Category Archives: Politics: US: 2004 Election

IS this the ultimate Freudian slip? Bush Insists His Administration Seeking 'new Ways to Harm Our Country':

Bush Insists His Administration Seeking 'new Ways to Harm Our Country'
The Associated Press
Published: Aug 5, 2004

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of “Bushisms” on Thursday, declaring that his administration will “never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people.”

Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill.

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we,” Bush said. “They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted

This is a bad week for politics, and a good week to have guest blogger George Mundstock doing the heavy lifting. Out there Kerry is all but saying he has a secret plan to end the war in Iraq, by saying he knows what to do in Iraq without explaining. Meanwhile GW is going to Ohio and telling the unemployed that he feels their pain.

So far the outrage of the week is the suspiciously timed release of a terror threat cum NY-area alert, based on ancient information — coupled with the demonization of anyone who dares to question it. Yes indeed, there have been some amazingly well timed coincidences. Funny how that works.

But I'm on a wireless connection where a dozen of us share a 56k telephone connection, so don't expect much posting this week.

Update: The Washington Post story on the arbitrary release of a warning based on aged data is clearer than the NYT version, which runs away from the political angle…although even the Post is more circumspect than the bloggers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was not at all happy to see Rev. Al Sharpton who—despite his recent rash of semi-statesmanlike conduct—has a history of demagoguery, being treated seriously this week. Not only did the Democrats give him speaking time, but CNN used him extensively as a regular commentator.

Now comes news that the GOP may have found someone even worse than Sharpton to put front and center in their convention! The Carpetbagger Report says that it seems the GOP may ask Falwell to give an invocation.

I admit that I used to have a soft spot for Falwell. He used racially mixed audiences in his show. He seemed cleaner than, say, the Bakers. And he took a vacation from politics to concentrate on religion when all the TV preachers were getting indicted. (Yes, 1989 was a convenient time to leave the TV evangelism/politics thing, the bloom was off the rose, but his claim that he felt a need to concentrate on spiritual issues was nonetheless plausible.) He seemed horribly wrong, but sincere, and up to a point I like sincere better than apathetic.

But then he lost it. First he endorsed felon Oliver North for Senate. Then in the late '90s he got back into politics. (According to this summary I learn he'd never 'left' as much as I thought anyway.)

Then Falwell attacked Tinky Winky, one of the Teletubbies (a UK children's show), claiming the character was a gay icon (he, gasp, carries a red purse in some episodes).

Then Falwell really went too far, saying, a few days after the 9/11 attacks:

“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'”

Yes, Falwell later offered a non-apology apology, but even so, could the GOP really put this man on stage in New York?

Continue reading →

The Center for American Progress leaves no stone unturned. Witness the full text of the mass email I got from them today:

“The First Family…does not snack…They are very good at respecting meal time hours and do not eat between meals…there is no snacking…”

– White House Pastry Chef Roland Mesnier, Whitehouse.gov, 7/27/04

VERSUS

“President Bush fainted for a brief time Sunday in the residence of the White House while eating a pretzel and watching a professional football game on television.”

– CNN, 1/14/02

(Of course maybe that's why they don't snack anymore?)

More seriously, it's this sort of 'war room' response—especially on the serious stuff—that wins elections nowadays.

The most original insight I've encountered on Kerry's speech was something I heard in the car this morning, one of the commentators on the Diane Rehm show, who said that Kerry's speech was set up to portray him as a sort of national daddy, the steady calm presence presiding over a bunch of smaller, noisier figures. This plays to his strengths, and even harnesses his physical size, as he towered over John Edwards.

It's an interesting thought. Alas, I have no idea who was speaking, whether it was James Fallows, Stephen Hayes, or Frank Sesno. I doubt it was Hayes, though.