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.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Poor Nancy, poorer Sherie
Today was female politiican victimization day at the Deseret Morning News. First, we got a sob story of an interview with ex-SL County Mayor Nancy "I'm not a crook" Workman (R), where she talks about her sleepless nights and high stress that's now gone because she quit the race. "The stress was more than I ever imagined," Workman told reporter Alan Edwards. "My nerves were shot. It was affecting my family, everybody around me ... It just built up." Yet her family was "furious" that she dropped out of the race, even the nitwit daughter that ultimately caused the scandal. What dumb and unsupportive family.
Why the interview? Well she spent most of the time talking about how unnevered she was and about her visit to the doctor:
Well what do you know, it all goes to establishing that she really was sick and that her removal from the ballot (and Ivory's replacing her) is all on the up-and-up. Funny how the Deseret News couldn't bother to find the doctor. [Carroon by the way is setting up Republicans for Carroon to try to get back the momentum]
Meanwhile, in the local section of the paper (Nancy got the front page, top fold), SL County Clerk Sherie Swenson (D) got sympathitic treatment from the paper as well. Talking about the deluge of voters registering or reregistring (sorry Sherie, I moved)the same Alan Edwards noted: "The clerk has brought in numerous temporary employees to help with the situation. Her regular employees and aides are working overtime. She herself is, shall we say, just a bit busy. At the end of the day Thursday, she realized that between one thing and another, all she had had to eat was a protein shake and a candy fireball." On top of that Edwards notes, Swensen has that whole Ivory controversy to deal with. UT democratic party chair Donald Dunn came by, not to give her a hug, but a letter warning her that if she went ahead and put Ivory's name on the ballot, the party would sue. Wisely, Swensen has left it up to ccunty lawyers to decide if Workman's excuse is valid and Ivory can go in her spot. But those lawyers have kept her waiting.
Either way, voter turnout is going to be huge: "In the past four days, the county clerk's office has received more than 34,000 mail-in voter registration forms. Hundreds more people have come to the office personally to register." For a state with almost no competitive races, that is a sign of higher turnout this year in general.
One of those competive races is the governor's race. I got a call from Scott Matheson last night, and no we didn't talk shop sadly. But he did give me some advice about Law School, which is a good thing since he is the dean. Of course, in reality he was just trying to talk to my Dad, who is advisinig him and his brother Jim.
Jim, by the way, had a nasty debate with his nasty opponent, John Swallow. The Congressman and the ex-state Rep. traded barbs on Jim's votes and Jim's support of John Kerry. Matheson had a good answer for the Kerry question, pointing out that Kerry has pledged to stop nuclear testing and dumping in Nevada (in an attempt to win that state's 5 electoral votes), while Bush wants to build new "bunker buster" nukes which Jim fears will be tested in Nevada and end up hurting Utahns too. Jim was also out explaining his change on partial-birth abortions, his votes for Bush's tax cuts (but against making them perminant), and so on. He pointed out that, according to the National Journal, he is the 16th most conservative Democrat in the House of Representatives right now.
Amazingly, it was Matheson, not Swallow who was attacking Bush's two attempts at swing voters: No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit under Medicare. This just goes to show how much of a loser those two bills were for Bush if even his own Rubber Stamp boy, who uses his mug in campaign ads) doesn't like them. Unfortunately for Swallow, this debate will air at 8AM on Sunday on Channel 4 (local ABC affiliate), which means almost none of his kind of people- AKA church going Mormons- will see it. Personally, I am going to TiVo it and sleep in.
Why the interview? Well she spent most of the time talking about how unnevered she was and about her visit to the doctor:
"He said, 'What in the world are you doing? You're extremely stressed, your blood pressure is up. Why have you not called me before?' " Workman said.
In fact, Workman said, the physician had thought about contacting her himself several times, to the point of picking up the phone to call her.
Well what do you know, it all goes to establishing that she really was sick and that her removal from the ballot (and Ivory's replacing her) is all on the up-and-up. Funny how the Deseret News couldn't bother to find the doctor. [Carroon by the way is setting up Republicans for Carroon to try to get back the momentum]
Meanwhile, in the local section of the paper (Nancy got the front page, top fold), SL County Clerk Sherie Swenson (D) got sympathitic treatment from the paper as well. Talking about the deluge of voters registering or reregistring (sorry Sherie, I moved)the same Alan Edwards noted: "The clerk has brought in numerous temporary employees to help with the situation. Her regular employees and aides are working overtime. She herself is, shall we say, just a bit busy. At the end of the day Thursday, she realized that between one thing and another, all she had had to eat was a protein shake and a candy fireball." On top of that Edwards notes, Swensen has that whole Ivory controversy to deal with. UT democratic party chair Donald Dunn came by, not to give her a hug, but a letter warning her that if she went ahead and put Ivory's name on the ballot, the party would sue. Wisely, Swensen has left it up to ccunty lawyers to decide if Workman's excuse is valid and Ivory can go in her spot. But those lawyers have kept her waiting.
Either way, voter turnout is going to be huge: "In the past four days, the county clerk's office has received more than 34,000 mail-in voter registration forms. Hundreds more people have come to the office personally to register." For a state with almost no competitive races, that is a sign of higher turnout this year in general.
One of those competive races is the governor's race. I got a call from Scott Matheson last night, and no we didn't talk shop sadly. But he did give me some advice about Law School, which is a good thing since he is the dean. Of course, in reality he was just trying to talk to my Dad, who is advisinig him and his brother Jim.
Jim, by the way, had a nasty debate with his nasty opponent, John Swallow. The Congressman and the ex-state Rep. traded barbs on Jim's votes and Jim's support of John Kerry. Matheson had a good answer for the Kerry question, pointing out that Kerry has pledged to stop nuclear testing and dumping in Nevada (in an attempt to win that state's 5 electoral votes), while Bush wants to build new "bunker buster" nukes which Jim fears will be tested in Nevada and end up hurting Utahns too. Jim was also out explaining his change on partial-birth abortions, his votes for Bush's tax cuts (but against making them perminant), and so on. He pointed out that, according to the National Journal, he is the 16th most conservative Democrat in the House of Representatives right now.
Amazingly, it was Matheson, not Swallow who was attacking Bush's two attempts at swing voters: No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit under Medicare. This just goes to show how much of a loser those two bills were for Bush if even his own Rubber Stamp boy, who uses his mug in campaign ads) doesn't like them. Unfortunately for Swallow, this debate will air at 8AM on Sunday on Channel 4 (local ABC affiliate), which means almost none of his kind of people- AKA church going Mormons- will see it. Personally, I am going to TiVo it and sleep in.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Xenophobia strikes the nation
We all know Lou Dobbs hates immigrants and moving jobs oversees. In fact, he is CNN's only successful show.
The night after the debate, he whined that when Bush and Kerry got asked about Immigration, they both dodged the issue. He supports the ill-touted notion that illegal immigrants take away jobs from Joe-sixpack, your average American blue collar worker. In fact, they take away jobs that Joe wouldn't even touch (like picking produce in Southern California and Florida). And because they make less than minimum wages (b/c they can't exactly complain to the government that they are being cheated), they have no effect on wages either.
But that didn't stop Lou from singing the praises of a GOP congressional candidate in Kansas that is trying to scare white voters into voting for him over immigration. Even TIME did an issue recently where it talked about how loose the borders are, and Kerry followed up on that point from a Homeland Security angle, arguing that terrorists can blend in with Mexicans coming over the boarder. Even in little old Utah, we have candidates running on fear of Mexicans, even against a Clinton Impeachment Manager according to the Salt Lake Tribune.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of opening the floodgates and allowing just about anyone into our country. I think we need stronger borders and tougher enforcement of people who violate their visa etc. But the whole "immigration Reform" issue plays into peoples fears and hatred of foreigners, especially those of darker skin tones. The same people that start these issue groups tend to be the same people that are associated with white supremacists.
Canada's economy isn't so hot either, and I am sure lots of Canadian people "sneak over" the boarder to work in the US; there's no one up on our side of the boarder (or not nearly enough) to protect us from terrorists coming over. In 2000, we got lucky that a terrorist was caught with explosives while driving from Vancouver to Seattle. Our neighbor to the north is more scary to be than Mexico.
I think we need to work out a proper guest worker program so that Mexicans can be seasonal workers in American fields, as long as they go home during the off-months. And for those who have lived here a number of years, have a clean record, paid their taxes, sent their children off to Iraq to die for this country, they should get to become naturalized citizens and not worry about the INS anymore.
The night after the debate, he whined that when Bush and Kerry got asked about Immigration, they both dodged the issue. He supports the ill-touted notion that illegal immigrants take away jobs from Joe-sixpack, your average American blue collar worker. In fact, they take away jobs that Joe wouldn't even touch (like picking produce in Southern California and Florida). And because they make less than minimum wages (b/c they can't exactly complain to the government that they are being cheated), they have no effect on wages either.
But that didn't stop Lou from singing the praises of a GOP congressional candidate in Kansas that is trying to scare white voters into voting for him over immigration. Even TIME did an issue recently where it talked about how loose the borders are, and Kerry followed up on that point from a Homeland Security angle, arguing that terrorists can blend in with Mexicans coming over the boarder. Even in little old Utah, we have candidates running on fear of Mexicans, even against a Clinton Impeachment Manager according to the Salt Lake Tribune.
Utah [GOP] Congressman Chris Cannon's views on immigration continue to haunt him in the 2004 election.
Already a force in the Republican primary, where immigration restrictionist Matt Throckmorton came closer than anyone ever has to defeating the four-term incumbent, immigration surfaced again Thursday during the taping of a debate at KUTV.
Only this time, it was Cannon's Democratic challenger Beau Babka stirring the pot, and with a new twist.
Babka, a South Salt Lake police captain, framed immigration reform as a homeland security issue, arguing that Cannon hasn't done enough to protect America's borders.
And he criticized Cannon for doing nothing to stop the overseas outsourcing of American jobs.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of opening the floodgates and allowing just about anyone into our country. I think we need stronger borders and tougher enforcement of people who violate their visa etc. But the whole "immigration Reform" issue plays into peoples fears and hatred of foreigners, especially those of darker skin tones. The same people that start these issue groups tend to be the same people that are associated with white supremacists.
Canada's economy isn't so hot either, and I am sure lots of Canadian people "sneak over" the boarder to work in the US; there's no one up on our side of the boarder (or not nearly enough) to protect us from terrorists coming over. In 2000, we got lucky that a terrorist was caught with explosives while driving from Vancouver to Seattle. Our neighbor to the north is more scary to be than Mexico.
I think we need to work out a proper guest worker program so that Mexicans can be seasonal workers in American fields, as long as they go home during the off-months. And for those who have lived here a number of years, have a clean record, paid their taxes, sent their children off to Iraq to die for this country, they should get to become naturalized citizens and not worry about the INS anymore.
Ebony and Ivory
OK this post has nothing to do with Stevie Wonder or African-Americans, but it DOES have to do with Ellis Ivory.
The Peter Corroon campaign sent me a little email (asking for money of course) saying "Ellis Ivory is dumping $400,000 of his own money into the Salt Lake County Mayor's race - all in the last three weeks of the campaign. Is it right to 'buy' the election with private wealth without addressing the issues? To whom would he be held accountable? While this is not illegal - it does distort the process." The email goes on to point that out that Ivory was the honorary co-chair of Nancy Workman's campaign until the local GOP forced her to drop out.
For a local race, $400K is alot, especially in the final month, perhaps that's why Ellis is up in Cook's private poll. This is the most entertaining race I have seen in ages. It's like a soap opera.
On a personal note, this weekend I am watching the parent's estate and using their nice tickets to see the Utes play the Tarheels on national TV (in football). The end of the break is coming so I won't be able to post as much for afterwards. However, I do appreciate whomever it is that is spreading the word and those new visitors to my Blog. Welcome, I hope you stay awhile.
The Peter Corroon campaign sent me a little email (asking for money of course) saying "Ellis Ivory is dumping $400,000 of his own money into the Salt Lake County Mayor's race - all in the last three weeks of the campaign. Is it right to 'buy' the election with private wealth without addressing the issues? To whom would he be held accountable? While this is not illegal - it does distort the process." The email goes on to point that out that Ivory was the honorary co-chair of Nancy Workman's campaign until the local GOP forced her to drop out.
For a local race, $400K is alot, especially in the final month, perhaps that's why Ellis is up in Cook's private poll. This is the most entertaining race I have seen in ages. It's like a soap opera.
On a personal note, this weekend I am watching the parent's estate and using their nice tickets to see the Utes play the Tarheels on national TV (in football). The end of the break is coming so I won't be able to post as much for afterwards. However, I do appreciate whomever it is that is spreading the word and those new visitors to my Blog. Welcome, I hope you stay awhile.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
SL Co. Race: it just gets keeps getting stranger
For some unknown reason, Independent SL Co. Mayoral candidate and former GOP Congressman Merrill Cook has told reporters about his own polling, which shows up-start write-in candidate Ellis Ivory 10 point up on Democrat Peter Carroon, who is up 10 points over Cook. Translation: Cook's getting whooped by 20 points. What the heck happened? I guess voters will go for anyone as long as they are GOP. I am surprised that they haven’t had ads reminding voters who Carroon is related to (hint: “We’re going California and Texas…YEEEAGH!”).
I don't have the details of Cook's poll, since he just blabbed to the 10 o'clock news. But why would he do this? Well Cook is the losingist candidate in Utah political history, as far as I know. He ran for SL city mayor, governor, congressman all a number of times. He finally won the lotto in 1996 (because then Rep. Enid Greene was in trouble for $2M in campaign finance violations) and stuck gold again in 1998. But then employees complained that Cook had a temper and lashed out at them. He ended up dropping out in 2000, and Jim Matheson won his seat (an update on Jim to follow).
So maybe Cook is crazy, but the UT Democratic Party isn't: they are challenging Ivory's attempts to get his name stickered over Workman who feigned "medical reasons" for dropping out (she got a bad case of LOSING), which the party contends is in violation of state law. If Ivory has to be written-in, then Corroon will probably win. Either way, Cook is toast. He was always UT's conservative Ralph Nader, ruining it for the GOP.
On to Jim Matheson, who holds Cook's old seat. Finally, after a week or so of clone attack ads from the NRCC and Swallow, Matheson struck back. In the latest ad I saw during CSI, Jim's voice over guy pointed out that Swallow's GOP primary opponents called him a dirty campaigner and a liar. No surprise, this guy in another life would have been a used car salesman. Next, Jim points out he voted to ban partial birth abortion and for both Bush tax cuts (the background is him talking in Southern Utah with voters huddled around him) Next, they use a clip of Jim walking with a lady from his hard-hitting nuclear testing ad, ending with Jim standing on some red rocks doing the "I'm Jim Matheson and I approve this message." I wouldn't call it an attack ad, or a "contrast ad" (soft attack ad) but rather a "correct the record ad" with a dash of "my opponent lies ad" thrown in.
I guess I like the ad, truthful but not too negative, while still making Jim out to be the victim of a vicious attack (which he is). I personally wouldn't have voted the way he did, but then again I am not a two-time Democratic Congressman whose district is over 60% Republican. It’s a miracle he is even there. Or is it?
Jim is one of the hardest working congressmen on the Hill. And I should know, I worked for him as an intern and talked to other interns. He totally does whatever he wants indenpendently of his party, unlike Rubber-Stamp Swallow.
I don't have the details of Cook's poll, since he just blabbed to the 10 o'clock news. But why would he do this? Well Cook is the losingist candidate in Utah political history, as far as I know. He ran for SL city mayor, governor, congressman all a number of times. He finally won the lotto in 1996 (because then Rep. Enid Greene was in trouble for $2M in campaign finance violations) and stuck gold again in 1998. But then employees complained that Cook had a temper and lashed out at them. He ended up dropping out in 2000, and Jim Matheson won his seat (an update on Jim to follow).
So maybe Cook is crazy, but the UT Democratic Party isn't: they are challenging Ivory's attempts to get his name stickered over Workman who feigned "medical reasons" for dropping out (she got a bad case of LOSING), which the party contends is in violation of state law. If Ivory has to be written-in, then Corroon will probably win. Either way, Cook is toast. He was always UT's conservative Ralph Nader, ruining it for the GOP.
On to Jim Matheson, who holds Cook's old seat. Finally, after a week or so of clone attack ads from the NRCC and Swallow, Matheson struck back. In the latest ad I saw during CSI, Jim's voice over guy pointed out that Swallow's GOP primary opponents called him a dirty campaigner and a liar. No surprise, this guy in another life would have been a used car salesman. Next, Jim points out he voted to ban partial birth abortion and for both Bush tax cuts (the background is him talking in Southern Utah with voters huddled around him) Next, they use a clip of Jim walking with a lady from his hard-hitting nuclear testing ad, ending with Jim standing on some red rocks doing the "I'm Jim Matheson and I approve this message." I wouldn't call it an attack ad, or a "contrast ad" (soft attack ad) but rather a "correct the record ad" with a dash of "my opponent lies ad" thrown in.
I guess I like the ad, truthful but not too negative, while still making Jim out to be the victim of a vicious attack (which he is). I personally wouldn't have voted the way he did, but then again I am not a two-time Democratic Congressman whose district is over 60% Republican. It’s a miracle he is even there. Or is it?
Jim is one of the hardest working congressmen on the Hill. And I should know, I worked for him as an intern and talked to other interns. He totally does whatever he wants indenpendently of his party, unlike Rubber-Stamp Swallow.
Quotes of the day
George Bush, after claiming victory in spite of every poll saying he lost, today said about his performance: "My spirits are high. I'm enthusiastic about my chances"
Whatever he's taking, we should make it illegal.
Now for something completely different, via Craigslist:
"Any of you Republicans want to fight. Street brawl, bodies only, no weapons.
I will not be merciful. I'm sick of this tough guy shit. Let's see what you got.
I'll be waiting in the CVS parking lot across from the Fitness First gym on Wisconsin Ave. in Bethesda. I'll be wearing a blue sweat shirt, with black gloves.
TONIGHT, [posted 2004-10-13, 12:39PM EDT] between 8 and 9pm. One on one only, but you can form a line.
this is in or around No joke
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests"
Whatever he's taking, we should make it illegal.
Now for something completely different, via Craigslist:
"Any of you Republicans want to fight. Street brawl, bodies only, no weapons.
I will not be merciful. I'm sick of this tough guy shit. Let's see what you got.
I'll be waiting in the CVS parking lot across from the Fitness First gym on Wisconsin Ave. in Bethesda. I'll be wearing a blue sweat shirt, with black gloves.
TONIGHT, [posted 2004-10-13, 12:39PM EDT] between 8 and 9pm. One on one only, but you can form a line.
this is in or around No joke
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests"
Not so poor any more
For those of you who didn't know, my fiancee and I have been living off our savings since we moved out to Utah in August. In the meantime, we have paid for a car, 2 months of high (for the area) rent, and other cost of living expenses, including our recent trip to Moab.
Often, we passed up going to movies or out to dinner because we felt so poor.
But no longer. She got a job offer today! She will be working with an advertising firm in downtown SLC (yes there are some in Salt Lake) that specializes in technology. The founder is the guy who came up with "Intel Inside." My poor wife to be has been looking for months on end and worked so hard to network and keep hope alive despite Utahn's apparent fear of her Harvard Masters degree.
I would like to thank Wellesley College for this, because it was a Wellesley woman that got her the interview and ended up hiring her. Those Wellesley Alumnae have so much solidarity, it is awesome. Of course, my fiancee is qualified, with her education in psychology and two summers worth of work for advertising firms in Chicago, but every little bit helps.
She starts in two weeks because on Monday, her mother is coming to town and that weekend she is off to San Francisco for a cousin's wedding (I was invited but I have too much work for school to do). So this is very exciting and I am sure she will write all about it on her blog once she gets home and stops bouncing off the walls ;)
By the way, I want to point out, in case I haddn't made myself clear, that I am extremely proud of her and very happy for her (and me too). Now back to reading a researching common-law marriage in Utah...it's for school, really it is.
Often, we passed up going to movies or out to dinner because we felt so poor.
But no longer. She got a job offer today! She will be working with an advertising firm in downtown SLC (yes there are some in Salt Lake) that specializes in technology. The founder is the guy who came up with "Intel Inside." My poor wife to be has been looking for months on end and worked so hard to network and keep hope alive despite Utahn's apparent fear of her Harvard Masters degree.
I would like to thank Wellesley College for this, because it was a Wellesley woman that got her the interview and ended up hiring her. Those Wellesley Alumnae have so much solidarity, it is awesome. Of course, my fiancee is qualified, with her education in psychology and two summers worth of work for advertising firms in Chicago, but every little bit helps.
She starts in two weeks because on Monday, her mother is coming to town and that weekend she is off to San Francisco for a cousin's wedding (I was invited but I have too much work for school to do). So this is very exciting and I am sure she will write all about it on her blog once she gets home and stops bouncing off the walls ;)
By the way, I want to point out, in case I haddn't made myself clear, that I am extremely proud of her and very happy for her (and me too). Now back to reading a researching common-law marriage in Utah...it's for school, really it is.
SL Co. GOP does a 180
After pretending that they could mount what would be the first successful write-in campaign that I know of in Utah history, Salt Lake County GOP want Ivory on the ballot. Clearly they figured out he couldn't win as a write-in, but now they have to some how remove Workman from the ballot even though she wouldn't budge in her Captain Edward John Smith of the HMS Titanic-like sucidial re-election campaign.
Workman tried to get herself off the ballot (no doubt after much pressure from party officials) by pretending to be sick or crazy, as the law requires for her removal. SL County Clerk (and Democrat Sherrie Swensen does plan to submit Party Chairman Coleman's request to the District Attorney's Office and to the state elections office to ensure it matches with Utah law.
There are sure to be lawsuits by the Democratic Party and folks like Merrill Cook, who have the most to gain from no GOP candidate on the ballot.
"I hope if there are any challenges, they get it done soon," she said. "Right now, we're in limbo."
Swensen told reporters that it would take at least 120 hours to replace or cover up Workman's name on the ballot, because there are more than 700 precincts in the county and thousands of voter machines. It sounds like a remake of Broward County Florida 2000. With all these messed up ballots it could be weeks before we know who won the governors race, the 2nd congressional race, and the SL county mayor's race (president and senate races won't be affected).
Remember, SL County is the largest in Utah, with nearly one million residents (almost half the state's total population). I smell a disaster in the making. Stay tuned.
Workman tried to get herself off the ballot (no doubt after much pressure from party officials) by pretending to be sick or crazy, as the law requires for her removal. SL County Clerk (and Democrat Sherrie Swensen does plan to submit Party Chairman Coleman's request to the District Attorney's Office and to the state elections office to ensure it matches with Utah law.
There are sure to be lawsuits by the Democratic Party and folks like Merrill Cook, who have the most to gain from no GOP candidate on the ballot.
"I hope if there are any challenges, they get it done soon," she said. "Right now, we're in limbo."
Swensen told reporters that it would take at least 120 hours to replace or cover up Workman's name on the ballot, because there are more than 700 precincts in the county and thousands of voter machines. It sounds like a remake of Broward County Florida 2000. With all these messed up ballots it could be weeks before we know who won the governors race, the 2nd congressional race, and the SL county mayor's race (president and senate races won't be affected).
Remember, SL County is the largest in Utah, with nearly one million residents (almost half the state's total population). I smell a disaster in the making. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Just in Time
My fiancee and I just got back from Moab in time to watch the final Presidential debates. I am a Red Sox fan too, but my first love is politics.
Couple of impressions: in the first debate, Bush blinked and twitched; in the second debate, Bush yelled (at times at nobody except maybe a voice in his ear); in the third debate, he smirked, smiled inappropriately and pounded on the lectern with a microphone on it (bad moves all). Again, I think Kerry won this debate. The folks CBS polled thought so too, to the tune of 39% Kerry, 25% Bush. Kerry wasn't as good as the first one, but better than the second. There were times when he could have done something more with the debate, like with the last question about strong women.
He should have pointed out that he has already placed strong women high up on his team (ex-Sen. Kennedy CoH Mary Beth Cahill and fmr. NH Gov. Gene Sheehen). In his cabinet, Kerry should have added, women will take a much more prominent role than they did in Bush’s. He should have talked about issues that were important to women; especially the swing women- married ones, besides abortion. Whoever gets the majority of married women will probably win.
Bush's worst moment- as my friend Rob pointed out- was when he was asked "what do say to a worker who's just lost their job to someone who works for less oversees?" with "go to college." I had to make sure I was hearing right, what with all the red sand still in my ears. It is pretty out of touch and insensitive to tell a 50 year old person who's mill just go shut down to go back to college. With what money? With what hope of landing what job? The president is right that in the long term, improving education, especially post-secondary education is the key to keeping Americans competitive in the global economy. But in the short term, unemployed workers need help paying the bills and finding appropriate work. Kerry touched on this but didn't shove in the President's face like Rob wanted him to.
The fact is, every time they asked a jobs question, Bush had no answer. Instead he talked about No Child Left Behind, which he under funded. In fact, NCLB is incredibly unpopular in "Red" regions of the country, because it is draining school budgets with an unfunded mandate and labeling many good schools "failing," which in turn lowers property values. Personally, I hate mandating testing. I can't take a standardized test to save my life, yet I did well in High School, did fine at an Ivy League college, and got into a top tier law school.
The best part for Kerry tonight for me was when he said there are two different school systems in this country, one for the rich and one for the poor. This is so true, and what makes it even worse is that it also trends along racial lines. Our country is just as segrated now as we were before Brown v. Board of Education, if not more so. Black school children are a hell of a lot better off than they were in the 1950s, but they haven't advanced as much as their white counterparts. Why is that? well lots of reasons which I don't care to go into right now but I am glad that Kerry brought it to our attention, something that folks in those GOP exurbs want you to forget about.
Before I go (I promised myself I would finish my CivPro outline tonight), I wanted to share with you a glimpse of my mini-vacation and Delicate Arch near Moab, Utah, which is in the post below...
Couple of impressions: in the first debate, Bush blinked and twitched; in the second debate, Bush yelled (at times at nobody except maybe a voice in his ear); in the third debate, he smirked, smiled inappropriately and pounded on the lectern with a microphone on it (bad moves all). Again, I think Kerry won this debate. The folks CBS polled thought so too, to the tune of 39% Kerry, 25% Bush. Kerry wasn't as good as the first one, but better than the second. There were times when he could have done something more with the debate, like with the last question about strong women.
He should have pointed out that he has already placed strong women high up on his team (ex-Sen. Kennedy CoH Mary Beth Cahill and fmr. NH Gov. Gene Sheehen). In his cabinet, Kerry should have added, women will take a much more prominent role than they did in Bush’s. He should have talked about issues that were important to women; especially the swing women- married ones, besides abortion. Whoever gets the majority of married women will probably win.
Bush's worst moment- as my friend Rob pointed out- was when he was asked "what do say to a worker who's just lost their job to someone who works for less oversees?" with "go to college." I had to make sure I was hearing right, what with all the red sand still in my ears. It is pretty out of touch and insensitive to tell a 50 year old person who's mill just go shut down to go back to college. With what money? With what hope of landing what job? The president is right that in the long term, improving education, especially post-secondary education is the key to keeping Americans competitive in the global economy. But in the short term, unemployed workers need help paying the bills and finding appropriate work. Kerry touched on this but didn't shove in the President's face like Rob wanted him to.
The fact is, every time they asked a jobs question, Bush had no answer. Instead he talked about No Child Left Behind, which he under funded. In fact, NCLB is incredibly unpopular in "Red" regions of the country, because it is draining school budgets with an unfunded mandate and labeling many good schools "failing," which in turn lowers property values. Personally, I hate mandating testing. I can't take a standardized test to save my life, yet I did well in High School, did fine at an Ivy League college, and got into a top tier law school.
The best part for Kerry tonight for me was when he said there are two different school systems in this country, one for the rich and one for the poor. This is so true, and what makes it even worse is that it also trends along racial lines. Our country is just as segrated now as we were before Brown v. Board of Education, if not more so. Black school children are a hell of a lot better off than they were in the 1950s, but they haven't advanced as much as their white counterparts. Why is that? well lots of reasons which I don't care to go into right now but I am glad that Kerry brought it to our attention, something that folks in those GOP exurbs want you to forget about.
Before I go (I promised myself I would finish my CivPro outline tonight), I wanted to share with you a glimpse of my mini-vacation and Delicate Arch near Moab, Utah, which is in the post below...
Monday, October 11, 2004
Bon Voyage
I am leaving tomorrow for Moab, but I wanted to give you all a little something to chew on while I am gone.
The Atlantic Monthly had an interesting article a while back about how Bush's diction and speach has steadily changed over the past 10 years. I thought the summary was that Bush is dumbing down his talk to appeal to Joe Six-pack, but this video's summary is that Bush is slowly becoming mentally ill.
Something to think about.
Also, on a local note, the "Miller High Life" ad-voice is doing anti-Matheson ads for the NRCC. I am sorry, but tort reform just isn't the issue that republicans think it is. Maybe for the rich business types, for conservative doctors, but not for your average Utahn, who is by-in-large poor. Same goes for Judicial appointments. It is such an abstract issue. I guess if you push it in the culture war aspect, but saying a senator blocks appointments, I really don't see someone coming out to vote for someone.
The Atlantic Monthly had an interesting article a while back about how Bush's diction and speach has steadily changed over the past 10 years. I thought the summary was that Bush is dumbing down his talk to appeal to Joe Six-pack, but this video's summary is that Bush is slowly becoming mentally ill.
Something to think about.
Also, on a local note, the "Miller High Life" ad-voice is doing anti-Matheson ads for the NRCC. I am sorry, but tort reform just isn't the issue that republicans think it is. Maybe for the rich business types, for conservative doctors, but not for your average Utahn, who is by-in-large poor. Same goes for Judicial appointments. It is such an abstract issue. I guess if you push it in the culture war aspect, but saying a senator blocks appointments, I really don't see someone coming out to vote for someone.
Monday's weekend roundup
Quote of the Day
CO GOP Senate Candidate Pete Coors on Terrorism and Axis of Evil: "Clearly, we should be more worried today, actually, about Iran and North Dakota than we are -- North Korea -- than we are about Iraq" (Meet the Press, 10/10/04)
Gee I didn't know North Dakota was something to worry about. I guess this is why the state wants to drop the "North" in its name, so idiot potential senators don't confuse it with a communist dictatorship.
Another fun quote from the debate: "You see no inconsistency between sponsoring male nude revues and fetish balls, and opposing gay adoption and gay marriage?" -- NBC's Tim Russert, to Coors
On a more serious and sad note, Christopher Reeve (who had a child in my college graduating class) died Sunday of heart failure. A publicist said Reeve "fell into a coma Saturday" after going into cardiac arrest. He was 52. He gave so many hope and courage for his stance. I think he became Superman after the accident that left him paralyzied.
Don't forget Poll[and]!
An AP/Ipsos poll shows John Kerry leading Pres. Bush among LVs 50%-46% with Nader receiving 2% (release). A Time poll shows Bush leading Kerry 47%-46% among LVs and Kerry leading Bush 44%-43% among RVs. Meanwhile ABC shows the exact opposite, I will have to check out Ruy's site to find out which one is more accurate. In the meantime, I will just take the average and say 48 a piece.
An ABC News presidential tracker shows Bush leading Kerry among LVs 50%-46%, with Ralph Nader at 1%. Among RVs, Bush leads 48%-47% and Nader has 1%. An ABC News poll of RVs shows 44% believe Kerry won the debate, compared to 41% who said Bush. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll also of RVs shows 47% believe Kerry won compared to 45% for Bush.
Update on UT's 2nd Congressional District
Matheson put out a second ad on the same theme: he's the only memeber of the Utah delegation that opposes new nuclear testing. It was a good ad, but I personally like the first one better. The first one has him with a scientist testing the water and Jim out in Southern Utah looking around vigilantly, to represent in a second or two what he does in congress years on end- look out for his constituents. He seemed firm and resolute in both. The second one is more scary if the 50's nuclear testing stock footage and horror-movie piano soundtrack.
Jim is running against the delegation in his ad, there is no mention of Swallow or his party or anything. Swallow by contrast, is a cookie-cutter conservative running a cookie-cutter campaign, and he is down 32 points because of it.
Even though they are more conservative than he is, Southern Utahns like all the hard work Matheson has done for them in the last 3 years, despite being in the minority party and all that.
Update on UT Governor's race
A couple days ago I asked how it was possible that the Governor's race could swing by 15 points in a matter of days when nothing really happened on the outside? Well it didn't. Valley Research pulled a Gallup (and oversampled GOPers) to get different numbers. The whole Gallup thing is like USNews' college rankings; they tweak the model every year so there can be a new number one to sell more magazines, just like how USATODAY et al do that for the Presidental race.
From now on, I am going to only trust Dan Jones when it comes to Utah races. I always thought he was the best, but was willing to give other polling firms a try. Well, blew their wad.
Bottom line: the race is still tied or with very slight Huntsman lead. It still means it will be an uphill battle for Jim's brother Scott, but at least it isn't over already.
CO GOP Senate Candidate Pete Coors on Terrorism and Axis of Evil: "Clearly, we should be more worried today, actually, about Iran and North Dakota than we are -- North Korea -- than we are about Iraq" (Meet the Press, 10/10/04)
Gee I didn't know North Dakota was something to worry about. I guess this is why the state wants to drop the "North" in its name, so idiot potential senators don't confuse it with a communist dictatorship.
Another fun quote from the debate: "You see no inconsistency between sponsoring male nude revues and fetish balls, and opposing gay adoption and gay marriage?" -- NBC's Tim Russert, to Coors
On a more serious and sad note, Christopher Reeve (who had a child in my college graduating class) died Sunday of heart failure. A publicist said Reeve "fell into a coma Saturday" after going into cardiac arrest. He was 52. He gave so many hope and courage for his stance. I think he became Superman after the accident that left him paralyzied.
Don't forget Poll[and]!
An AP/Ipsos poll shows John Kerry leading Pres. Bush among LVs 50%-46% with Nader receiving 2% (release). A Time poll shows Bush leading Kerry 47%-46% among LVs and Kerry leading Bush 44%-43% among RVs. Meanwhile ABC shows the exact opposite, I will have to check out Ruy's site to find out which one is more accurate. In the meantime, I will just take the average and say 48 a piece.
An ABC News presidential tracker shows Bush leading Kerry among LVs 50%-46%, with Ralph Nader at 1%. Among RVs, Bush leads 48%-47% and Nader has 1%. An ABC News poll of RVs shows 44% believe Kerry won the debate, compared to 41% who said Bush. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll also of RVs shows 47% believe Kerry won compared to 45% for Bush.
Update on UT's 2nd Congressional District
Matheson put out a second ad on the same theme: he's the only memeber of the Utah delegation that opposes new nuclear testing. It was a good ad, but I personally like the first one better. The first one has him with a scientist testing the water and Jim out in Southern Utah looking around vigilantly, to represent in a second or two what he does in congress years on end- look out for his constituents. He seemed firm and resolute in both. The second one is more scary if the 50's nuclear testing stock footage and horror-movie piano soundtrack.
Jim is running against the delegation in his ad, there is no mention of Swallow or his party or anything. Swallow by contrast, is a cookie-cutter conservative running a cookie-cutter campaign, and he is down 32 points because of it.
Even though they are more conservative than he is, Southern Utahns like all the hard work Matheson has done for them in the last 3 years, despite being in the minority party and all that.
Update on UT Governor's race
A couple days ago I asked how it was possible that the Governor's race could swing by 15 points in a matter of days when nothing really happened on the outside? Well it didn't. Valley Research pulled a Gallup (and oversampled GOPers) to get different numbers. The whole Gallup thing is like USNews' college rankings; they tweak the model every year so there can be a new number one to sell more magazines, just like how USATODAY et al do that for the Presidental race.
From now on, I am going to only trust Dan Jones when it comes to Utah races. I always thought he was the best, but was willing to give other polling firms a try. Well, blew their wad.
Bottom line: the race is still tied or with very slight Huntsman lead. It still means it will be an uphill battle for Jim's brother Scott, but at least it isn't over already.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Swallow playing the liberal card
Down 32 points, John Swallow is in a fix against Utah's lone Democratic US Congressman Jim Matheson. So what's a mindless Republican to do in a Red State? Claim your oposition is the second coming of Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and (these days) John Kerry. The Salt Lake Tribune is all over this story:
Jim is pissed off: "This is just an election-year stunt," Matheson said. "I was up-front when I made that change in my position. I'm happy to talk about any of my votes." [he had voted against partial-birth abortion before b/c there was no health exception, this time he voted for a slightly different version, citing constiuents' influence.
It is nasty to do guilt by association tatics. Admittedly, Democrats are going the same thing in Blue States, and even some Red ones, using Tom Delay's dual admonishments from the House Ethics Committee to ask GOPers to return his donations and morph canidates faces into George W. Bush were he is unpopular (see the Chris Shay's race in CT). But it is even worse when the facts claimed are distortions.
Matheson "notes that four of the votes Swallow highlights in his ad - including one date that was incorrect - were for legislation allowing U.S. military personnel to have abortions in military hospitals if they would pay the cost themselves. Matheson notes that Swallow did nothing during his six years in the Utah Legislature to change the state's more liberal partial-birth abortion law."
This is the same tactic that Derek Smith tried against Matheson in 2000, trying to link Jim to "San Fransico Liberals" (which is code words for Gay Rights Activists) for having a fundraiser in the city with Robert Redford. I suspect that, just like last time, it won't stick.
As Jim said, "It's an act of desperation."
Last year, John Swallow said he wouldn't criticize U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson for voting in favor of the federal partial birth abortion ban.
But that doesn't mean the Republican challenger won't attack the 2nd Congressional District incumbent this election year for an earlier vote against the law.
Jim is pissed off: "This is just an election-year stunt," Matheson said. "I was up-front when I made that change in my position. I'm happy to talk about any of my votes." [he had voted against partial-birth abortion before b/c there was no health exception, this time he voted for a slightly different version, citing constiuents' influence.
It is nasty to do guilt by association tatics. Admittedly, Democrats are going the same thing in Blue States, and even some Red ones, using Tom Delay's dual admonishments from the House Ethics Committee to ask GOPers to return his donations and morph canidates faces into George W. Bush were he is unpopular (see the Chris Shay's race in CT). But it is even worse when the facts claimed are distortions.
Matheson "notes that four of the votes Swallow highlights in his ad - including one date that was incorrect - were for legislation allowing U.S. military personnel to have abortions in military hospitals if they would pay the cost themselves. Matheson notes that Swallow did nothing during his six years in the Utah Legislature to change the state's more liberal partial-birth abortion law."
This is the same tactic that Derek Smith tried against Matheson in 2000, trying to link Jim to "San Fransico Liberals" (which is code words for Gay Rights Activists) for having a fundraiser in the city with Robert Redford. I suspect that, just like last time, it won't stick.
As Jim said, "It's an act of desperation."
The morning after
As I and the polls have said, last night's debate was a slight Kerry victory overall, but a pronouced victory amoung the all important independents. Every Democrat I have talked to are so relieved (they were worried that Kerry would be Gore-like or worse) and happy with the selection of Kerry after both debates, Bush supporters got a bit worried after last weeks debate but after this one, they seem to be happier (especially after Cheney made their case for them).
And Gallup backs me up on this. Their latest poll, shows that Kerry won the debate with Indies 53-37 BC04 hasn't done itself any favors this week. Overall, Democrats have easily been able to knockdown their lies and Democratic statements that seemed fishy were actually backed up by non-partisan groups and even the so-called liberal media.
I expect to see a slight Kerry bounce and movement in the swing states in his favor. Immediately after the debate, Bush headed straight towards the pro-life questioner who was blushing left and right over his black-and-white stand on the issue. In fairness, Kerry went over to the mistakes questioner, who (as far as I could tell) proceeded to lecture him on what his answer should have been. Kerry though didn't seek out his supporters in the panel, where as Bush went for the obvious conservatives (the woman who wore the american flag shirt).
Bush has given up on moderates and swing voters and Kerry is still holding hopes for some to swing his way. The only effort Bush has made towards swing voters is scaring them into thinking he is the only one who can keep them safe. Kerry's Mount Rushmore persona and efforts over the past two debates have eased people's concerns about his spine and confronting threats to our country.
In the end, I think Kerry will end up with 290 EVs assuming that CO's iniative doesn't pass. Between the election and inauguration I will be putting out the much-delayed Third Avenue Platform. While critics may say it is just a copy of the Democratic Party Platform, you will see areas were I noticibly differ. Hopefully I will be able to do it considering the amount of work coming up after this "break."
And Gallup backs me up on this. Their latest poll, shows that Kerry won the debate with Indies 53-37 BC04 hasn't done itself any favors this week. Overall, Democrats have easily been able to knockdown their lies and Democratic statements that seemed fishy were actually backed up by non-partisan groups and even the so-called liberal media.
I expect to see a slight Kerry bounce and movement in the swing states in his favor. Immediately after the debate, Bush headed straight towards the pro-life questioner who was blushing left and right over his black-and-white stand on the issue. In fairness, Kerry went over to the mistakes questioner, who (as far as I could tell) proceeded to lecture him on what his answer should have been. Kerry though didn't seek out his supporters in the panel, where as Bush went for the obvious conservatives (the woman who wore the american flag shirt).
Bush has given up on moderates and swing voters and Kerry is still holding hopes for some to swing his way. The only effort Bush has made towards swing voters is scaring them into thinking he is the only one who can keep them safe. Kerry's Mount Rushmore persona and efforts over the past two debates have eased people's concerns about his spine and confronting threats to our country.
In the end, I think Kerry will end up with 290 EVs assuming that CO's iniative doesn't pass. Between the election and inauguration I will be putting out the much-delayed Third Avenue Platform. While critics may say it is just a copy of the Democratic Party Platform, you will see areas were I noticibly differ. Hopefully I will be able to do it considering the amount of work coming up after this "break."
Friday, October 08, 2004
Bonus: Bush v. Gibson
I have uploaded it onto my ISP for you all to watch that lovely exchange again here.
Why did I waste my precious publishing space for it? Because it is a bit issue that is being ignored by the press in their swooning for Bush despite snap-polls showing the public generally leaned Kerry on this debate: Bush's temper.
When cornered with bad facts, Bush either smirks, yells (like this debate he was shouting), or in the case of this clip, interrups or demeans other people. He demeaned the Rx drug questioner by saying basically you don't know what's good for you, I do and you don't want those drugs. I thought the GOP didn't want the government controlling your life like that. If people want to import drugs from Canada, let them. They are the exact same drug. Don't give us that saftely bullsh*t...maybe it isn't safe for Pharma's bottom line, but not to us. Plus, I think Bush said that Canada is a third world country. Isn't Canada one of our allies and didn't he just critize Kerry for "demeaning" them by pointing out that the collition is sham?
But really, Bush is so unaccostomed to critique and harsh questioning (and so used to applause and laugh lines, did you all notice the akward pauses while he was waiting for laughs/claps?) that he gets all righteous on people and shows the side of his personality that his handlers don't want voters to see: the one that mocked a woman on death row's pleas for mercy when he was governor of Texas (of course, he executed her).
I am glad though that Bush is just a pissed off little spoiled brat. One that, as Ann Richards said he was "born on third base and thought he hit a home run."
Why did I waste my precious publishing space for it? Because it is a bit issue that is being ignored by the press in their swooning for Bush despite snap-polls showing the public generally leaned Kerry on this debate: Bush's temper.
When cornered with bad facts, Bush either smirks, yells (like this debate he was shouting), or in the case of this clip, interrups or demeans other people. He demeaned the Rx drug questioner by saying basically you don't know what's good for you, I do and you don't want those drugs. I thought the GOP didn't want the government controlling your life like that. If people want to import drugs from Canada, let them. They are the exact same drug. Don't give us that saftely bullsh*t...maybe it isn't safe for Pharma's bottom line, but not to us. Plus, I think Bush said that Canada is a third world country. Isn't Canada one of our allies and didn't he just critize Kerry for "demeaning" them by pointing out that the collition is sham?
But really, Bush is so unaccostomed to critique and harsh questioning (and so used to applause and laugh lines, did you all notice the akward pauses while he was waiting for laughs/claps?) that he gets all righteous on people and shows the side of his personality that his handlers don't want voters to see: the one that mocked a woman on death row's pleas for mercy when he was governor of Texas (of course, he executed her).
I am glad though that Bush is just a pissed off little spoiled brat. One that, as Ann Richards said he was "born on third base and thought he hit a home run."
Post-Debate spin
Boy, that was fun. I watched the debate at my parents house with the former chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court and others.
Our impression: there were times Kerry could have hit it out of the park, but decided not to (the Environment question and the Mistakes Question). There were times Bush really messed up, like his pronunciation of facile and calling Kerry Kennedy when talking about the National Journal. On the whole, Bush was even more agressive than last time, standing up during Kerry's points.
Kerry was very solid and as good as last time mostly in terms of clarity and brefity. Since Bush was slightly better than last time (since they didn't talk about Iraq the whole time, where he gets the most defensive) many said the debate was a tie.
ABCNews' snap poll had a narrow Kerry win 44-41 with the rest saying a tie. I haven't seen other polls. I think a narrow Kerry win was about as much as you could hope for in this scenerio. Bush was bound to be better this time, more prepared, less facially ticky (although I caught every smirks), etc.
In fact, Bush had set this all up by being agressive but terrible last time and in a sense, finding a new way to lower the bar for himself. The media of course, ate it up, especially Hardball with its Hannity and Combes style panel (one wussy "liberal" versus 5 conservatives).
On PBS they pointed out why men like him: he is like the man that took the wrong turn when driving some where, and won't admit he's lost or ask for directions. And that's what Iraq, along with his domestic policy is, a wrong turn. A Bush refuses to admit he turned away from Afghanistan, that Iraq was done properly etc. This is also why Women like Kerry: he will ask for directions and he will turn around.
But back to Kerry's missed opportunities. The environmental one is obvious and I don't need to dwell on it. The mistakes one was more crucial because it was the last question. If Kerry had gone up and said the following he would have "won" the debate:
"The President can't think of 3 things he did wrong? I can think of hundreds of things, but the three biggest ones are: 1. Iraq, which I have explained why already 2. 4 years ago in this hall, he pledged to change the tone in Washington. I've been a sentor for 20 years, and I have never seen the tone as bad as it is today. and finally 3. the president's biggest mistake of the last four years is that he can't admit mistakes. He can't see them, can't do anything about them. But I will. I have a plan to fix the mess in Iraq, get our economy on the right track, and bring our country together. He asks you to give him your vote for 4 more years. Who wants to repeat the last 4 years of mistakes and distasters? I know the millions of you without a job don't, or the millions of you without health insurance, or the thousands of soldier stuck in a disasterous war. With your help ladies and gentlemen, I can help get America back to being safer at home and respected abroad."
Our impression: there were times Kerry could have hit it out of the park, but decided not to (the Environment question and the Mistakes Question). There were times Bush really messed up, like his pronunciation of facile and calling Kerry Kennedy when talking about the National Journal. On the whole, Bush was even more agressive than last time, standing up during Kerry's points.
Kerry was very solid and as good as last time mostly in terms of clarity and brefity. Since Bush was slightly better than last time (since they didn't talk about Iraq the whole time, where he gets the most defensive) many said the debate was a tie.
ABCNews' snap poll had a narrow Kerry win 44-41 with the rest saying a tie. I haven't seen other polls. I think a narrow Kerry win was about as much as you could hope for in this scenerio. Bush was bound to be better this time, more prepared, less facially ticky (although I caught every smirks), etc.
In fact, Bush had set this all up by being agressive but terrible last time and in a sense, finding a new way to lower the bar for himself. The media of course, ate it up, especially Hardball with its Hannity and Combes style panel (one wussy "liberal" versus 5 conservatives).
On PBS they pointed out why men like him: he is like the man that took the wrong turn when driving some where, and won't admit he's lost or ask for directions. And that's what Iraq, along with his domestic policy is, a wrong turn. A Bush refuses to admit he turned away from Afghanistan, that Iraq was done properly etc. This is also why Women like Kerry: he will ask for directions and he will turn around.
But back to Kerry's missed opportunities. The environmental one is obvious and I don't need to dwell on it. The mistakes one was more crucial because it was the last question. If Kerry had gone up and said the following he would have "won" the debate:
"The President can't think of 3 things he did wrong? I can think of hundreds of things, but the three biggest ones are: 1. Iraq, which I have explained why already 2. 4 years ago in this hall, he pledged to change the tone in Washington. I've been a sentor for 20 years, and I have never seen the tone as bad as it is today. and finally 3. the president's biggest mistake of the last four years is that he can't admit mistakes. He can't see them, can't do anything about them. But I will. I have a plan to fix the mess in Iraq, get our economy on the right track, and bring our country together. He asks you to give him your vote for 4 more years. Who wants to repeat the last 4 years of mistakes and distasters? I know the millions of you without a job don't, or the millions of you without health insurance, or the thousands of soldier stuck in a disasterous war. With your help ladies and gentlemen, I can help get America back to being safer at home and respected abroad."
Does it feel drafty in here, or is it just me?
Something I have been meaning to talk about in the last couple days but never got around to it was the internet rumors and worries about Vietnam-style draft being reinstated for Iraq should Bush win reelection. Republicans have charged that Democrats are just trying to scare college students and thier worried mothers into voting for their party. In fact, I have even seen one of the emails that went around from my future Mother-in-Law.
My gut reaction to her was "not to worry, there is no way in hell that it will pass." Sure enough, a day or so later, the GOP brings up Democratic Congressman (African-American and Korean War Veteran) Charlie Rangel's bill so they can defeat it 402-2 to quell the worries.
But reading DailyKos today, I came across a great speech by Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan (who replaced James "Beam me up" Trafficant in 2002) who made the point that the reason this is even an issue is due to the Bush Administration's near pathelogical-lying/knowing self-desception on the war on Iraq. "There's not one thing, not one thing that this admistration said about the war that was true!" Basically, he said, why should college students, or anyone else for that matter, trust a President that won't admit to realities on the ground and who didn't tell us the truth so many times. If you haven't clicked that link yet, please do, it really the best speech to come out of the house on a floor vote in a long time. And I should know, because I am a C-SPAN junkie.
My gut reaction to her was "not to worry, there is no way in hell that it will pass." Sure enough, a day or so later, the GOP brings up Democratic Congressman (African-American and Korean War Veteran) Charlie Rangel's bill so they can defeat it 402-2 to quell the worries.
But reading DailyKos today, I came across a great speech by Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan (who replaced James "Beam me up" Trafficant in 2002) who made the point that the reason this is even an issue is due to the Bush Administration's near pathelogical-lying/knowing self-desception on the war on Iraq. "There's not one thing, not one thing that this admistration said about the war that was true!" Basically, he said, why should college students, or anyone else for that matter, trust a President that won't admit to realities on the ground and who didn't tell us the truth so many times. If you haven't clicked that link yet, please do, it really the best speech to come out of the house on a floor vote in a long time. And I should know, because I am a C-SPAN junkie.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Once again, John Stewart Nails it on the Head
(Last night's Daily Show)
"Last night, Vice President Dick Cheney faced off against North Carolina Senator John Edwards for their first and only vice presidential debate. Now for those of you who missed the debate, there were several ways you could summarize it. One of them would be this. ... [pic of Cheney] Grrrrrr! ... [pic of Edwards] Golly! ... [pic of Cheney] Grrrrrr! ... [pic of Edwards] Goooolly! ... [pic of Cheney] Rarrrr! ... [pic of Edwards] Jeepers! ... Or perhaps we could describe the encounter as a battle between Edwards, the courtly Southern student council-ass-kiss-ocity. ... Did you get the apple I sent you? did you get it? ... And of course there was that versus Cheney's um ... [clip of Cheney: 'Terrorists could smuggle a deadly biological agent or nuclear weapon into the middle of one of our own cities.'] ... unnerving troll-under-the-bridge bogeyman mentality. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station. ... The early part of the debate focused on Iraq -- the growing insurgency, a failure to find WMDs, or a link with al Qaeda, and a promise before the war that our soldiers would be greeted as liberators. Vice President Cheney displayed the growth that he's achieved through the crucible of war. ... [clip of Cheney: 'What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do, if I had it to recommend all over again I would recommend exactly the same course of action. And we did exactly the right thing.'] ... Yes, there's nothing like 20-20 blind sight. Are you insane? Do you have a television? ... Actually, the vice president has learned one thing -- why it's been so difficult to build a coalition. ... [clip of Cheney: 'It's hard after John Kerry referred to our allies as a coalition of the coerced and the bribed to go out and persuade people to send troops.'] ... So John Kerry criticizing you in the Fall of 2004 is what prevented you from building a coalition in the Spring of 2003? That's power. ... But how in any way does that affect your administration?"
More Stewart: "But Cheney fought back at charges he'd led America into a paralyzing and costly war, with the equally powerful charge of truancy. ... [clip of Cheney: 'The first time I met you was on stage tonight.'] ... Really? You guys never exchanged a friendly 'Go f*** yourself' in the hallway? ... Actually, that criticism would be an awfully damning statement, if it were true, and this videotape of the 2 men together at a 2001 Prayer Breakfast didn't exist. Or if Cheney had actually presided over one of those Tuesday Senate sessions more than twice in the past 4 years. But still, you know, good zinger. ... Edwards, not known for his attacking style, took it to the vice president on the subject of Halliburton. ... [clip of Cheney: 'I could respond Gwen, but it'll take more than 30 seconds.' Ifill: 'Well that's all you've got.'] ... Ouch. Ladies and gentleman, you just witnessed a rare failure of the legendary Cheney charm. ... Cornered, Cheney pounced. ... [clip of Cheney: 'They're trying to throw up a smokescreen. ... They know if you go to FactCheck.com ... you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.'] ... Actually funny story -- if you go to FactCheck.com, you'll be re-routed and learn that George Bush is endangering our safety and must not be re-elected in a message from billionaire investor George Soros. So, Cheney actually had a slight factual error on his fact check reference. What Cheney meant to say is FactCheck.org, which is a non-partisan clearinghouse of politicians statements, which leads today with an item about, yes, how Cheney got their web address wrong. ... Now, I know that this is confusing, but even more confusing is what happened to me when I went to my computer and typed in FatChicks.org. ... Now, it wasn't all Iraq, all the time. Cheney and Edwards did move into social issues, like gay-ness. ... [clip of Edwards: 'I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter ... and you can't have anything but respect that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter.'] ... Yes, we admire your love for your [yells] gay daughter! In fact, if there's a more loving father of a [yells] gay daughter, I haven't seen him and I for one know that your [yells] gay daughter is very proud of you. Mr Vice President, care to comment on your [yells] gay daughter? ... [clip of Cheney: 'Let me thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family.'] ... Umm, she's here, she's queer, next question. ... When the evening was over, the candidates greeted their families onstage. Edwards, scooping up young son Jack and daughter Emma Claire in a sign of virility. Several grunts and a herniated disc later, the vice president matched him by power-lifting his family in one hand"
"Last night, Vice President Dick Cheney faced off against North Carolina Senator John Edwards for their first and only vice presidential debate. Now for those of you who missed the debate, there were several ways you could summarize it. One of them would be this. ... [pic of Cheney] Grrrrrr! ... [pic of Edwards] Golly! ... [pic of Cheney] Grrrrrr! ... [pic of Edwards] Goooolly! ... [pic of Cheney] Rarrrr! ... [pic of Edwards] Jeepers! ... Or perhaps we could describe the encounter as a battle between Edwards, the courtly Southern student council-ass-kiss-ocity. ... Did you get the apple I sent you? did you get it? ... And of course there was that versus Cheney's um ... [clip of Cheney: 'Terrorists could smuggle a deadly biological agent or nuclear weapon into the middle of one of our own cities.'] ... unnerving troll-under-the-bridge bogeyman mentality. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station. ... The early part of the debate focused on Iraq -- the growing insurgency, a failure to find WMDs, or a link with al Qaeda, and a promise before the war that our soldiers would be greeted as liberators. Vice President Cheney displayed the growth that he's achieved through the crucible of war. ... [clip of Cheney: 'What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do, if I had it to recommend all over again I would recommend exactly the same course of action. And we did exactly the right thing.'] ... Yes, there's nothing like 20-20 blind sight. Are you insane? Do you have a television? ... Actually, the vice president has learned one thing -- why it's been so difficult to build a coalition. ... [clip of Cheney: 'It's hard after John Kerry referred to our allies as a coalition of the coerced and the bribed to go out and persuade people to send troops.'] ... So John Kerry criticizing you in the Fall of 2004 is what prevented you from building a coalition in the Spring of 2003? That's power. ... But how in any way does that affect your administration?"
More Stewart: "But Cheney fought back at charges he'd led America into a paralyzing and costly war, with the equally powerful charge of truancy. ... [clip of Cheney: 'The first time I met you was on stage tonight.'] ... Really? You guys never exchanged a friendly 'Go f*** yourself' in the hallway? ... Actually, that criticism would be an awfully damning statement, if it were true, and this videotape of the 2 men together at a 2001 Prayer Breakfast didn't exist. Or if Cheney had actually presided over one of those Tuesday Senate sessions more than twice in the past 4 years. But still, you know, good zinger. ... Edwards, not known for his attacking style, took it to the vice president on the subject of Halliburton. ... [clip of Cheney: 'I could respond Gwen, but it'll take more than 30 seconds.' Ifill: 'Well that's all you've got.'] ... Ouch. Ladies and gentleman, you just witnessed a rare failure of the legendary Cheney charm. ... Cornered, Cheney pounced. ... [clip of Cheney: 'They're trying to throw up a smokescreen. ... They know if you go to FactCheck.com ... you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.'] ... Actually funny story -- if you go to FactCheck.com, you'll be re-routed and learn that George Bush is endangering our safety and must not be re-elected in a message from billionaire investor George Soros. So, Cheney actually had a slight factual error on his fact check reference. What Cheney meant to say is FactCheck.org, which is a non-partisan clearinghouse of politicians statements, which leads today with an item about, yes, how Cheney got their web address wrong. ... Now, I know that this is confusing, but even more confusing is what happened to me when I went to my computer and typed in FatChicks.org. ... Now, it wasn't all Iraq, all the time. Cheney and Edwards did move into social issues, like gay-ness. ... [clip of Edwards: 'I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter ... and you can't have anything but respect that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter.'] ... Yes, we admire your love for your [yells] gay daughter! In fact, if there's a more loving father of a [yells] gay daughter, I haven't seen him and I for one know that your [yells] gay daughter is very proud of you. Mr Vice President, care to comment on your [yells] gay daughter? ... [clip of Cheney: 'Let me thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family.'] ... Umm, she's here, she's queer, next question. ... When the evening was over, the candidates greeted their families onstage. Edwards, scooping up young son Jack and daughter Emma Claire in a sign of virility. Several grunts and a herniated disc later, the vice president matched him by power-lifting his family in one hand"
Quote of the Day
"Sometimes my heart disengages from my head and I say something I shouldn't"
-- SC SEN GOP nominee Jim DeMint, trying to apologize over single pregnant teachers comment, Charleston Post & Courier, 10/7
DeMint said that single mothers shouldn't be teachers (he also said gay people shouldn't be teachers). Guess which one people found more offensive in South Carolina? But anyway, this is a non-appology, because I think he is saying I still believe it, but gee wasn't I an idiot for saying it?
Yes Jim, you were.
-- SC SEN GOP nominee Jim DeMint, trying to apologize over single pregnant teachers comment, Charleston Post & Courier, 10/7
DeMint said that single mothers shouldn't be teachers (he also said gay people shouldn't be teachers). Guess which one people found more offensive in South Carolina? But anyway, this is a non-appology, because I think he is saying I still believe it, but gee wasn't I an idiot for saying it?
Yes Jim, you were.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
No one at the party going to be Working for Workman
The Salt Lake Tribune reported this morning that the Salt Lake County GOP abandoned Workman for Ivory last night after her horrible preliminary hearing.
Instead of rallying behind former Republican Congressman Merril Cook, they supported Ellis Ivory, the big homebuilder/developer, as a write-in candidate. In other words, they punted.
In real life, Ivory isn't going to win, nor is Workman. perhaps this means more real-life conservatives will go over to Cook but how many who knows. Carroon has a lot of support and a big lead, which discourages turn out (especially when all the other races except governor are blow outs...but more on that later).
For the governor's race, Matheson's leaked internal polling is in direct conflict with the Tribune's public polling. Just take a look:
This is a bigger sample, I don't know which one is more respected. But how Scott could lose 15 points in a few days, so something is fishy. Worse case scenerio, I think Huntsman will be better than Levitt and more moderate than your average GOPer in Utah.
But that is just to make me feel better.
Among registered voters who watched the debate, ABCNews found 43 percent said Cheney won, 35 percent called Edwards the winner and 19 percent called it a tie. One factor is that more Republicans tuned in — 38 percent of viewers were Republicans, 31 percent Democrats, the rest independents. Yet afterwards, Cheney had cost the ticket a point (51-48 to 50-49). CBSNews had nearly the reverse: "Forty-one percent of these uncommitted debate watchers said Edwards won the debate tonight. Twenty-eight percent said Cheney won. Thirty-one percent thought it was a tie."
And that's all the political and polling news I have to share today. I am so tired again this morning. And legal reasearch doesn't help. What a waste of time and grades.
Instead of rallying behind former Republican Congressman Merril Cook, they supported Ellis Ivory, the big homebuilder/developer, as a write-in candidate. In other words, they punted.
In real life, Ivory isn't going to win, nor is Workman. perhaps this means more real-life conservatives will go over to Cook but how many who knows. Carroon has a lot of support and a big lead, which discourages turn out (especially when all the other races except governor are blow outs...but more on that later).
For the governor's race, Matheson's leaked internal polling is in direct conflict with the Tribune's public polling. Just take a look:
This is a bigger sample, I don't know which one is more respected. But how Scott could lose 15 points in a few days, so something is fishy. Worse case scenerio, I think Huntsman will be better than Levitt and more moderate than your average GOPer in Utah.
But that is just to make me feel better.
Among registered voters who watched the debate, ABCNews found 43 percent said Cheney won, 35 percent called Edwards the winner and 19 percent called it a tie. One factor is that more Republicans tuned in — 38 percent of viewers were Republicans, 31 percent Democrats, the rest independents. Yet afterwards, Cheney had cost the ticket a point (51-48 to 50-49). CBSNews had nearly the reverse: "Forty-one percent of these uncommitted debate watchers said Edwards won the debate tonight. Twenty-eight percent said Cheney won. Thirty-one percent thought it was a tie."
And that's all the political and polling news I have to share today. I am so tired again this morning. And legal reasearch doesn't help. What a waste of time and grades.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Better than Lieberman
I know that isn't a very high bar to pass, but Edwards did much better against Cheney than Leberman did in 2000.
That was a nasty, dirty fight. I feel that it was basically a partisan draw. Edwards didn't knock him out like Kerry did to Bush on Thursday, but he didn't get blown away and held his own for the most part.
The fact is, I don't think this made that much difference. But for those swing voters who watched it, I don't think Cheney's nastiness won him voters.
MSNBC is saying Cheney hit it out the park. Cheney had lots of mean retorts and lots of opposition research. BC04 team retooled after their debacle on Thursday. Both sides got their people excited, but didn't think they got other people convinced.
Will this slow the Kerry surge? Maybe, but Kerry can restart it on Friday, that is, if anyone watches. [Another good sign of higher voter turnout this time, besides huge registration surges, is the number of people who have tuned into these debates-- 60 Million for Thursday, who knows for tonight.]
OK folks, that's enough from me, I have to finish my Contracts homework. Groan.
That was a nasty, dirty fight. I feel that it was basically a partisan draw. Edwards didn't knock him out like Kerry did to Bush on Thursday, but he didn't get blown away and held his own for the most part.
The fact is, I don't think this made that much difference. But for those swing voters who watched it, I don't think Cheney's nastiness won him voters.
MSNBC is saying Cheney hit it out the park. Cheney had lots of mean retorts and lots of opposition research. BC04 team retooled after their debacle on Thursday. Both sides got their people excited, but didn't think they got other people convinced.
Will this slow the Kerry surge? Maybe, but Kerry can restart it on Friday, that is, if anyone watches. [Another good sign of higher voter turnout this time, besides huge registration surges, is the number of people who have tuned into these debates-- 60 Million for Thursday, who knows for tonight.]
OK folks, that's enough from me, I have to finish my Contracts homework. Groan.
Nancy at Workman
So our beleagured SL County mayor had her day in court. And to me, it doesn't look good. I'll get to the money quote from the Salt Lake Tribune article, but first note that county GOP leaders are going to meet tonight to decide what to do with her.
Mommy, I am too lazy, give me an assistant. How pathetic
[Chief Administrative Officer David] Marshall testified that Workman called him into her office in mid-2003 and said she wanted to hire Alena Iorga to be Workman's "eyes and ears" in the community and that the mayor specifically mentioned the employee would do health work. He said there was no mention of the Boys and Girls Clubs - where Iorga was working - and because of the duties the mayor described to him, he put the hire under the Health Department's budget.
The mayor's daughter, Aisza Wilde, testified that she had complained to her mother about not having enough money to give a pay raise to Iorga. Wilde broached the issue with Workman during a car ride, and the mayor offered to "loan" an employee.
"I didn't ask for county help," Wilde said. "I was seeking advice from my mommy."
Wilde noted that she didn't benefit from the county paying for the position because she ended up doing more work. Wilde did acknowledge that Iorga got a raise with the county's help.
Mommy, I am too lazy, give me an assistant. How pathetic
Monday, October 04, 2004
Third Ave. "Exclusive": UT governor's race TIED
The poll was conducted by GarinHartYang and shows each candidate receiving 42% of support, with 16% of likely voters polled still undecided. The poll conducted on September 28 and 29 of 505 likely Utahn voters statewide has a margin of error of 4.4%. [See below for this month's versus April's]
This most recent polling reflects a significant upsurge in support towards Scott’s candidacy as more and more voters begin to focus on the Governor’s race and the important issues facing Utah.
The results of this latest statewide survey (September 28-29) show that Scott Matheson Junior has made up significant ground against John Huntsman Junior, and the gubernatorial race is now tied.
In addition to Scott’s current surge being very encouraging, other key points emerge from further analysis of the survey data:
Trial Heat for Governor, in percent.
9/04 4/04
Scott Matheson Jr. 42 35
Jon Huntsman Jr. 42 49
Undecided/other 16 16
This most recent polling reflects a significant upsurge in support towards Scott’s candidacy as more and more voters begin to focus on the Governor’s race and the important issues facing Utah.
The results of this latest statewide survey (September 28-29) show that Scott Matheson Junior has made up significant ground against John Huntsman Junior, and the gubernatorial race is now tied.
In addition to Scott’s current surge being very encouraging, other key points emerge from further analysis of the survey data:
- Scott is winning among Democrats by 81% to 12% and he has an outstanding lead among Independent voters of 51% to 17%. Among Republicans, Scott is getting 21% (versus 64% for Huntsman).
- Scott’s support has more “intensity” than Huntsman’s support. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Matheson voters say they support him strongly, compared to 57% of Huntsman voters who support Huntsman strongly.
- Scott’s position in the gubernatorial race is amazing given the extremely difficult political environment he faces: 56% of the sample consists of Republicans compared to just 26% who describe themselves as Democrats, and Bush is defeating Kerry by 67% to 28%
Trial Heat for Governor, in percent.
9/04 4/04
Scott Matheson Jr. 42 35
Jon Huntsman Jr. 42 49
Undecided/other 16 16
Sunday, October 03, 2004
When is a swing state isn't one
This is the bit of bad news for Kerry...and Bush.
Most of the so-called swing states either never were or have already swung. Here's my list of pertend swing states.
State's that are true swing:
That's it, don't believe the hype on the other states, just focus on the true swing; so goes these, so goes the nation.
Most of the so-called swing states either never were or have already swung. Here's my list of pertend swing states.
- MI: Kerry is up well over the margin of error and has never dipped below it. They have a Democratic governor and ACT has packed up its shop in the state because they were doing so well.
- MO: Kerry has pulled all his ads from this state, the staff effort has apparently been half-assed. The only hope Kerry has there is ACT and/or Senate Candidate Nancy Farmer, who is down about 10 points to Kit Bond last time I checked.
- OR: This might be close, but it won't be as close as in 2000, where Nader got 7 percent, same goes for WA. Nader will get less than one. See Nader's failure to get a 1,000 signatures in a day, a thousand. Now that is sorry.
- NJ: Democrats were sweating bullets about polls showing Bush tied or leading in NJ because he has blanketed the state indirectly to blanket PA. The concern was that with 9/11 and Bush's hard-right pro-Israel stance, he just might steal New Jersey. So VP candidate Edwards showed up in Newark, and now Kerry is up over 10 points. That's all it took.
- DE: same goes for this state...
- TN: Kerry folks claimed that they were close, but 10 points is only a scare. Same goes with VA. Maybe in 2008, maybe with Edwards as the candidate, not with Kerry.
- AK: Bush is up over 10 points here since forever. Maybe if we had Clark as the candidate it would be close.
- AZ: Kerry has no ads in the state, and the staff presence has been virtually invisable. Polls show 50-38 Bush lead.
- NM: After a brief blip, Kerry is back on top with a comfy margin. Governor Bill Richardson won't let Kerry lose because he wants to run someday.
- LA: It goes without saying, but Kerry has no prayer here.
- NC: Dream on Kerry-Edwards...too bad Bush isn't taking the bait.
- ME: polls show that Kerry is still up over the MoE and only occationally have we seen Bush up. Just because his Dad lives there, doesn't mean he will win.
State's that are true swing:
- WI: Dude, what the hell happened here? Isn't this the home of countless Democratic senators, governors, and congresspeople? Even Mondale won Wisconsin. I don't get why Bush is up 10 point here. Kerry and ACT needs to get over there and fast.
- OH: ACT's poll and registration efforts have proved that this state is still in play, despite CW stating that it has gone Bush. But this will be a tough one for Kerry, who will have to get 2000 Bush voters to change their vote for him.
- FL: Nobody really knows who's up or down in this crucial state because of three hurricanes. With lots of campaigning and the 2000 recount and disenfrancizement of African-Americans still in peoples minds, I feel that Democrats will turn out.
- PA: This should be in Kerry's pocket already.
- NH: Like PA this should be in Kerry's pocket already and in the end, I believe both states will end up in Kerry's corner.
- IA: Everytime I see an Iowa poll, it is either tied or a slight Bush lead. I would be currious to see if Kerry gets a bump in this state after his debate performance.
- NV: The Yucca Mt. issue is one that will make this state more up for grabs than it was in 2000. I wouldn't lay money down for either side on this state.
- WV: Althought it is usually a democratic state, Bush won it last time. Kerry had been up due to jobs, but Bush's GOPers are scaring people with cultural issues. Last time it was "Gore will take your guns away;" this time it is "Liberals will take your Bibles away" next thing you know, they will claim the MA senator will force people to marry gay people.
- CO: This state is closer than the last Gallap-like poll I saw, and the electoral college spliting ballot iniative make this state a sleeper pick for Kerry.
- MN: I could say the same thing I said about WI. Isn't this the home of the late Senotor Wellstone? How come they have all these GOP elected officials?
That's it, don't believe the hype on the other states, just focus on the true swing; so goes these, so goes the nation.
Picture of the Day
So that's how it feels to go from being up by 11 point at the beginning of the month to be 2 points down (via Newsweek's Poll)... a 13 point swing!
Of course this is just one poll, and one taken immediately after the afterglow of the debate. This means it is flawed in the same way (although not to the same degree) as polls showing a big Bush lead after his speech at the convention.
Again, my bet is that the race is basically tied at about 48% each, with Nader getting a generous 1% and the other 3% undecided. Some have said that Bush's celing is his current percentage, but I think that is a bit generous to the Democratic side. Definately most of the undecides will either stay home or break for the challenger. I am guessing, based on talking to wise sage and poll-reader Ed Kilgore that 2/3 of the undecides will break Kerry's way. And assuming that ACT and the other 527s really are out performing the GOP like newspaper articles (citing numbers from secretary of state's offices in swing states), then that might get Kerry another point or two.
It's gonna be tight again, but when it is all over, I still believe Kerry is going to end up on top. And the best part is, years later, no one will admit to voting for George W. Bush. Just like Nixon.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Everybody's Workman for the Weekend, continued
Another Friday, another bad poll for SL County Mayor Nancy Workman.
As the Salt Lake Tribune writer Thomas Burr points out, "Corroon, Cook and 'Undecided' all have substantial leads over the embattled county mayor."
Here's a poll trendline via the Tribune to help you get an idea of the race:
Despite spending $125,000 into new campaign commercials, attacking SL County District Attorney Dave Yocum, blanketing the airwaves with ads and interviews, she still finds herself in a big, big hole.
The Tribune's poll reports that "Republicans are splitting their votes among the three candidates, with Cook garnering slightly more than his opponents. Corroon has 70 percent of the Democrats' backing and nearly half the independent voters. LDS voters back each candidate about the same."
"I don't think there is much chance for her to get her numbers up and even come close to a win," Bart Barker, a former GOP Salt Lake County commissioner, said. "Regardless of what happens in the courts, the damage has been done and is permanent."
Cook's take? "Right now, there's still a lot of question of what could happen to Mayor Workman. Our momentum will really begin when people understand this race is between myself and Peter Corroon." You better hope so buddy.
Meanwhile, Peter Carroon is finding his niche and offered a ethics plan, something the county really needs.
- In-depth and timely audits of all county departments.
- Permanent independent, bipartisan ethics panel.
- Ban on all gifts from outside sources.
- Detailed conflict of interest disclosures for all employees, officials and board members.
- Registration of all lobbyists.
- Prohibition on vehicle perks for top officials.
- Open meetings - with few exceptions - in executive branch.
- Mandatory ethics training for employees.
- Annual employee oath.
- Additionally, Corroon wants to cap campaign donations ($5,000 for countywide races, $2,000 for district races), forbid donations from county vendors, file bank statements with campaign disclosures and bar campaign funds for personal use.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Phew!...Yee-haw
A few thoughts on the debate tonight before I turn in. Unlike Gore in 2000, Kerry won the body language war. Bush, partially because of the vast gulf between reality and his rhetoric, looked very cornered, flummoxed and nervous the whole time. Defensive would be the catch-all word for the president's performance.
And unlike 2000, the networks didn't call the debate for Bush. First they tried to say it was a draw, but when they were pushed, they admitted that Kerry did a great job of getting himself over the hurtle of being viewed a legitimate commander-in-chief. Even FoxNews thought Kerry won and that the race will tighten. Man, if Bush can't get them to sing is praises, you know it's not just be being partisan.
ABCNews did a snap poll, which show that Kerry won the debate according to voter-viewers, but the overall horserace didn't shift. Thankfully, they explained that is very natural. Interestingly Democrats were much more sure than Republicans 89% to 67% that their man won. Even better, Kerry won self-described Independents two-to-one.
But of course, Democrats can just sit back and smile, the next 48 hours are key to solidifying this impression that Kerry won and would make a good/decent Commander-in-Chief. JK really did a good job at being clear and forceful, but not combative, unlike Bush.
Back to the real world war on Terror, a Judge today ruled that the infamous section 505 (the FBI can read your library books and look at what you surf online section) was unconstitutional. And Hamandi is about to let go from his "detainment" and no charges have been filed. I am glad we can violate Habus Corpus with no real positive results. The one court victory on the war on terror was overturned because the Justice Department withheld evidence bad for their case. And the FBI has thousands of hours of untranslated tapes of conversations between suspected terrorists.
The important thing to note here is that America got to hear how each candidate stood on very important issues to the safety of this country. Being an International Relations major, I am privately pleased that Americans are focusing on foreign policy now more than ever and that major topics were discussed in clarity without too much name-calling. Anyone who saw the debate can't claim they don't know where Kerry or Bush stand on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and the general war on terror. For that I am grateful to both candidates.
As a side note, the House Ethics committed wagged its finger at Majority Leader Tom DeLay for trying to bribe a member for his vote. By the way, all the GOP members of the committee have accepted tens thousands of dollars from DeLay's PAC. I am sure they are fair and balanced.
And unlike 2000, the networks didn't call the debate for Bush. First they tried to say it was a draw, but when they were pushed, they admitted that Kerry did a great job of getting himself over the hurtle of being viewed a legitimate commander-in-chief. Even FoxNews thought Kerry won and that the race will tighten. Man, if Bush can't get them to sing is praises, you know it's not just be being partisan.
ABCNews did a snap poll, which show that Kerry won the debate according to voter-viewers, but the overall horserace didn't shift. Thankfully, they explained that is very natural. Interestingly Democrats were much more sure than Republicans 89% to 67% that their man won. Even better, Kerry won self-described Independents two-to-one.
But of course, Democrats can just sit back and smile, the next 48 hours are key to solidifying this impression that Kerry won and would make a good/decent Commander-in-Chief. JK really did a good job at being clear and forceful, but not combative, unlike Bush.
Back to the real world war on Terror, a Judge today ruled that the infamous section 505 (the FBI can read your library books and look at what you surf online section) was unconstitutional. And Hamandi is about to let go from his "detainment" and no charges have been filed. I am glad we can violate Habus Corpus with no real positive results. The one court victory on the war on terror was overturned because the Justice Department withheld evidence bad for their case. And the FBI has thousands of hours of untranslated tapes of conversations between suspected terrorists.
The important thing to note here is that America got to hear how each candidate stood on very important issues to the safety of this country. Being an International Relations major, I am privately pleased that Americans are focusing on foreign policy now more than ever and that major topics were discussed in clarity without too much name-calling. Anyone who saw the debate can't claim they don't know where Kerry or Bush stand on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and the general war on terror. For that I am grateful to both candidates.
As a side note, the House Ethics committed wagged its finger at Majority Leader Tom DeLay for trying to bribe a member for his vote. By the way, all the GOP members of the committee have accepted tens thousands of dollars from DeLay's PAC. I am sure they are fair and balanced.
GNC Swallows
In Utah's Second District, a race that once was on everyone's hit list has been fading from the spotlight as incumbent and Democrat Jim Matheson has a 31 point lead on GOP nominee John Swallow. Many have wondered why its happened, given that Matheson won by a whisker last time. I happen to think that most of it is due to Matheson's hard work in the new part of his district and his conservative stances on many cultural issues (even though he votes with his party over 60 percent of the time).
However, it might also be Swallow's "ties to the dietary supplement industry" could be hurting him in his bid, according to Roll Call. Swallow was formerly "in-house counsel" to Basic Research, maker of "diet pills and weight-loss creams," which is under "investigation by the" FTC "for its marketing and advertising practices." And he "has raised about $44,000 from industry executives as of June 30." "Initially, Basic Research told the FTC that part of Swallow's duties included reviewing ad copy for the products" under investigation. "A company spokesman then backed away from that claim." Swallow camp. manager Tim Garon, on the investigation: "I don't think there is any issue here." He also said "he sees no problem with Swallow accepting donations from individuals associated with the dietary supplement industry."
"Despite a trickle of recent newspaper articles," Swallow's connections to "an industry that does not have the best reputation" have "yet to become a major issue" in the campaign, but they are "clearly hurting" his standing with voters. "An independent poll conducted Sept. 6-9 showed Swallow trailing Matheson by a surprising 31 points, 61 percent to 30 percent."
Utah State University's Mike Lyons: "The revelations have coincided with Matheson widening his lead at a time when it should be getting closer." So far, "neither the Matheson campaign nor any third-party groups have sough to paint" Swallow's connections "as a negative," and "Democratic campaign officials were reluctant to discuss the subject this week." Garon says if they do make it an issue, "it will be a sign of ... desperation."
"Swallow's contributions from the dietary industry are not the only ones raising eyebrows." He has also received $118,000 in donations from "a group of donors who run homes for troubled teens that has been the subject of three separate abuse investigations by the state." Another "Swallow donor," Cameron Lewis, "is accused of defrauding public schools out of millions of dollars." Lewis "gave $12,000 to Swallow's campaign" All doped up and no where to go, what a shame.
However, it might also be Swallow's "ties to the dietary supplement industry" could be hurting him in his bid, according to Roll Call. Swallow was formerly "in-house counsel" to Basic Research, maker of "diet pills and weight-loss creams," which is under "investigation by the" FTC "for its marketing and advertising practices." And he "has raised about $44,000 from industry executives as of June 30." "Initially, Basic Research told the FTC that part of Swallow's duties included reviewing ad copy for the products" under investigation. "A company spokesman then backed away from that claim." Swallow camp. manager Tim Garon, on the investigation: "I don't think there is any issue here." He also said "he sees no problem with Swallow accepting donations from individuals associated with the dietary supplement industry."
"Despite a trickle of recent newspaper articles," Swallow's connections to "an industry that does not have the best reputation" have "yet to become a major issue" in the campaign, but they are "clearly hurting" his standing with voters. "An independent poll conducted Sept. 6-9 showed Swallow trailing Matheson by a surprising 31 points, 61 percent to 30 percent."
Utah State University's Mike Lyons: "The revelations have coincided with Matheson widening his lead at a time when it should be getting closer." So far, "neither the Matheson campaign nor any third-party groups have sough to paint" Swallow's connections "as a negative," and "Democratic campaign officials were reluctant to discuss the subject this week." Garon says if they do make it an issue, "it will be a sign of ... desperation."
"Swallow's contributions from the dietary industry are not the only ones raising eyebrows." He has also received $118,000 in donations from "a group of donors who run homes for troubled teens that has been the subject of three separate abuse investigations by the state." Another "Swallow donor," Cameron Lewis, "is accused of defrauding public schools out of millions of dollars." Lewis "gave $12,000 to Swallow's campaign" All doped up and no where to go, what a shame.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Trouble with the Times
I had a peek of the headlines of the cover of "All the News that's fit to print" and I was already annoyed. PressThink is right that the media has its own GroupThink ala "1984."
Why the hell are we concerned with reporters being deposed in the Plame scandal? The issue isn't their beloved freedom of press, and it might be about the abusive use unnamed sources (see Miller, Judith), but what it really is about is that some one in the White House purposely leaked the name of an undercover intelligence agent in order to chill dissent about the Administration's line on Iraq.
Below the fold is a small blurb about in that intelligence assessment that Bush got in January 2003 not only told him that the intelligence was questionable, it also warned him about the problems we currently now face: a growing insurgency, safe haven for terrorists, greater insecurity, etc. Why isn't this big news? This is another point where Bush either lied to us, or genuinely believed that all these experts were wrong. And thus a handful of hard right wing hawks must be right, in which case he is not only delusional, but an incompetent leader. You could blame bad intelligence, but when the commander in chief tells them to find what he is looking for and ignores all else which goes against what he believes, then Bush doesn't deserve to sit in the big chair.
I do like the article pointing out that if you want to see Bush, not only do you have to pledge to vote for him (and have voted for him in 2000) you have to pledge to phonebank, door knock etc. He is so pro-Business that even his campaign has become a company that engages in bait and switch tactics.
FBI translation backlog article buries a key point, that they fired a translator who retranslated pre-9/11 stuff which gave some major foreshadowing to what ultimately happened, and then told the world about it. Basically, the FBI needs to go; they have repeatedly shown (like Bush) that they are incapable of waging the war on terror, they can't adapt to the times. They were great at catching people before computers, they are still good at stopping the Mafia, kidnappers, bank robbers, serial killers and the like, but not at gathering and interpreting intelligence. They should be demoted to the national police/detective force they are, and not promoted to "domestic CIA."
But the biggest laugher of all is Al Gore giving John Kerry advice on how to debate George W. Bush. This from a man that inflated expectations, came off as arrogant, signed, then sedated, and blew his September lead. Well I guess Kerry can learn from Gore's mistakes. However, I have to give it big Al for showing his funny side, like Bob Dole, after he lost. Here's the great closer that made me laugh:
"Comparing these grandiose promises [Bush made in 2000 debates] to his failed record, it's enough to make anyone want to, well, sigh."
Why the hell are we concerned with reporters being deposed in the Plame scandal? The issue isn't their beloved freedom of press, and it might be about the abusive use unnamed sources (see Miller, Judith), but what it really is about is that some one in the White House purposely leaked the name of an undercover intelligence agent in order to chill dissent about the Administration's line on Iraq.
Below the fold is a small blurb about in that intelligence assessment that Bush got in January 2003 not only told him that the intelligence was questionable, it also warned him about the problems we currently now face: a growing insurgency, safe haven for terrorists, greater insecurity, etc. Why isn't this big news? This is another point where Bush either lied to us, or genuinely believed that all these experts were wrong. And thus a handful of hard right wing hawks must be right, in which case he is not only delusional, but an incompetent leader. You could blame bad intelligence, but when the commander in chief tells them to find what he is looking for and ignores all else which goes against what he believes, then Bush doesn't deserve to sit in the big chair.
I do like the article pointing out that if you want to see Bush, not only do you have to pledge to vote for him (and have voted for him in 2000) you have to pledge to phonebank, door knock etc. He is so pro-Business that even his campaign has become a company that engages in bait and switch tactics.
FBI translation backlog article buries a key point, that they fired a translator who retranslated pre-9/11 stuff which gave some major foreshadowing to what ultimately happened, and then told the world about it. Basically, the FBI needs to go; they have repeatedly shown (like Bush) that they are incapable of waging the war on terror, they can't adapt to the times. They were great at catching people before computers, they are still good at stopping the Mafia, kidnappers, bank robbers, serial killers and the like, but not at gathering and interpreting intelligence. They should be demoted to the national police/detective force they are, and not promoted to "domestic CIA."
But the biggest laugher of all is Al Gore giving John Kerry advice on how to debate George W. Bush. This from a man that inflated expectations, came off as arrogant, signed, then sedated, and blew his September lead. Well I guess Kerry can learn from Gore's mistakes. However, I have to give it big Al for showing his funny side, like Bob Dole, after he lost. Here's the great closer that made me laugh:
"Comparing these grandiose promises [Bush made in 2000 debates] to his failed record, it's enough to make anyone want to, well, sigh."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
