Right now, it looks like the only states up for grabs (according to the travel schedules of both candidates) are FL, OH, PA, NM, WI, IA with CO WV and AR thrown in as bubble states. But if you look at where Bush is visiting, it is FL NM WI and IA. He hasn't really been to OH for weeks, nor has he been to PA. If Bush doesn't win FL and WI, he can't possibly win; IA and NM simply aren't enough to do it.
Personally, I think NM is going to go Kerry simply for the fact that Richardson is governor and is going to pull out all the stops for Kerry so that he can either get a job in the Kerry administration or run for President in 2008.
I am very concerned about IA and WI, which long-term seem to be trending GOP. Kerry is falling consistently (although narrowly) behind in IA. Again, a Democratic governor and Labor Unions should help narrow this gap, but it makes me nervous.
Back to OH though. The simple fact is whoever loses 2 of the 3 big swing states (OH FL and PA) has a lot harder time winning because the margin for error is so small. If Bush really is putting all his eggs in FL and WI because his brother promised and delivered last time, he's in real trouble.
Kerry, in contrast, is feeling pretty good in OH and PA (although not enough to not do a Clinton rally in Philly Monday) and is even trying to expand the playing field to CO and NV. I think Kerry can win FL and maybe CO. IA will be a very narrow victory; NV is a real stretch, but the minimum wage ballot initiative and Yucca Mountain may do it, although early voting isn't looking too good.
WI I still think will come home. I hope those ACT people have moved from MO to WI, because Kerry has pretty much given up on MO (National Democrats have also given up on the Senate and Governor's races there). Funny, it all comes down to Wisconsin. Does Feingold have enough reverse coattails (same for Salazar in CO) to get Kerry WI? I sure hope so. Otherwise, it is a long look at Broward, Palm Beach and all those infamous counties in FL.
Jessie Jackson and Al Gore are doing a good job of keeping the blacks in FL reminded how they got screwed in 2000. They will keep turn out high. And the flotillas of lawyers in OH and FL should keep things interesting. I am expecting a HUGE turnout across the nation...around 115-20M voters, which is about 15-20% higher than 2000.
Bush is painted in a corner. I really do think that he will rack up big margins in Red States, get good portions in Blue states, but lose most of the important purple states, and Kerry will win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, which would be great not only because of Irony but also because then we would finally look at reforming the electoral college (CO's Amendment 36 anyone?) b/c both Democrats and Republicans would want a change.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Don't believe the Supreme Court Hype
After reading the latest article which talks about the likilihood of Bush or Kerry appointing 1-3 justices to the court, I felt the need to set the record straight: unless someone dies, these 9 aren't going anywhere.
While the court is conservative-leaning, and the Senate and White House are controlled by Conservatives, the Senate is just too close to push through another Scalia or Thomas. Even if the Senate isn't tied or Democratic next January, the GOP is not going to have 60 votes for any of George W. Bush's likely nominees. NARAL and other liberal groups will hold democrats feet to the fire over these nominees and whomever it is will likely be filibustered or blocked or denied a quorum to move for a vote. The head of the judiciary committee if the GOP wins is not conservative Orin Hatch (my home state senator), but PA's own moderate GOPer Arlen Specter, who despite Atrios' hopes, isn't going to lose this year. Even if Kerry wins, it will be so tough for him to get anyone but Arlen himself though (not a bad idea actually- gives Dems another seat, Rendell gets to appoint his potential rival Bob Casey, and Arlen will be about the same as O'Connell).
More fundamentally, we have to remember the internal dynamics of being a Supreme Court Justice. The more liberal appointees aren't going to retire while the white house is in republican hands and not when their successor might be more moderate if Kerry wins. For the conservative appointees, they don't want a moderate replacing them either. And for the moderate appointees like Kennedy and O'Connell, they are so powerful right now they would be dumb to leave.
In my mind, the next justice to leave is going to be either Rehnquist or Stevens. But both are waiting for a safe political climate for their successor to be ideologically similar to them, which in this current state of near Senate parity and high partisanship, is unlikely to happen. Both men seem to be in good shape medically for their age, so I doubt Kerry or Bush will have to deal with this issue. Maybe a President Edwards or Hillary Clinton (aka 2012)will have to deal with this issue, but in all probability, there will be no retirements or deaths (unless their is an accident or sudden change in health) in the next 4 years.
So if you care about reproductive rights and are getting scary letters from NARAL or people for the american way, give them money if you feel like it, but don't worry about abortion being overturned by the Supreme Court for at least 4 years.
While the court is conservative-leaning, and the Senate and White House are controlled by Conservatives, the Senate is just too close to push through another Scalia or Thomas. Even if the Senate isn't tied or Democratic next January, the GOP is not going to have 60 votes for any of George W. Bush's likely nominees. NARAL and other liberal groups will hold democrats feet to the fire over these nominees and whomever it is will likely be filibustered or blocked or denied a quorum to move for a vote. The head of the judiciary committee if the GOP wins is not conservative Orin Hatch (my home state senator), but PA's own moderate GOPer Arlen Specter, who despite Atrios' hopes, isn't going to lose this year. Even if Kerry wins, it will be so tough for him to get anyone but Arlen himself though (not a bad idea actually- gives Dems another seat, Rendell gets to appoint his potential rival Bob Casey, and Arlen will be about the same as O'Connell).
More fundamentally, we have to remember the internal dynamics of being a Supreme Court Justice. The more liberal appointees aren't going to retire while the white house is in republican hands and not when their successor might be more moderate if Kerry wins. For the conservative appointees, they don't want a moderate replacing them either. And for the moderate appointees like Kennedy and O'Connell, they are so powerful right now they would be dumb to leave.
In my mind, the next justice to leave is going to be either Rehnquist or Stevens. But both are waiting for a safe political climate for their successor to be ideologically similar to them, which in this current state of near Senate parity and high partisanship, is unlikely to happen. Both men seem to be in good shape medically for their age, so I doubt Kerry or Bush will have to deal with this issue. Maybe a President Edwards or Hillary Clinton (aka 2012)will have to deal with this issue, but in all probability, there will be no retirements or deaths (unless their is an accident or sudden change in health) in the next 4 years.
So if you care about reproductive rights and are getting scary letters from NARAL or people for the american way, give them money if you feel like it, but don't worry about abortion being overturned by the Supreme Court for at least 4 years.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Why we can't trust the media
I was dropping off my fiancée and future mother-in-law at the airport (they are off to a wedding of a future cousin-in-law) and I heard the most amazing thing on NPR's Diane Rehm show.
A caller asked why the reporters on the show were talking about Kerry and Bush's misleading statements and ads with moral equivalence when even folks like ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin noted that Bush's statements are far more misleading (even outright lies)than Kerry's. John Harwood of the Wall St. Journal and NPR's Tom Gjelten, both of whom I used to respect, disliked Halperin's statements. Such efforts to weigh the two sides and point out which one is more truthful or which one is less truthful, they said is "dangerous" because it would "undermine our credibility" as objective, balanced journalists.
What? I grew up thinking that journalists were supposed to cover and get to the bottom of what was actually happening, they were supposed to be our seakers of truth. But here are these reporters saying that the quest for the objective truth is "dangerous."
When they talk about their concerns about undermining their credibility, it reminds me of Catholic Bishops worrying that they need to condemn Kerry' public pro-choice (although he claims to be privately pro-life) position because they are worried about undermining their moral credibility if they don't. This from the same people who allow child rapists and molesters to run rampant through their clergy for decades, and not only did nothing to stop it, but they covered up the bad apples and shuffled them off to other unsuspecting communities.
This is the same media who have been found to simply make up stories, to not do fact checking, to rely on unnamed sources with dubious credibility and again without fact checking the validity of their statements. The modern media is not in search of truth, it is in search of ratings. If parroting each (or just one's in the case of Fox News) side's spin on an issue gets ratings, then they are all for it. The media lost their credibility when they decided that keeping their Washington sources happy was more important than actually reporting what is happening. They lost their credibility when they collectively talked the nation into going to war with Iraq by unquestioningly believing everything the Bush Administration said. They lost their credibility when they repeated campaign distortions from the Bush camp in 2000 and didn't actually report what the truth was, but instead replied with a Gore campaign statement, making the truth seem untouchable.
Maybe our media is filled with Post-Modernists, who believe in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle when it comes to truth: if they try to find it, they will only distort it, or more perversely, there is no truth, just each person's view of the truth. Either of those two are the case, then we don't need reporters anymore, because ultimately their reporting it will distort it through their elitist holier than thou attitudes.
If they really think the truth is so dangerous, they should join John Ashcroft's Justice Department or the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign. Even though they don't realize it, they are already part of it. By being unwilling to call a spade a spade (and instead saying "the president said it was a club while democrats are contend that the card is actually a spade...") they play right into the Bush campaign plan: push out as many distortions and lies about how things are going and who Kerry is that enough will stick in the minds of voters to win again.
Thankfully, the Blogosphere and other concerned citizens have pointed out repeatedly the flaws in this Beltway reporter thinking as well as the many flaws in their writing. The battle has grown more pitched and fierce recently, with the reporters’ argument basically being ad hominem attacks on bloggers as nerds with nothing better to do. Well, I may be a nerd, I may have better things to do (like study for law school) but to me the truth is so important that I had to spend all this time writing this because the media refuses to report what the truth is and what lies are.
If so-called journalists are so worried about objectivity than they shouldn't be afraid of calling out a lie when they see it, whether it be by a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent. I am in law school because I want to seek truth and justice as far as the law and the judicial system allows, not because I want to be fair to both sides of a legal dispute. Shame on you reporters; you are no better than those Catholic Priests who sit assuredly at their thrones pitying the sinners amongst them, never realizing they have a far greater sin to atone.
A caller asked why the reporters on the show were talking about Kerry and Bush's misleading statements and ads with moral equivalence when even folks like ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin noted that Bush's statements are far more misleading (even outright lies)than Kerry's. John Harwood of the Wall St. Journal and NPR's Tom Gjelten, both of whom I used to respect, disliked Halperin's statements. Such efforts to weigh the two sides and point out which one is more truthful or which one is less truthful, they said is "dangerous" because it would "undermine our credibility" as objective, balanced journalists.
What? I grew up thinking that journalists were supposed to cover and get to the bottom of what was actually happening, they were supposed to be our seakers of truth. But here are these reporters saying that the quest for the objective truth is "dangerous."
When they talk about their concerns about undermining their credibility, it reminds me of Catholic Bishops worrying that they need to condemn Kerry' public pro-choice (although he claims to be privately pro-life) position because they are worried about undermining their moral credibility if they don't. This from the same people who allow child rapists and molesters to run rampant through their clergy for decades, and not only did nothing to stop it, but they covered up the bad apples and shuffled them off to other unsuspecting communities.
This is the same media who have been found to simply make up stories, to not do fact checking, to rely on unnamed sources with dubious credibility and again without fact checking the validity of their statements. The modern media is not in search of truth, it is in search of ratings. If parroting each (or just one's in the case of Fox News) side's spin on an issue gets ratings, then they are all for it. The media lost their credibility when they decided that keeping their Washington sources happy was more important than actually reporting what is happening. They lost their credibility when they collectively talked the nation into going to war with Iraq by unquestioningly believing everything the Bush Administration said. They lost their credibility when they repeated campaign distortions from the Bush camp in 2000 and didn't actually report what the truth was, but instead replied with a Gore campaign statement, making the truth seem untouchable.
Maybe our media is filled with Post-Modernists, who believe in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle when it comes to truth: if they try to find it, they will only distort it, or more perversely, there is no truth, just each person's view of the truth. Either of those two are the case, then we don't need reporters anymore, because ultimately their reporting it will distort it through their elitist holier than thou attitudes.
If they really think the truth is so dangerous, they should join John Ashcroft's Justice Department or the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign. Even though they don't realize it, they are already part of it. By being unwilling to call a spade a spade (and instead saying "the president said it was a club while democrats are contend that the card is actually a spade...") they play right into the Bush campaign plan: push out as many distortions and lies about how things are going and who Kerry is that enough will stick in the minds of voters to win again.
Thankfully, the Blogosphere and other concerned citizens have pointed out repeatedly the flaws in this Beltway reporter thinking as well as the many flaws in their writing. The battle has grown more pitched and fierce recently, with the reporters’ argument basically being ad hominem attacks on bloggers as nerds with nothing better to do. Well, I may be a nerd, I may have better things to do (like study for law school) but to me the truth is so important that I had to spend all this time writing this because the media refuses to report what the truth is and what lies are.
If so-called journalists are so worried about objectivity than they shouldn't be afraid of calling out a lie when they see it, whether it be by a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent. I am in law school because I want to seek truth and justice as far as the law and the judicial system allows, not because I want to be fair to both sides of a legal dispute. Shame on you reporters; you are no better than those Catholic Priests who sit assuredly at their thrones pitying the sinners amongst them, never realizing they have a far greater sin to atone.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
No on Gay Marriage Amendments
Personally I am voting against the anti-gay marriage ballot amendment. Mostly, its because I don't think hate should be in our constitution. The other issue is this will be overturned in court and the second part of the amendment really does "go too far" I wouldn't be allowed to live with my fiancee our current common-law marriage would be invalidated (we will be getting normally married in June).
Utah is among the states deciding on a marriage amendment this Nov. Here's the exact wording of what voters will decide. In Utah, it's officially referred to as Amendment 3, which reads as follows:
"Be it resolved by the Legislature of the state of Utah, two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses voting in favor thereof:
Section 1. It is proposed to enact Utah Constitution Article I, Section 29, to read:
Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
There are very few high-profile against a marriage amendment in the states debating this issue for this election around the country. UT and OR are the exceptions. But UT appears to have the most aggressive and active campaign against a marriage amendment. Here are the scripts to a slew of TV ads. The ads were made by Outfront Communications and Love Communications (Josh Ewing and Tom Love the respective principals).
The Deseret News reported last month that the pro-amendment coalition had been as well organized as the anti-amendment 3 side. The pro-amendment forces had yet to air any TV ads. And now for the ad scripts (click the links to view the ads) from the anti-Amendment 3 side:
"Unique Position"
GARY WATTS: "You know, we're kind of in a unique position in a sense that we have family members who are gay and straight." MILLIE WATTS: "We're just like any fmily down the street." GARY WATTS: "Part, too, is about limiting the rights of our gay children to have what our straight children get automatically." TEXT: "Vote No on 3. It goes too far." GARY WATTS: "Whether it was designed to be hurtful or not, it is. I honestly don't know how anyone who knows and loves someone who is gay can support this amendment."
"Stop The Hurt"
MILLIE WATTS: "If the amendment passes, there are people that we know who have families and children and jobs that are really going to be effected by this." GARY WATTS: "It's time for us as a society to stop the hurt. It's time for us to come together and figure out a way to live together and get rid of this cultural divide. And all it requires is a little bit of the old golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you." ANNCR: "Vote no on amendment three. It goes too far."
"I Was Wrong"
MILLIE WATTS: "I thought gay people were terrible. I thought that they lived only in San Francisco. I for sure didn't think any lived in my house, and then suddenly I have this wonderful child who tells me he's gay. And I thought, 'Whoah, I got it wrong.' And I was wrong." ANNCR: "Vote no on amendment three. It goes too far."
"Not For The Better"
BOBBIE BUTTERFIELD: "We have a large loving family, and one of our sons, our youngest son, is gay. It saddens me to think that there is so much effort being put into passing an amendment that is so hurtful to committed partners. It's going to effect everyone in Utah some way. And not for the better." ANNCR: "Vote no on amendment three. It goes too far."
"A Popular Opinion"
ANNCR: "Many respected people in utah say amendment three will hurt real families people like Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, his two opponents, and the past two Attorneys General. Legal experts like the leadership of the Utah Bar Association's family law section, opinion leaders like KSL's Doug Wright, the Ogden Standard Examiner and the Provo Daily Herald, which called amendment three dangerously flawed. Protect real Utah families. Vote no on amendment three. It goes too far."
Utah is among the states deciding on a marriage amendment this Nov. Here's the exact wording of what voters will decide. In Utah, it's officially referred to as Amendment 3, which reads as follows:
"Be it resolved by the Legislature of the state of Utah, two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses voting in favor thereof:
Section 1. It is proposed to enact Utah Constitution Article I, Section 29, to read:
Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
There are very few high-profile against a marriage amendment in the states debating this issue for this election around the country. UT and OR are the exceptions. But UT appears to have the most aggressive and active campaign against a marriage amendment. Here are the scripts to a slew of TV ads. The ads were made by Outfront Communications and Love Communications (Josh Ewing and Tom Love the respective principals).
The Deseret News reported last month that the pro-amendment coalition had been as well organized as the anti-amendment 3 side. The pro-amendment forces had yet to air any TV ads. And now for the ad scripts (click the links to view the ads) from the anti-Amendment 3 side:
"Unique Position"
GARY WATTS: "You know, we're kind of in a unique position in a sense that we have family members who are gay and straight." MILLIE WATTS: "We're just like any fmily down the street." GARY WATTS: "Part, too, is about limiting the rights of our gay children to have what our straight children get automatically." TEXT: "Vote No on 3. It goes too far." GARY WATTS: "Whether it was designed to be hurtful or not, it is. I honestly don't know how anyone who knows and loves someone who is gay can support this amendment."
"Stop The Hurt"
MILLIE WATTS: "If the amendment passes, there are people that we know who have families and children and jobs that are really going to be effected by this." GARY WATTS: "It's time for us as a society to stop the hurt. It's time for us to come together and figure out a way to live together and get rid of this cultural divide. And all it requires is a little bit of the old golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you." ANNCR: "Vote no on amendment three. It goes too far."
"I Was Wrong"
MILLIE WATTS: "I thought gay people were terrible. I thought that they lived only in San Francisco. I for sure didn't think any lived in my house, and then suddenly I have this wonderful child who tells me he's gay. And I thought, 'Whoah, I got it wrong.' And I was wrong." ANNCR: "Vote no on amendment three. It goes too far."
"Not For The Better"
BOBBIE BUTTERFIELD: "We have a large loving family, and one of our sons, our youngest son, is gay. It saddens me to think that there is so much effort being put into passing an amendment that is so hurtful to committed partners. It's going to effect everyone in Utah some way. And not for the better." ANNCR: "Vote no on amendment three. It goes too far."
"A Popular Opinion"
ANNCR: "Many respected people in utah say amendment three will hurt real families people like Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, his two opponents, and the past two Attorneys General. Legal experts like the leadership of the Utah Bar Association's family law section, opinion leaders like KSL's Doug Wright, the Ogden Standard Examiner and the Provo Daily Herald, which called amendment three dangerously flawed. Protect real Utah families. Vote no on amendment three. It goes too far."
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
I can't believe it
Wow...I watched, and yet it feels like a movie, I am shocked. I called up my friends to hear what is happening in Beantown right now (Bedlam) but I was at a loss for words between the cheers and the honks.
Right now, I wish I could be there, to run and hug and high-five perfect drunken strangers in the street. To share with my fellow resident the joy after years of sorrow and disappointment. I have to hand it to the Red Sox, I wanted to believe, but I had my doubts because well they have always broken my heart, and I have only been a fan since 1998. If they win the world series, they will be kings of New England.
I hate to add politics in this evening, but do who do you suppose will throw out the first pitch? Hopefully, John Kerry throws a strike and goes up a couple points in New Hampshire and other states that value that kind of stuff in a president, like how people raved about Bush's pitch in 2001. That pitch was unfortunately a featurette on ESPN one time and I had the misfortune of flipping the channel just when our cheerleader in chief described in excruciating detail his pitch and NY Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter's coaching. With every chuckle and smirk, grew closer and closer to vomiting. It was test to see how long I could stand of it...now I am think that is what I would see in my Orwellian Room 101.
OK now to shake out that terrible image and replace it with happy frat boys with their backwards caps screaming on Boylston St. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Right now, I wish I could be there, to run and hug and high-five perfect drunken strangers in the street. To share with my fellow resident the joy after years of sorrow and disappointment. I have to hand it to the Red Sox, I wanted to believe, but I had my doubts because well they have always broken my heart, and I have only been a fan since 1998. If they win the world series, they will be kings of New England.
I hate to add politics in this evening, but do who do you suppose will throw out the first pitch? Hopefully, John Kerry throws a strike and goes up a couple points in New Hampshire and other states that value that kind of stuff in a president, like how people raved about Bush's pitch in 2001. That pitch was unfortunately a featurette on ESPN one time and I had the misfortune of flipping the channel just when our cheerleader in chief described in excruciating detail his pitch and NY Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter's coaching. With every chuckle and smirk, grew closer and closer to vomiting. It was test to see how long I could stand of it...now I am think that is what I would see in my Orwellian Room 101.
OK now to shake out that terrible image and replace it with happy frat boys with their backwards caps screaming on Boylston St. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Breaking: Dems offer alternative to threatened Workman lawsuit
The Salt Lake Tribune reports :
The Utah Democratic Party on Wednesday requested that the GOP have Salt Lake County Mayor Nancy Workman's doctor sign a statement saying the embattled mayor is physically or mentally disabled.
If the Republicans decline?
"If they don't do that, voters are entitled to elections that are fair and legal. We will take court action," said Democratic Party Chairman Donald Dunn at a morning news conference.
Kudos to Rupert Murdock
I can't believe I am saying this, but News Corp. doing the right thing. According to Variety, News Corp. announced Tuesday that it has offered airtime on the Fox network to presidential contenders George Bush and John Kerry, with dueling spots from the two candidates set for broadcast beginning tonight..." They are giving 10 60-second spots in primetime from now until the election.
And now for our site of the day:
Bush Relatives for Kerry. Their motto: because blood is thinner than oil. It is done by Dubya's second cousins.
In other news, all is right in Boston. The Red Sox became the first team in Baseball's storied history to force a game 7, and what amazing set of games these last three have been. Additionally, their native son John Kerry is winning the electoral college (via swing states trending his way) at this point, even if George Bush is winning the national polling. Its looking more and more like Kerry just might pull this off.
As for the senate, some races I had written off are going to be much closer than I suspected: Jim Bunning in KY and Arlen Spector in PA are looking more and more vulnerable. Polling has shown the races have tightened and in KY, the incumbent has had a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. The local press is openly speculating about his mental health.
In general, the DSCC found good candidates for all these races: moderate ones for the Red States where control of the Senate will be decided. In AK, in OK, in KY, in SC, in NC, in FL, they have picked the right guys. My only beef is with LA, where they are looking like they might not even get to the runoff because of incompetence and intra-party squabbles amongst whites and blacks.
And now for our site of the day:
Bush Relatives for Kerry. Their motto: because blood is thinner than oil. It is done by Dubya's second cousins.
In other news, all is right in Boston. The Red Sox became the first team in Baseball's storied history to force a game 7, and what amazing set of games these last three have been. Additionally, their native son John Kerry is winning the electoral college (via swing states trending his way) at this point, even if George Bush is winning the national polling. Its looking more and more like Kerry just might pull this off.
As for the senate, some races I had written off are going to be much closer than I suspected: Jim Bunning in KY and Arlen Spector in PA are looking more and more vulnerable. Polling has shown the races have tightened and in KY, the incumbent has had a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. The local press is openly speculating about his mental health.
In general, the DSCC found good candidates for all these races: moderate ones for the Red States where control of the Senate will be decided. In AK, in OK, in KY, in SC, in NC, in FL, they have picked the right guys. My only beef is with LA, where they are looking like they might not even get to the runoff because of incompetence and intra-party squabbles amongst whites and blacks.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Ad watch: stop scaring and start caring
Well, there’s two weeks left in the presidential race and you know what that means: crunch time. Each side wants to talk about its own issues, but the GOP has done a great job about making this election about one issue: Terrorism/Iraq (they would say Iraq is part of terrorism, but then again, they aren’t members of the Reality-Based Community)
Kerry has tried to change the subject to lots of topics, chief among them: Medicare and Social Security. Why? Older people vote in droves. If young folks voted the way old folks do, these two would be tripping over themselves to make college more affordable and make pizza tax deductible (maybe even Madden 200x). Kerry’s latest ad uses an assembled quote from Ron Suskind’s recent NY Times Magazine article that Bush is planning on “privatizing” social security in his second term. The ad also notes that Bush raised Medicare premiums and wants to raise them even higher (I don’t know where he gets the 45% number). In stealth response, the Bush’s Social Security Administration announced that it will raise the money in checks 2.7%, starting in January.
I am sorry but I thought the Democrats learned from 2002 that you can’t just bribe and scare seniors about this stuff. I guess Shrum didn’t learn, nor did ex-NH gov. Shaheen, who’s Kerry’s campaign co-chair and lost on this issue 2 year ago in her bid for the Senate. It is a bad and easily dismissed tactic in my view. Who knows, maybe it moves numbers like you wouldn’t believe, but I just think it is wrong.
Kerry’s 527 supporters have some really gripping ads with Iraqi war veterans or their moms (for the dead/in Iraq ones). And it truly seems that most people just care about the Iraq/Terrorism issue first before they care about anything else. Kerry actually beat Bush on this pretty effectively in the first debate, so why can’t he stick with it? The base. They want him to talk about their issues: labor wants to talk about health care, the CBC wants to talk about jobs, seniors want to talk about SS and Medicare.
Meanwhile, Bush put out a scorcher of an ad about “Kerry and his liberal allies in congress” saying that if Kerry was in charge, the terrorists would have won already. They point to a couple votes and say he undermined the war on terror and the troops. Plus, there are enough 9/11 references, in the words of the Simpson’s type-writing monkey to make “Santa Claus vomit with rage.”
Bush’s 527 supporters do the 9/11 bit repetitively. I can’t get it to work, but I hear "Ashley’s Story" is mindblower. They do a good job of making Bush seem truly caring and compassionate, not the jerk who pantomimes a woman he is going to summarily execute.
In response, Kerry has a great ad with a 9/11 widow (who have as much credibility as the Pope at the height of the Catholic Church’s powers) who voted, as did her dead husband, for George Bush, but this year she is voting for Kerry for her daughter’s sake—to keep the little girl safe. Wow, they had that one in the “in case of emergency break glass” box. It’s a real tear jerker. I don’t know what Bush can say to that, other than find another 9/11 window.
I hope it doesn’t come down to how many 9/11 widows/widowers you have supporting you. That would debase the event beyond the pale. Oh and I like Kerry's flu ad. This is a sleeper issue for seniors and security/soccer moms.
All this is causing Rove to weep, as seen here:
Kerry has tried to change the subject to lots of topics, chief among them: Medicare and Social Security. Why? Older people vote in droves. If young folks voted the way old folks do, these two would be tripping over themselves to make college more affordable and make pizza tax deductible (maybe even Madden 200x). Kerry’s latest ad uses an assembled quote from Ron Suskind’s recent NY Times Magazine article that Bush is planning on “privatizing” social security in his second term. The ad also notes that Bush raised Medicare premiums and wants to raise them even higher (I don’t know where he gets the 45% number). In stealth response, the Bush’s Social Security Administration announced that it will raise the money in checks 2.7%, starting in January.
I am sorry but I thought the Democrats learned from 2002 that you can’t just bribe and scare seniors about this stuff. I guess Shrum didn’t learn, nor did ex-NH gov. Shaheen, who’s Kerry’s campaign co-chair and lost on this issue 2 year ago in her bid for the Senate. It is a bad and easily dismissed tactic in my view. Who knows, maybe it moves numbers like you wouldn’t believe, but I just think it is wrong.
Kerry’s 527 supporters have some really gripping ads with Iraqi war veterans or their moms (for the dead/in Iraq ones). And it truly seems that most people just care about the Iraq/Terrorism issue first before they care about anything else. Kerry actually beat Bush on this pretty effectively in the first debate, so why can’t he stick with it? The base. They want him to talk about their issues: labor wants to talk about health care, the CBC wants to talk about jobs, seniors want to talk about SS and Medicare.
Meanwhile, Bush put out a scorcher of an ad about “Kerry and his liberal allies in congress” saying that if Kerry was in charge, the terrorists would have won already. They point to a couple votes and say he undermined the war on terror and the troops. Plus, there are enough 9/11 references, in the words of the Simpson’s type-writing monkey to make “Santa Claus vomit with rage.”
Bush’s 527 supporters do the 9/11 bit repetitively. I can’t get it to work, but I hear "Ashley’s Story" is mindblower. They do a good job of making Bush seem truly caring and compassionate, not the jerk who pantomimes a woman he is going to summarily execute.
In response, Kerry has a great ad with a 9/11 widow (who have as much credibility as the Pope at the height of the Catholic Church’s powers) who voted, as did her dead husband, for George Bush, but this year she is voting for Kerry for her daughter’s sake—to keep the little girl safe. Wow, they had that one in the “in case of emergency break glass” box. It’s a real tear jerker. I don’t know what Bush can say to that, other than find another 9/11 window.
I hope it doesn’t come down to how many 9/11 widows/widowers you have supporting you. That would debase the event beyond the pale. Oh and I like Kerry's flu ad. This is a sleeper issue for seniors and security/soccer moms.
All this is causing Rove to weep, as seen here:
Ivory not yet on ballot
There is more exciting political news in Utah today. Ellis Ivory is off the ballot-- for now. Swensen's lawyers basically said the GOP needs to hold another central committee vote to approve Ivory and then he will be on. From the way I read it, sounds like it isn't a real delay. I think the GOP should pay for all those damn stickers the state is going to print for Ivory.
While I agree that a Democrat (or Republican) should win by default-- even though we still have an independent candidate-- I disagree that voters are being denied a choice. They can vote for Ivory via write-in and in reality, no one chose Ivory except Ivory and a few top GOPers. He didn't win a nomination via primaries, and this isn't an emergency situation like when Sen. Paul Wellstone died October 25, 2002 a few days before the actual election (one I believe he would have won). It's the GOP's and Workman's own fault-- and Ivory's fault for supporting her-- for the situation they collectively find themselves.
In other news, Scott Matheson and John Huntsman (juniors) debated live on Main Street last night. My family camping friend Rod Decker of channel two was the moderator. As an aside, some nutbar in Utah County (home of Provo, BYU and the most conservative populous area in conservative Utah) tried to make a citizen's arrest of Huntsman's running mate and Utah Co. Commissioner.
There were some big differences brought out (finally) between the two. Matheson opposes school vouchers and the anti-gay marriage amendment (proposition 3). When confronted with the fact that his brother Jim will be voting for 3, Scott said "I've always told Jim he needs to go to Law School," noting that this statute is going to be challenged in court and will in all probably lose, at the cost of Utah taxpayers. I am sure he pointed out that both AG candidates oppose the measure for that reason as well.
As for little brother Jim, John Swallow is doing some more attack ads:
The Utah Republican Party paid about $20,000 each for two mailings to 76,000 2nd Congressional District voters this weekend. The 8 1/2 -by-11-inch cards were designed by Arena Communications' Peter Valcarce, according to GOP Director Spencer Jenkins. Valcarce is known in Utah as a master of the attack ad.
One states: "A vote for Jim Matheson comes with a lot of unwanted baggage. Jim Matheson's first vote in each new session of Congress - to make pro-choice San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House." A second mailing's headline reads: "John Swallow. Pro-life. Pro-family. Pro-Utah." It continues: "Jim Matheson supports abortions." For artwork, the mailing shows a colorful photo of the Swallow family above a grainy picture of Matheson alone.
Classic direct mail lies. Distort, grainy picture, small print. That's all you need.
Oh and Workman got arraigned on both felony counts yesterday. Court date is in February (no hurry now that she isn't up for election).
It looks like the US Senate is more likely to swing for the Democrats and Kerry has successfully expanded the swing states (CO and AR, maybe AZ) and shored up many of his potential ones (like NJ, OR and WA). In otherwords, the electoral college has is trending Kerry's way.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Even more disgusting editorals
Yesterday, I complained that the Salt Lake Tribune's endorsement of Ellis Ivory was wholly without merit (AKA the guy isn't qualified). Today, it is the Deseret News that stepped off the deep end. In the name of free-speech and a democratic dialogue, they actually endorsed Sinclair Corporation's airing of an anti-Kerry "documentary" days before the election and opposed the Kerry camp's attempt for equal time. Good thing the blogosphere is hammering Sinclair for this abuse of corporate power.
Somehow they claim that it is not a political ad, mainly because the guy who did the hack piece has a purple heart from Vietnam. So why can't be trust all the medaled pro-Kerry Veterans. Plus, reports have proved that other anti-Kerry Vietnam veterans, known as "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," were factually wanting and misleading to say the least. Republicans really have no shame some times, just look at their voter suppression attempts in OH and PA, their "sucessful" efforts in FL, AZ and OR.
Somehow they claim that it is not a political ad, mainly because the guy who did the hack piece has a purple heart from Vietnam. So why can't be trust all the medaled pro-Kerry Veterans. Plus, reports have proved that other anti-Kerry Vietnam veterans, known as "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," were factually wanting and misleading to say the least. Republicans really have no shame some times, just look at their voter suppression attempts in OH and PA, their "sucessful" efforts in FL, AZ and OR.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Read this instead of watching the Red Sox
I too am a suffering Red Sox fan, not a long once since I haven't cared about baseball since going to college, and I am still not really sure that I do. This team always reminds me of the Utah Jazz in the Stockton-Malone era, who always managed to come up short.
But let's talk about other things, like politics. A reader suggested I plug a political discussion happening in Newton High on Thursday, October 28th @ 7:00 PM. UMASS-Amherst "Prof. Jeff Sedgewick represents the progressive conservative/GOP point of view while his colleague Jerry Mileur will do likewise for the populist liberal/Democrat perspective." What about the conservative Republicans, you know the ones that dominate the current party who are in charge of all the branches of the Federal Government?
Personally, i would rather talk about local politics, my local (dear reader I don't live in Boston anymore, although I know many of my readers still do). I am currently pissed off at the Salt Lake Tribune Editoral board for endorsing Ellis Ivory for SL County Mayor.
After they were hostily taken over by the folks that own the Denver Post, the paper was temporarly USA TODAY-style moderate in their editorials. Slowly, the pressure of competing with the ultra-conservative (and LDS church-owned) Deseret News must have gotten too much for them, because now they tilt right every chance they get.
Who is Ellis but an empty suit country club Republican? He is literally a stand-in for a indicted politican whose carrer is over. The guy who was an honorary chairman and supporter of this crook has no credibility to make the reforms needed in this corrupt county government.
On a national news front, tonight my fiancee went to a Wellesley Alumnae potluck and met an Alumna who is a Army Reservist. She was sent off to Afghanistan even though she had an 18-month year old baby and is due to go back any day now. She was so angry at the Civilian Leadership of the Penagton. She told my wife to be that military intelligence, and intelligence in general, usally looks like a bell curve. The Bush Administration, this reservist said, took all their "intelligence" from one end of the spectrum (the Chalabi end). Sure they were fooled, but they wanted to be fooled. One of the other Alumna there was a conservative local news reporter, but she still wanted to get this Reservist on camera. I have a feeling that the "grunts" of the armed forces aren't going to vote as reliably GOP as they have in the past. They are going to vote for Kerry more than they voted for Gore, because they don't want the incompetant idiots sitting in the E-Ring of the Pentagon putting them in any more danger. Don't believe me? take a look at Operation Truth.
As an aside, this isn't your gandmother's Wellesley: the Utah chapter is made up of judges (including the Supreme Court Justice of the Utah court), law professors, news reporters, ad execs, Army Reservists, and so on. And I am proud to marrying one of them.
But let's talk about other things, like politics. A reader suggested I plug a political discussion happening in Newton High on Thursday, October 28th @ 7:00 PM. UMASS-Amherst "Prof. Jeff Sedgewick represents the progressive conservative/GOP point of view while his colleague Jerry Mileur will do likewise for the populist liberal/Democrat perspective." What about the conservative Republicans, you know the ones that dominate the current party who are in charge of all the branches of the Federal Government?
Personally, i would rather talk about local politics, my local (dear reader I don't live in Boston anymore, although I know many of my readers still do). I am currently pissed off at the Salt Lake Tribune Editoral board for endorsing Ellis Ivory for SL County Mayor.
After they were hostily taken over by the folks that own the Denver Post, the paper was temporarly USA TODAY-style moderate in their editorials. Slowly, the pressure of competing with the ultra-conservative (and LDS church-owned) Deseret News must have gotten too much for them, because now they tilt right every chance they get.
Who is Ellis but an empty suit country club Republican? He is literally a stand-in for a indicted politican whose carrer is over. The guy who was an honorary chairman and supporter of this crook has no credibility to make the reforms needed in this corrupt county government.
On a national news front, tonight my fiancee went to a Wellesley Alumnae potluck and met an Alumna who is a Army Reservist. She was sent off to Afghanistan even though she had an 18-month year old baby and is due to go back any day now. She was so angry at the Civilian Leadership of the Penagton. She told my wife to be that military intelligence, and intelligence in general, usally looks like a bell curve. The Bush Administration, this reservist said, took all their "intelligence" from one end of the spectrum (the Chalabi end). Sure they were fooled, but they wanted to be fooled. One of the other Alumna there was a conservative local news reporter, but she still wanted to get this Reservist on camera. I have a feeling that the "grunts" of the armed forces aren't going to vote as reliably GOP as they have in the past. They are going to vote for Kerry more than they voted for Gore, because they don't want the incompetant idiots sitting in the E-Ring of the Pentagon putting them in any more danger. Don't believe me? take a look at Operation Truth.
As an aside, this isn't your gandmother's Wellesley: the Utah chapter is made up of judges (including the Supreme Court Justice of the Utah court), law professors, news reporters, ad execs, Army Reservists, and so on. And I am proud to marrying one of them.
Swallow hard
Sorry, that name just has too many corny heading possibilities. So I watched the TiVo-ed debate and I thought it was an odd event. Both sides could have done much more to help their cause.
Jim for example, didn't want to look at Swallow when he asked him a question, but instead looked at the moderator. Swallow often answered questions with some canned talking point rather than addressing the substance of question, like copying a Bush line from the debates ("mixed messages") and bring up the spector of a John Kerry presidency.
Jim had some good gimmic momments, were he said, "Gee Pres. Bush didn't think I flip-flopped on tax cuts, he sent me a lettter thanking me." Moderator: "Can you give me a copy of that letter after this debate?" Jim: "I have one right here [pulls out a copy out of his jacket pocket]." I remember that letter too, when I was an intern, we mailed out a copy of that letter to every single constituent (2001).
When Swallow was asked by Jim multiple times about how he would cut the defficit, the first time Swallow said in effect "you're one to talk" pointing out Jim voted for the Medicare Rx bill and NCLB (convinently forgetting the tax cuts too). The second time, Swallow said he would cut taxes more, which prompted the moderator to ask who in the world that helps the decificts. Then Swallow managed to credit Reagan's tax cuts for the 90s boom, when we not only raised taxes but were over ten years after Reagan's tax cuts went into effect. Was I the only one who thought this was a stupid thing to say?
Swallow also seems to think that being a Republican would really help the district. Why would they help him? If he were to win, the democrats couldn't really find anyone better than Jim to challenge him, and the House leadership wouldn't throw a now safe seat any bones. He would just be another monkey for them, and I seriously doubt that he would have voted against his party as much as Jim had, especially on key issues like NCLB or Medicare like Swallow claims. He is doing the Howard Dean. It's really easy to say I would have voted against that when you were never there and you are looking back in rhetrospect.
I liked Jim's cowboy boots and his discussion of factual backup to his points. My only complaint is that he seemed a bit defensive about his record. Swallow to me keeps looking like an empty suit Republican with Liberatarian tendences (save Abortion and illegal drugs).
Amazing, every time my fiancee's mom comes into town it rains, and it never rains in Salt Lake. After all, this is a desert.
Jim for example, didn't want to look at Swallow when he asked him a question, but instead looked at the moderator. Swallow often answered questions with some canned talking point rather than addressing the substance of question, like copying a Bush line from the debates ("mixed messages") and bring up the spector of a John Kerry presidency.
Jim had some good gimmic momments, were he said, "Gee Pres. Bush didn't think I flip-flopped on tax cuts, he sent me a lettter thanking me." Moderator: "Can you give me a copy of that letter after this debate?" Jim: "I have one right here [pulls out a copy out of his jacket pocket]." I remember that letter too, when I was an intern, we mailed out a copy of that letter to every single constituent (2001).
When Swallow was asked by Jim multiple times about how he would cut the defficit, the first time Swallow said in effect "you're one to talk" pointing out Jim voted for the Medicare Rx bill and NCLB (convinently forgetting the tax cuts too). The second time, Swallow said he would cut taxes more, which prompted the moderator to ask who in the world that helps the decificts. Then Swallow managed to credit Reagan's tax cuts for the 90s boom, when we not only raised taxes but were over ten years after Reagan's tax cuts went into effect. Was I the only one who thought this was a stupid thing to say?
Swallow also seems to think that being a Republican would really help the district. Why would they help him? If he were to win, the democrats couldn't really find anyone better than Jim to challenge him, and the House leadership wouldn't throw a now safe seat any bones. He would just be another monkey for them, and I seriously doubt that he would have voted against his party as much as Jim had, especially on key issues like NCLB or Medicare like Swallow claims. He is doing the Howard Dean. It's really easy to say I would have voted against that when you were never there and you are looking back in rhetrospect.
I liked Jim's cowboy boots and his discussion of factual backup to his points. My only complaint is that he seemed a bit defensive about his record. Swallow to me keeps looking like an empty suit Republican with Liberatarian tendences (save Abortion and illegal drugs).
Amazing, every time my fiancee's mom comes into town it rains, and it never rains in Salt Lake. After all, this is a desert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
