you know where I stand.” The crux of the Bush presidency, and arguably the crux of any true leader. “People have to correct my English. I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger had to do it.” Best line of the night. “People look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called walking.” Ok, 2nd best line of the night. Bush is now talking about the military and his families and is actually tearing up. It’s either a glimpse into his real self, or a great acting job. I believe the former, and it has nothing to do with what he’s done, just his real feelings recalling people who have lost people he sent to die and they still support him. No matter who you are, I can’t imagine.
10:10pm – Bush is now paraphrasing The Byrds “Turn, Turn, Turn.” Some speechwriter is very tuned in to the Vietnam generation. The Centrist Dudette says ‘Basically we are going to go around building nations everywhere.” My liberal friends hurl anew on reading this.
My take following the speech: Bush was predictably short on specifics, but at least he outlined an agenda with some basic direction, unlike Kerry. The speech was good, and I would expect that the polls will refute Kerry, at least in the short run.
10:29pm – Oh, my….the preliminary polls on the bounce: 7%. I had no idea that there would be a poll yet. That number is amazing, especially since “everyone’s made up their minds.” Kerry needs to hope for the gaffe of all gaffes from Bush.
More tomorrow.
I’m watching MSNBC because a) the major networks have eschewed all convention coverage to date, b) CNN is a cheerleader for Kerry, c) Fox News is a cheerleader for Bush, and d) PBS leans so left that they’re sorry that Nader can’t get coverage. So, my evening online diary:
8:10pm – Since I haven’t looked, I ask out loud who might be speaking before Bush. The Centrist Dudette postulates that it will be George Pataki, because “it would make the most sense to continue beating the 9/11 drum.” Sounds plausible.
8:14pm – Tim Russert & Tom Brokaw have already conceded that there will be a big bump for the Republicans and they have stolen the momentum. They talk about how Kerry and Edwards are going to campaign in Ohio tonight so that the Republicans can’t define them. Well…there’s the pro-Kerry media spin. Too bad it’s too late. Now they’re talking about how Kerry is so great at closing and using Iowa as an example. One problem with that, of course: Dean’s numbers were inflated and he was less electable than Kerry or Bush on their worst days. This reminds me of the line from the book ‘Bias’ as relayed to my by Conservative Friend Bird earlier this week; it is attributed to a high-ranking executive at CBS News a few days after the 1972 Presidential election: “I don’t understand how this happened. Everyone I know voted for McGovern.”
8:34pm – George Pataki will indeed introduce Bush. Let the drum beating continue.
8:36pm – Convention Historian Douglas Brinkley is speaking with Chris Matthews about what Bush needs to do. How do you get that gig: Convention Historian? It’s not like there’s a college degree for it. Douglas is saying what he thinks Bush needs to do, which is Media Code for “let me tell all the swing voters where Bush has failed to date.” I love the media; they have no clue just how biased they are.
8:38pm – Oh, my God…as Pataki is introduced the cameras show a shot of the New York delegates. And in the middle is…Jim Kelly, former Buffalo Bills QB. ACCCK!! I’m now voting for Kerry.
8:39pm – So Pataki opens with all of the good things that other states did for NYC after 9/11. Of course…they’re all swing states: Oregon, Iowa, & Pennsylvania. How gauche. I’m trying to convince the Centrist Dudette to continue watching for the comedy value. She’s not listening. Frankly, I’m too busy quelling the urge to barf.
8:43pm – I’m now noticing that if you look away from the TV, Pataki sounds almost exactly like Al Gore. God, please don’t let this man ever run for President. The networks are missing the boat in their fight to unseat Bush. They should be putting Pataki on TV, and people would vote Democratic in droves.
8:49pm – A shot of Guiliani in the crowd. He has this look contemptuous on his face that says “Please let Bush shoot this man when he steps to the podium.” The camera focuses on 2 female delegates with long, bleached hair, facelifts, and fake boobs. The oft-overlooked “Porn Stars for Bush.” Seeing it in print, maybe that one should have been obvious. Wow…5 black women in a row with cowboy hats on screaming “Four More Years!” See…it’s the party of inclusion. Pataki says “I’m a New Yorker.” NOOOOO!!
8:58pm – Thankfully, Pataki is done. Rudy Guiliani is hugging Ron Silver. Guess that says just how far away he and Pataki really are.
8:59pm – Joe Scarborough (the token MSNBC centrist) has a great comment: why would Kerry come out with his big speech in Ohio tonight when he is guaranteed to have to share front-page space with the President? Could it be because he’s a dumb ass? Why didn’t he do it a week ago? Or at this point wait until tomorrow when he'll have the headlines to himself? Oh, now Fred Thompson is doing the opening for the video on Bush. Time to get serious and pay attention. NOTE: A quick flip through the stations, and all of the major networks are steering clear of this, so that we can hear George Snuffleuppagas (ABC), Tim & Tom (Russert & Brokaw on NBC) and some gray-haired guy (CBS).
9:11pm – Bush takes the stage in arena rock fashion. Think there’s a significance to the time? (Probably not, it’s in New York.) The Centrist Dudette realizes that Dick Cheney looks like an overweight version of The Conservative Mississipian Friend. She also suggests that W. hasn’t found out his mother is actually a transvestite.
9:18pm – “Government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives.” I agree. So what’s with the Gay Marriage Amendment? “In our world and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.” My liberal friends recoil in horror at the Neo-Conservative reference.
9:21pm – "(Our institutions) were created for the worlds of yesterday, not the world of tomorrow.” This could be good if he gives specifics. “We will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy.” You’d think after 31 years we’d actually have done that. “We must protect small business owners from the frivolous lawsuits that drag down our economy.” I agree. I wish I could believe him on that one. “In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.” Ok…I haven’t heard that yet from a serious candidate. It won’t happen in 4 years, but I’m all for opening the dialog for a change. “We’ll increase funding for our community colleges.” Great idea, but that’s at odds with reducing federal spending, though. Ahhh…details, details.
9:26pm - “More than half the uninsured are small business workers and their families. In a new term, we must allow small businesses to join together to purchase insurace at the discounts available to big companies.” George, you now have my undivided attention. “I will insure that every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.” Again…how does that jibe with reducing federal spending? “We must pass medical liability reform now.” Take that, John Edwards. “We will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, DC.” Rhetoric. This is more like a State of the Union speech.
The Centrist Dudette takes exception to an increased home ownership plan: “That’s right, George. You just need to keep building more and more Stack-A-Shacks.” (This is a C.D. code phrase for “cheap-ass condo.”)
9:32pm – Bush has gone into “I’m really a Democrat” mode. For someone who talks about cutting federal spending, he’s sure got a lot of places to add money. However, I have a difficult time disagreeing with his comments about continuing to reintroduce and hold students and teachers to testing standards. His line about the poor Georgia school that expects their students to succeed as the answer to “ the soft bigotry of low expectations”…brilliant. Someone tip the speech writer.
9:36pm – “Anyone who wants more information on my plans can find the details online.” Again…brilliant. The Centrist Dudette is majorly impressed by his ‘plainspeak’ in this address. Bush is picking apart what Kerry wants to roll back item by item. Very smart. Denzel Washington is in the crowd. I'm amazed the cameras haven’t focused on him before. Oh, wait…the networks don’t want to show celebrities supporting a Republican. How stupid of me.
9:39pm – “Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of charity and compassion….Because I believe in the union of a man and a woman deserves an honored place in our society... I support the protection of marriage against activist judges.” At least he’s smart enough to put all the religious crap in one paragraph. Ahh…quoting Kerry as saying “Ronald Reagan was 8 years of moral darkness” is another brilliant line.
9:42pm – Bush says he will never rest in how to better defend this country. The crowd cheers. Guiliani now looks like he’s thirsting for someone’s blood. “We are staying on the offensive, striking terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. And we’re working to advance liberty in the Middle East.” This brings a disruption in the convention by some young female. Bush acts like he's ignoring it, but he’s been shaken a bit. He’d have been better off if he had Guiliani’s or Reagan’s penchant for ad lib.
9:47pm – Now, Bush discusses Iraq. Another disruptor, another removal from the building. (Note to self: how did these people get in? Who’s the head of RNC Security?) Bush rolls with this one better. “We are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East.” The Liberal Friends all look for hurl buckets. Al-Jazeera looks for a friendly, popular dictator. A side note: According to the Wall Street Journal a few days ago, Afghanistan has 9 million people. So far, 9.9 million have registered to vote. Bush says 10MM. Who's quibbling? All liberals should be happy that Afghans have apparently learned democracy from Democrat Richard Daley.
9:52pm -“…and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.” No Vietnam comments here. Nosirreee, Bobby. In reference to Kerry’s vote on funding troops, and his subsequent explanation of ‘It’s complicated’, Bush says “There is nothing complicated when it comes to supporting our troops in battle.” “My opponent says our coalition is one of the coerced and bribed” and then goes on to name well-known western allies. Good line.
9:58pm – “(Our enemies) know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate.” My anti-NeoCon friends now have the dry heaves. “Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel.” And the flames are re-lit. But a bloc of Florida voters are now happier.
10:01pm – A jab at the New York Times about a 1946 editorial referring to Germany: “Maybe that person is still around writing editorials.” Quite funny, and appropriate. Bush followed it with “fortunately we had a resolute president named Truman.” Ooops…followed that up with “freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world.” Maybe the religious references are just my knee-jerk reaction, but I can't help but think that he could back off of it.
10:05pm – “Even when we disagree, you know where I stand.” The crux of the Bush presidency, and arguably the crux of any true leader. “People have to correct my English. I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger had to do it.” Best line of the night. “People look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called walking.” Ok, 2nd best line of the night. Bush is now talking about the military and his families and is actually tearing up. It’s either a glimpse into his real self, or a great acting job. I believe the former, and it has nothing to do with what he’s done, just his real feelings recalling people who have lost people he sent to die and they still support him. No matter who you are, I can’t imagine.
10:10pm – Bush is now paraphrasing The Byrds “Turn, Turn, Turn.” Some speechwriter is very tuned in to the Vietnam generation. The Centrist Dudette says ‘Basically we are going to go around building nations everywhere.” My liberal friends hurl anew on reading this.
My take following the speech: Bush was predictably short on specifics, but at least he outlined an agenda with some basic direction, unlike Kerry. The speech was good, and I would expect that the polls will refute Kerry, at least in the short run.
10:29pm – Oh, my….the preliminary polls on the bounce: 7%. I had no idea that there would be a poll yet. That number is amazing, especially since “everyone’s made up their minds.” Kerry needs to hope for the gaffe of all gaffes from Bush.
More tomorrow.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
PLATFORMS AND PERCEPTIONS
First off, instead of e-mailing me with your viewpoint on this and future postings, click on the "comments" link at the bottom of this article. It will post your views for all to read and respond to, which is really the point of this blog: dialog. Hopefully sane.
I downloaded the Republican Party platform yesterday to read it undiluted by spin from talk radio or Big Media. Can you believe it's 92 pages long? Yikes! One would think that the party that calls itself pro-business would write it like a business plan, complete with an Executive Summary. Oh, no...you have to read the entire 92 pages to find out what the hell they're trying to say. Don't these people realize that no one in America is going to slough through that? They're guaranteeing that their written message will be heard by most people AFTER it's been spun, and probably by the the Republican's adversaries. (NOTE: If anyone's interested, I can e-mail you copies of both party platforms.) So this leaves the positive delivering of each party's message to the presidential candidates.
For all of the talk about how divisive George W. Bush has been, think of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Now, we all think of this man as one of, if not the greatest American President. But he ran almost as a one-issue candidate (the legal abolishment of slavery), and we all know the results. Let's say that George Bush ran as a one-issue candidate: pick one. How divisive would that be? And would he have any hope of winning? Doubtful. But Lincoln did win...with about 40% of the popular vote, although he had the majority of the 4 candidates. Still, Lincoln articulated a message and it resonated. Maybe a bit too much, but it resonated. And in the face of imminent Civil War he never backed down from his beliefs.
40 years ago Lyndon Johnson tried to be all things to all people. Remember hearing (or reading) his "guns and butter" talks, as in "we can have both"? 40 years later, who can tell me what Johnson stood for? He was bombing the hell out of Hanoi, yet building urban housing in the inner cities. He acted like he was still Senate Majority Leader, and appeased Republicans regulary to get social programs through, which doesn't really work when you're the President. He compromised, he waffled, all the while increasing taxes to pay for everything? This, of course, cost him the presidency and cost America 15 years of economic chaos.
I'm not suggesting that politics and public policy are simple, but the presidential candidates who can give their view in clear, simple terms are going to almost always defeat those who can't articulate their vision and think that things are too complex to lay it out in understandable terms. Would Johnson have beat Goldwater if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated? I seriously doubt it. Ronald Reagan would have assuredly been the Republican nominee in 1976 had Watergate not put Gerald Ford in the White House. Would Jimmy Carter have beat him then, or would Carter have even been the nominee? Again, highly doubtful.
Bill Clinton might be a Rhodes Scholar, but he was also able to articulate his views clearly and concisely. Likewise Ronald Reagan. Say what you will about Nixon, but you knew where he stood on issues. And as divisive as he was, he also is the proud owner of the biggest landslide in presidential history.
Americans currently know where Bush stands on most everything and can sum him up in a few words, even if they're choice. John Kerry completely missed the chance to lay out his agenda. Anything he does now will be seen as reactionary. Could it actually be that he has no clear vision? My liberal friends and relatives keep telling me he does, but the same drum has been beating for months: what is Kerry's vision?
As a final statement, The Liberal Dad (who is one of the smartest people I know when it comes to predicting politics) told the Centrist Dude 2 months ago that the "bounce" after the conventions would tell the tale. Well, Kerry got zero bounce, which Big Media spun as "everyone's already made up their minds." What will their spin be when GWB gets a 4-5 point bounce?
Comments are encouraged. Click on the "comments" link below to post them.
I downloaded the Republican Party platform yesterday to read it undiluted by spin from talk radio or Big Media. Can you believe it's 92 pages long? Yikes! One would think that the party that calls itself pro-business would write it like a business plan, complete with an Executive Summary. Oh, no...you have to read the entire 92 pages to find out what the hell they're trying to say. Don't these people realize that no one in America is going to slough through that? They're guaranteeing that their written message will be heard by most people AFTER it's been spun, and probably by the the Republican's adversaries. (NOTE: If anyone's interested, I can e-mail you copies of both party platforms.) So this leaves the positive delivering of each party's message to the presidential candidates.
For all of the talk about how divisive George W. Bush has been, think of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Now, we all think of this man as one of, if not the greatest American President. But he ran almost as a one-issue candidate (the legal abolishment of slavery), and we all know the results. Let's say that George Bush ran as a one-issue candidate: pick one. How divisive would that be? And would he have any hope of winning? Doubtful. But Lincoln did win...with about 40% of the popular vote, although he had the majority of the 4 candidates. Still, Lincoln articulated a message and it resonated. Maybe a bit too much, but it resonated. And in the face of imminent Civil War he never backed down from his beliefs.
40 years ago Lyndon Johnson tried to be all things to all people. Remember hearing (or reading) his "guns and butter" talks, as in "we can have both"? 40 years later, who can tell me what Johnson stood for? He was bombing the hell out of Hanoi, yet building urban housing in the inner cities. He acted like he was still Senate Majority Leader, and appeased Republicans regulary to get social programs through, which doesn't really work when you're the President. He compromised, he waffled, all the while increasing taxes to pay for everything? This, of course, cost him the presidency and cost America 15 years of economic chaos.
I'm not suggesting that politics and public policy are simple, but the presidential candidates who can give their view in clear, simple terms are going to almost always defeat those who can't articulate their vision and think that things are too complex to lay it out in understandable terms. Would Johnson have beat Goldwater if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated? I seriously doubt it. Ronald Reagan would have assuredly been the Republican nominee in 1976 had Watergate not put Gerald Ford in the White House. Would Jimmy Carter have beat him then, or would Carter have even been the nominee? Again, highly doubtful.
Bill Clinton might be a Rhodes Scholar, but he was also able to articulate his views clearly and concisely. Likewise Ronald Reagan. Say what you will about Nixon, but you knew where he stood on issues. And as divisive as he was, he also is the proud owner of the biggest landslide in presidential history.
Americans currently know where Bush stands on most everything and can sum him up in a few words, even if they're choice. John Kerry completely missed the chance to lay out his agenda. Anything he does now will be seen as reactionary. Could it actually be that he has no clear vision? My liberal friends and relatives keep telling me he does, but the same drum has been beating for months: what is Kerry's vision?
As a final statement, The Liberal Dad (who is one of the smartest people I know when it comes to predicting politics) told the Centrist Dude 2 months ago that the "bounce" after the conventions would tell the tale. Well, Kerry got zero bounce, which Big Media spun as "everyone's already made up their minds." What will their spin be when GWB gets a 4-5 point bounce?
Comments are encouraged. Click on the "comments" link below to post them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
