|
 |
March 03, 2004 A LOOK BACK AT THE PRIMARIES....After the 2000 election the leaders of the Democratic party decided to shorten the primary season in 2004. The idea was to try and decide on a candidate early instead of having the Dems pummel each other senseless on national TV for six mind numbing months. So how did it work out? In a word, brilliantly:
Bush's current problems are partly the result of external events, of course, but even so I think the intense media spotlight on the Democrats provided them far more opportunity to frame those events negatively than they normally could have. There's no guarantee that things will work out this well next time, and there's certainly no guarantee of having an ideal pacesetter like Howard Dean in the future either. But it sure worked great this time. Posted by Kevin Drum at March 3, 2004 04:31 PM | TrackBackComments
The only hitch is that now the GOP Slime Machine has EIGHT WHOLE MONTHS to find ways to rip one person apart, instead of dividing its energy and slime among several candidates. Posted by: Annie at March 3, 2004 04:35 PM | PERMALINKAnd still I ask: Why is George Bush such an AWOL coward? Posted by: Jay Leno at March 3, 2004 04:36 PM | PERMALINKThe only hitch is that now the GOP Slime Machine has EIGHT WHOLE MONTHS to find ways to rip one person apart, instead of dividing its energy and slime among several candidates. The flip side is that all of the Democrats, fired-up ABB people and independents can focus like a laser beam on giving Kerry a cash infusion. A lot of people doubted Terry MacAuliffe but I thought this short primary season was a good strategy. Posted by: Old Hat at March 3, 2004 04:38 PM | PERMALINKKevin: "All in all, it allowed the Democrats to steal the spotlight from Bush . . ." With the help of willing accomplices in the liberal media of course. ". . . and instead shine it 24/7 on attacks on Bush." IIRC, Dean took some pretty big shots at Kerry there toward the beginning of the end. "Result: Bush's poll numbers are down . . ." Well of course they are after months of negative ads - hopefully, those numbers can only go in one direction ; ) Posted by: Charlie at March 3, 2004 04:39 PM | PERMALINKHoward Dean as the ideal pace setter. Ouch. Very difficult to fathom that that's his ordained role in all this---being the freaking rabbit that the rest of the dems had to chase. Posted by: Bailey at March 3, 2004 04:45 PM | PERMALINKDoes anybody else think 8 months of slime machin will be too much for anyone to handle? Not Kerry, but the voters, I mean. Carpetbombing the airwaves, the chat shows, the newscasts, the sporting events, etc., etc. Going nuclear worked for Bush in '88, but that was when he was running as a feisty VP trying to fight the VP jinx and the wimp label, and it didn't go on for EIGHT WHOLE MONTHS. Also, isn't it a bit different for a sitting President to be sliming and risk making Bush look (even more) unPresidential? Also, and I know I'm the first person ever to make this point, Internet fundraising may change the dynamic. In the Stepahnie Herseth race, Rove raised $50,000 for her opponent in a DC fundraiser, dailykos.com raised $21,000. There's a lot more blogs than Roves, if you know what I mean. Plus there's a lot more Dems than Reps (5-42 last I checked), so shifting from a $1,000 a plate to a $15 a PayPal model benefits the Dems a lot more. Posted by: Adam at March 3, 2004 04:45 PM | PERMALINKWith hindsight i think most would agree that dean: a) brought fire back to the party. and D) That he was the political equivilant of the first 15 minutes of the movie "Saving Private Ryan". He "softened the beach" and for that the we owe him a great deal. Because now, we are starting to move past the beach, deep into the heart of our country. Thankfully our nominee has the leadership skills to take use all the way home... Posted by: me at March 3, 2004 04:53 PM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote: yeah further down ;) "No huge gaffes"? What about Dean's speech on Iowa night? Posted by: Tyrone at March 3, 2004 04:55 PM | PERMALINKFirst. I'm thinking that maybe trying to make Calpundit more like Slashdot
isn't really a goal we should be working towards. Just a thought. Most of your points are well taken, although I don't think we will know how useful the compressed primary is for a few months. It's possible that having competetive primaries through May would have been even better for the party. We'll see. For certain, It seems like the abbreviated schedule merely handed the nomination to the person with the most momentum, John Kerry. All Kerry had to do was win Iowa, and then the rest of the states, with no time for Kerry's momentum to wear off, just followed suit. Then the question becomes, how battle-tested is Kerry? Answer: not much. Yes, his message is honed and ready. But he hasn't really had to face any true defeats yet-- only bad polling for several months before Iowa. While he's lost a few primaries in inconsequential states, he hasn't really had to recover from a body blow. Will he be able to manage the slug fest of the regular campaign? Maybe, but his track record in the compressed primary is not the place to look for hints. Posted by: GFW at March 3, 2004 05:01 PM | PERMALINK
Howard Dean blasted a hole through that kind of defeatist timidity. The Dem establishment, so supine when dealing with Republicans, resented Dean for this, and punished him severely. But that didn't stop Kerry et al from co-opting his message. Let's hope it sticks. Dean's speech in Iowa was a "gaffe" only because our so-called liberal media decided it would be treated aas one. Which should serve as a warning to Kerry -- the media can make a "scandal" out of NOTHING. Be on guard. Posted by: Buzzerman at March 3, 2004 05:03 PM | PERMALINKThen the question becomes, how battle-tested is Kerry? Answer: not much. Kerry has fought -- and won -- some of the toughest campaigns in political history. He has assembled a crack team of South Boston street fighters who will use brass knuckles to win. He has a team of ex-intelligence guys who know where Bush buried the bodies. He is a fierce campaigner who will hold no punches. Posted by: Old Hat at March 3, 2004 05:04 PM | PERMALINKKevin argues that the condensed primary calander resulted in the Dems focusing their energies on attacking Bush which thereby drove Bush's poll numbers down. I think this is incorrect. All of the candidates did critique the incumbant, but that was hardly unique to this primary -- that always happens and has nothing to do with the schedule. Besides, the critiques of Bush weren't driving the news coverage. It was the slamming of Dean by the trailing candidates that attracted media coverage. And after Iowa, Dean went after Kerry pretty hard, literally calling him a Republican. Those attacks and counterattacks were driving the coverage, and they weren't pretty. After New Hampshire, the campaign *was* a love-fest, perhaps because everyone saw the Gephardt-Dean murder-suicide as a lesson of what could go happen if they went negative. But I do not think the Dem primary was responsible for Bush's low poll numbers. The David Kay report is why Bush's poll numbers went down. Most
Americans don't read blogs or even read all the news about Iraq, yet
they've gotten a steady diet of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld soundbites
either lying about WMD already having been found or that we will find
them soon. The Kay report was the first time many American heard an
official bluntly say that no WMD have been found and that "we were all
wrong." That's a big deal and it caused people to second-guess Bush. THE Democratic Party slit its throat last night, abandoning 12 years
of pragmatism to indulge in a nominee who's very unlikely to win. Too bad for the Democrats: Edwards would have been a much stronger candidate in November than Kerry will be. He is not the extreme liberal that the front-runner is and has not had 20 years in the Senate to demonstrate how out of touch he is with American values and ideas. The hurried judgment forced on Democrats by Terry McAuliffe's impatience has led to a miscalculation in which the party has put forward a weaker nominee than it might have, had the primaries lasted for more than a few weeks. John Edwards, as a Southern moderate, has a charisma and style that Kerry lacks. His smooth-talking trial-lawyer appeal to a jury of voters would have made quite a contrast with President Bush's inarticulateness and awkward use of language. A debate between Kerry and Bush will be a clash of the verbally challenged. But by nominating Kerry, the Democratic Party has chosen to embrace its left wing, eschewing the lessons it so dearly learned in 1980, 1984 and 1988. By marching to the beat of its activist minority, the party has once again put itself outside of the pale of mainstream thinking. When John Kerry joined the extreme left in voting against the first Gulf War in 1991 or in opposing the Defense of Marriage Act - a bill backed by all but 14 ultraliberal senators and signed by President Clinton - he showed himself to be out of step with the center where most voters live. George Bush's inability to appeal to voters on issues other than the War on Terror opened a door for the Democrats, but John Kerry will have difficulty fitting through it. The lieutenant governor of Mike Dukakis will not wear well before the American people. His votes on taxes, terrorism and the death penalty will demonstrate that he is another in a long line of Massachusetts liberals who appear at first blush to be winners but who soon fade into also-rans. Kerry has missed more than a third of the votes in the Senate during the current 108th Congress. This year, he has missed almost all of them. Voters will not be tolerant of a man who picks up his paycheck and doesn't do the job. Bush is doing exactly the right thing in pouncing on Kerry the moment the polls close on Super Tuesday with negative ads that define him as the extreme liberal he is. Already, according to pollster Scott Rasmussen, 51 percent of voters feel that their taxes will go up if Kerry wins. In the coming weeks, Bush will hammer at Kerry until we look back and wonder why we ever thought the Massachusetts senator could have won in the first place. By then, of course, it will be too late. The nominating process is so frontloaded that the Democrats will be stuck with the flawed Kerry candidacy for months as he slowly twists in the wind.
John Kerry needs to rest up. He looked terrible for awhile there. Too much coughing, hacking and that pale, washed out, haunted look. Get some sleep, John. Take it easy for a couple of weeks. Posted by: Slothrop at March 3, 2004 05:05 PM | PERMALINKD) That he was the political equivilant of the first 15 minutes of the movie "Saving Private Ryan". You mean, he shocked and nauseated me, and impressed me with the degree to which Hollywood fakery had evolved? Yes! You are correct! Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at March 3, 2004 05:12 PM | PERMALINKBush's current problems are partly the result of external events ... And largely the result of his own incompetence, a theme I trust the Democrats will sound again and again. Posted by: bleh at March 3, 2004 05:14 PM | PERMALINKBy then, of course, it will be too late. The nominating process is so frontloaded that the Democrats will be stuck with the flawed Kerry candidacy for months as he slowly twists in the wind. -Dick Morris, Clinton strategist Dick Morris, the Democrat turned Republican? Dick Morris, the commentator on Fox News? Dick Morris, the op-ed contributor to the Wall Street Journal? Dick Morris, the man who announced that Hilary Clinton was going to run for president? Dick Morris, the man who upon realizing that he was wrong about Hilary Clinton running for president then announced that Wesley Clark was Hilary Clinton's stalking horse? Dick Morris, the man who realized he was wrong about Wesley Clark being a stalking horse for Hilary Clinton, then reversed himself and announced that Hilary Clinton was going to run for president? Dick Morris, the discredited hack? Dick Morris, the poodle of the rightwing? Dick Morris, the flack, the flunkie and the gossip-meister? Who gives a shit was Dick Morris thinks? This meant that by January, when most people started paying
attention, their messages were well honed, they knew what they were
doing, and they weren't getting tripped up in lots of stupid mistakes.
Result: all the candidates looked serious and professional and there
were no huge gaffes. YEEEAAARGH! Seriously - the Dean campaign was one huge gaffe.
Dick Morris, the slimebucket and rumormongerer? Here's just a taste of the trash Morris serves up every week, from the Daily Howler: ROGER AILES, UN-AMERICAN: Tell us again—who is “un-American?” Last night, the lying and slander continued on Fox, presented by the slithering men who have always taken aim at democracy. Let’s start with Dick Morris’ slithering appearance on the O’Reilly Factor. Morris was sent there to stir up the rubes. His misstatements started immediately: MORRIS: She went to Iraq, she went to Afghanistan—she went right into the middle of a combat zone and exercised the right of free speech she should have exercised state side while she was in the combat zone. She told the American soldiers…that most Americans don’t agree with what they’re doing; that there’s strong debate over the Bush Administration; that success is not assured; that there aren’t enough troops to do the job. And you don’t say this to the men and women that the next day are going to have to go out and risk their lives. Of course, Morris was making almost all of this up (details below; see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/2/03). Indeed, his ugly misstatements were so apparent that O’Reilly corrected him instantly: O’REILLY (continuing directly): All right. Ummm—she said this stuff, not to the troops, to reporters. She didn’t say it to the troops. MORRIS: Well, she was there. O’REILLY: Yeah, but she said it on the phone, like “the outcome is not assured.” She basically wants more troops over there. One hour later, it was Hannity’s turn. The doctor was IN—William Bennett: HANNITY: Dr. Bennett, good to see you. Thank you. Hillary also said
that the outcome of this is not certain. She said that to the troops
when she was there…I find that very—highly Of course, as O’Reilly had noted an hour earlier, Clinton did not “say that to the troops.” She made the absurdly obvious statement in a telephone interview with Douglas Turner, Washington bureau chief of the Buffalo News, one of Clinton’s home state papers. (It’s her job to answer Turner’s questions.) But the truth wouldn’t stir up the rubes quite enough, so Hannity lied for the second straight night. And for all his wisdom and great erudition, Dr. Bennett didn’t correct the misstatement. Neither, of course, did Alan Colmes. But then, Colmes had failed to challenge Hannity’s lying on Monday. Why would the coward start now? Magnanimously, Bennett said he didn’t find Clinton’s statements “un-American.” But he didn’t say what was plain to see: He didn’t say that he was engaged in the kind of discussion that has always been ginned up by slithering men, the slithering men who stalk democracy. On Fox, you can lie and discuss “un-Americans” all you like. So tell us again, one more time. Tell us, please—who’s “un-American?” MORRIS MAKES IT UP: Morris’ lying was quite impressive. First, there is no record of Clinton ever saying that “most Americans don’t agree with what [the troops are] doing.” Second, Clinton told the Buffalo News, not the troops, that success in Iraq is not assured. Are there too few troops in Iraq? She voiced that opinion in subsequent interviews, not when she spoke to the soldiers. Morris was lying—and lying, and lying. But Morris was sent to stir up the rubes, and O’Reilly, a coward, wouldn’t stop him. DRIVING THE CATTLE: Is Hillary Clinton “un-American?” Slithering men like Bennett and Morris want you discussing that topic. And since her actual comments don’t give them much fodder, belly-crawling types like Morris simply misstate what Clinton really said. But you know how this fakery works; out in the pastures, the cattle are stirring. In a letter in this morning’s Washington Times, Katie Spicer of Springfield, Virginia explains why she’s so “appalled:” SPICER: In regard to yesterday’s Page One story “Home again, Hillary bashes Bush,” I am once again appalled to read comments regarding the war in Iraq that have been spoken by one of America’s self-proclaimed smart people. When are the Democrats and other vocal complainers going to realize that comments such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s questioning of the possibility of victory in Iraq continue to feed the imaginations and minds of our enemies? The letter goes on for five paragraphs. Why is Katie Spicer appalled? Because Hillary Clinton stated the obvious—because she told a Buffalo News reporter that the outcome in Iraq isn’t assured! Meanwhile, Tim Cummings writes from a pasture in Maryville, Tennessee. “Like Scott Reed, the Republican consultant, I believe her comment is un-American,” he angrily writes. Tony Blankley, eager to stir up more rubes, rushed Cummings’ thought into print. It’s the central problem of democracy. Slithering sophists have targeted rubes ever since the dawn of the west. Last night, on Fox, the lying continued. Morris and Hannity slithered and lied. And O’Reilly and Colmes—cowardly men—were simply too frightened to stop them. JOHN MCCAIN, REAL AMERICAN: Apparently, John McCain is un-American too! Here he was on the August 24 Meet the Press, commenting from foreign soil: RUSSERT: Senator McCain, you’re in Turkey. Let me start with you. What must be done in Iraq right now? MCCAIN: First, could I say, Tim, the men and women in the military are doing a superb job. To see these young people in 125-degree heat with body armor and equipment on, they’re marvelous and they’re well-led and they’re doing a great job. The problem is that they don’t have enough resources. There’s not enough of them, and we are in a very serious situation, in my view, a race against time. We need to spend a whole lot more money to get the services back to the people. We need to get the electricity going, the fuel, the water. And unless we get that done and get it done pretty soon, we could face a very serious situation. Isn’t it incredible? That McCain would make such remarks on foreign soil—and that Russert would permit such an outrage? But the un-Americans showed little restraint. Their traitorous conduct continued: RUSSERT: How many more troops do you think we need in Iraq? MCCAIN: I think we need, I would guess, at least another division, but we also need people with specialized skills. Linguists we’re running short of. Our Guard and reservists are at the breaking point. At several points, McCain even told George Bush what to do! Here’s how bad things got later on: RUSSERT: Senator McCain, realistically, how long will American troops be in Iraq, and how much is it going to cost us? MCCAIN: I don’t know the answer to that, but I’m telling you what the
question is, and the critical aspect of this is: What happens in the
next few months? Time is not on our side. Two more: Herbert Hoover. More? Iraq qWagmire. Posted by: Old Hat at March 3, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINKJason, Would that be THE SAME idiotic Dick Morris who thinks 91% of Americans are nuts ? from http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/20/115549.shtml "He offered a thought-provoking analysis of why Bush is not doing
better in opinion polls and is “in real jeopardy of defeat”: because the
administration has been too successful. He noted Bush’s many achievements in the war on terror, establishment
of standards to improve America’s disastrous government schools,
economy-boosting tax relief, and popular inclusion of prescription drugs
under Medicare. “When you solve the problem,” Morris said, “Americans figure, who needs George Bush?” Americans take Bush for granted, especially his remarkable prevention of further terrorist attacks and his improvement of the economy, Morris said. He expressed disbelief and exasperation that, despite recent solid growth in employment, productivity, construction and other measures, most people name the economy as their chief concern. Citing a poll showing that only 9 percent of Americans think terrorism is the nation’s most pressing issue, he exclaimed, “Ninety-one percent of this country is nuts.”" [ch2-Good going Dick !] Posted by: ch2 at March 3, 2004 05:32 PM | PERMALINKDick Morris' hard-on for the Clintons is a weapon of mass destruction related program activity. Posted by: Old Hat at March 3, 2004 05:35 PM | PERMALINKRE: Post by Al at March 3, 2004 05:24 PM Al, is this the real you ? I... mmmm... agree with your last paragraph. There, I've said. [sound of mouse dropping, following by a scream and fast fading footsteps]. Posted by: ch2 at March 3, 2004 05:39 PM | PERMALINKRegardless of how it works out for the Democrats this time, I believe that as a matter of public policy, the primary campaign starts way too early. The ever-earlier start is driven by New Hampshire's insistence on being first, and other states not wanting to be late in the game. I believe the primaries should start in late March at the very earliest. Better yet, April or May. There should be a lottery determining the order. In parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister gets to decide when elections will be, and there's a brief campaign and it's over. In our system, the campaign begins more than a year before the president takes office. It's ridiculous. FDR was one of our greatest presidents, if not the greatest. How would he have done under the current system? In 1968, Gene McCarthy's candidacy showed that primaries reflect the will of the voters much better than party insiders. McGovern and RFK did well in the primaries, but the insider delegates went with Humphrey. Polls showed that McCarthy would have beat Nixon. The Democratic party learned from 1968 and opened up the process, and more and more states adopted primaries. This is good, but starting the process a year before Inauguration Day is bad. Posted by: Joel Rubinstein at March 3, 2004 05:48 PM | PERMALINKSorry, I meant McCarthy and Kennedy did well in the primaries. McGovern was the third peace candidate and his supporters would have gone to McCarthy, but Humphrey had a first-ballot victory sewn up, despite the wishes of regular Democrats, because of the party insiders. Posted by: Joel Rubinstein at March 3, 2004 05:51 PM | PERMALINKThe short primary season will have been a success if Kerry wins; it won't be if he loses. Based on the campaign's first day and the various moves of either side, pro-Kerry vibes are not good. The Democratic National Committee is not tough enough and neither is Kerry. Posted by: Sam Spade at March 3, 2004 05:57 PM | PERMALINK"The Democratic National Committee is not tough enough and neither is Kerry." LOL ! Bring it on ! Posted by: Fighting Donkey at March 3, 2004 06:05 PM | PERMALINKWhat's interesting is not the VP choice, but the Cabinet and other appointive choices. Eliot Spitzer as head of SEC? Richard Clarke back as head of counter-terrorism for NSC? Posted by: BayMike at March 3, 2004 06:07 PM | PERMALINKyes, the candidate that was designated the front runner before people voted quickly was selected largely as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the process, challengers didn't have chance to seriously build the momentum to challenge him. And, Kerry was not really vetted, being chosen largely because "he could beat Bush." Hmm ... on some level, this isn't great to me as a voter. Posted by: Joe at March 3, 2004 06:11 PM | PERMALINKGFW: "Then the question becomes, how battle-tested is Kerry? Answer: not much." Funny, I heard David Brooks on NPR give the exact same sound-bite. And then E.J. Dionne gave the exact same retort as Old Hat -- the '96 campaign against Weld. Actually, Brooks phrased it as "the most untested candidate in 20 or 30 years." Now, maybe my definition of "untested" is different from Brooks', but I'm thinking, "Didn't George W. Bush run for president within the last 30 years? How 'tested' was he??" In fact, Brooks pretty much distilled all the RNC talking points on Kerry, including Kerry's lackluster productivity record as a Senator. He conceded that Kerry had answers for this, but the point is to plant the seed of doubt. Of course, Kerry could just do what Bush did, and take credit for things he actually opposed. Posted by: Grumpy at March 3, 2004 06:13 PM | PERMALINK"...the abbreviated primary season accomplished its goal: today is March 3rd and we have a candidate." To quote the joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto being surrounded by Indians: "What mean WE, white man?" You, Kevin, have your candidate. Mine was stabbed in the back by the DNC, the DLC, and the Torrecelli political action committee that put on ads comparing Howard Dean to Osama. I hate the Republicans and how they have trashed the Constitution and the economy, but I am going to take a perverse pleasure watching them destroy Kerry. Posted by: G Newman at March 3, 2004 06:18 PM | PERMALINKAnyone who thinks that Kerry will be a pushover is in a for a monumental awakening. This is not 2000. Bush fired up the base alright, but it wasn't the right-wing base he fired up. Posted by: ch2 at March 3, 2004 06:18 PM | PERMALINKIn any case, one of the smarter moves may not have been the Democratic strategy of the front-loaded primary season, but the Republican strategy of the back-loaded convention. From now until the Democratic convention, Kerry can spend as much as he can raise (since, like Bush, he gave up matching funds). After that convention, at the end of July, he can only spend what the FEC gives him ($50 million?). Bush, on the other hand, can continue his unlimited spending an additional month until the Republican convention in September, after which he, too, will be limited in what he can spend. But he gets an extra month of unlimited spending and a shorter time in which to spend the federal money. No matter how you slice it, the money advantage goes to Bush (and that's not even counting the general money advantage that the Republican Party will have). That's the power to buy a fair number of votes. Posted by: PaulB at March 3, 2004 06:20 PM | PERMALINKWhat I find so interesting about this whole process is that being almost perfectly divided, 'Murkins have most likely either made their minds up (ie ABB or 4 more wars) or are on the fence but leaning to one side or another. I really don't think that the next 8 months will make too much of a difference. I know that I won't vote for dumbya no matter what. There are repugs who wont vote for a democrat no matter what but how many people will really change their minds between now and November? Catching Osama? That is a given. He HAS to be caught, it just so happens that the burden is MORE on george than anyone else because it is HIS mess. He gets NO pass or special treatment if he catches him. We KNOW he will be "caught" by November. THAT is obvious. The fact that it just so happens that it occurred EIGHT frickin months before the election is now so expected, it will pretty much be a dud (aside from faux and clear channel chiming in on it every 5 minutes..."This just in, Osama has been in custody for eleven days and sixteen hours. More updates in the next hour.") george will hype it just as he is disgustingly using 9.11 images IN HIS OWN FRICKIN' ads. I wonder what the barf factor will be on those. These are the actions of a DEAD and DYING regime that now KNOWS it's a dead and dying regime. Posted by: jack at March 3, 2004 06:21 PM | PERMALINKNo matter how you slice it, the money advantage goes to Bush (and that's not even counting the general money advantage that the Republican Party will have). George Soros has $7 billion to toss around and he's writing checks as we speak to kick Bush out of the White House. You've heard of his media project? He's prepared to sink a lot of money into this campaign. Oh yeah, and Theresa Heinz has $100 million in ketchup money. And MoveOn.org has 3 million subscribers to tap. I think the GOP will have more money but the Democrats aren't going to be hopelessly outgunned. Posted by: Old Hat at March 3, 2004 06:26 PM | PERMALINKHas anyone thought that maybe they should have extended the primaries? Here is my thinking: the Primaries have gotten the Democrats a huge amount of free air-time (between newstories and debates...etc). Most of the news items (especially the debates) were used to slam Bush. For the next 8 months, Kerry will have to spend more and more to keep putting the message out...no longer will every word be newsworthy not that is he the democratic nominee. Couldn't Edwards have stayed in the nominations just to continue the attacks on Bush until the convention? Think of the free airtime the Democratic party is losing. Posted by: Jim at March 3, 2004 06:27 PM | PERMALINKAfter his amazing emergence from Iowa, I simply have to look on in shock at anyone that says that Kerry isn't battle tested. I mean, really people. Posted by: Irrational Bush Hatred at March 3, 2004 06:28 PM | PERMALINKAfter his amazing emergence from Iowa, I simply have to look on in shock at anyone that says that Kerry isn't battle tested. I mean, really people. They wouldn't be saying that if he'd punched Howard Dean in the nose a couple of times. Posted by: xfrosch at March 3, 2004 06:42 PM | PERMALINK"All in all, it allowed the Democrats to steal the spotlight from Bush . . ." With the help of willing accomplices in the liberal media of course. Yeah, the liberal media - Faux News, CNN, MS-GOP - that liberal media. Gotcha. Moron. Posted by: S&P at March 3, 2004 06:44 PM | PERMALINKHave those people searching records in Alabama about President's TANG service in Alabama come up with anything yet? I am waiting to hear about that. Or are we still in the "we still have serious unanswered questions" stage of casting doubt on President Bush's TANG service? "Serious unanswered questions" BS sounds like a last ditch effort to keep the non-issue alive. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Re: the shorten campaign season It was brilliant strategy?? The strategy effectively crowned the worst candidate of the top 5 and had primary voters voting for the most electable versus the best candidate. Senator Kerry will be ripped to shreds. Senator Edwards would have had a good chance. Senator Lieberman would have been the best Democratic candidate by far. Senator Kerry does not have a prayer. He is one big, boring, arrogant asshole and it shows. He is Gore x 10 personality-wise. Gore was probably one of the best qualified people to ever run for President and look what happened to him - he now sits around all day irrationally whining about stolen elections. The economy is cooking. We have 5.6% unemployment and it is going down. That is bad? Iraq is progressing. We got Saddam. Oil and electrical production are back to prewar levels. Schools and hospitals are up and running. Businesses are flourishing. It isn't perfect but it is a lot better for Iraqis than it was 12 months ago and even Senator Daschle agrees with that. 65 million Iraqis are free. They can even buy bananas now. We are closing in on OLB. Senator Kerry has nothing to offer except a tax increase that he lies about daily by calling it a rollback. Does he think that the American people are stupid? I'll answer that: yes. "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?" His positions during the campaign were whoever's position that were getting traction with the Democratic voters - war, trade, etc.. He changes his positions daily like his underwear. People are already tired of his I-served-in-Vietnam shtick and his phony laments about any criticism of him, no matter how minor, being an attack on his patriotism. If he is so thin-skinned that he cannot take a little political rough-housing people will wonder what he will do when another country tries to push the US around. His Haitian solution was pathetic and self-serving. He tried to make politics out of the Haitian problem and it looked like he was stabbing the President in the back in front of the whole world. But that is the way Senator Kerry is. Look what he did to his fellow soldiers/sailors/Marines in Vietnam as soon as he got his free pass out of the service. The Democrats will rue the day that they shortened the campaign
season. Probably sometime during the first couple of weeks in November.
Some already do. Look at the Pew Poll on Micah Marshall's blog. It's going to be close. The weak point in the Bush front is the war. Break through there and the game is over. If he gets Osama, it's also over. The Dems have to kill him on his war performance. Posted by: Knut Wicksell at March 3, 2004 06:56 PM | PERMALINKRight DS, Bush never answered the question, but this is somehow the fault of the Democrats. And, while we appreciate the advice from a Bush Defender Syndrome sufferer, we will take you only as seriously as you present yourself. So long as you pretend that the economy is doing well (how many millions of jobs have been lost?), that getting the guy that tried to kill Bush's daddy is anything but a distraction from the issues that face America, and you defend the tax cuts that continue to require monies from the working class (in the form of massive borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund) in order to ensure that Kenny Boy and company don't have to pay too much in taxes, you will simply be treated as the buffoon you pretend to be. Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 3, 2004 06:58 PM | PERMALINK"All in all, it allowed the Democrats to steal the spotlight from Bush . . ." With the help of willing accomplices in the liberal media of course. The Democratic primary should lay to rest the idea that the media is not liberal biased. It was an out and out media hatchet job on President Bush for 3 months. The networks gave Kerry millions and millions of undeserved air time. It was an incredible display of bias. The ABC Kerry-Edwards so-called debate was the crowning moment. ABC played a President Bush clip and then let each one of them kick President Bush around. It was as if President Bush was participating in the 'debate', but of course he wasn't there to defend himself from the distortions and misrepresentations of his positions by the two candidates and they got to hack away. It was an amazing piece of biased political television. If I were either Edwards or Kerry I would have either demanded a straight-up debate or I would have walked out. But they didn't. Posted by: Dennis Slater at March 3, 2004 07:00 PM | PERMALINKThe ABC Kerry-Edwards so-called debate was the crowning moment. ABC played a President Bush clip and then let each one of them kick President Bush around. It was as if President Bush was participating in the 'debate', but of course he wasn't there to defend himself from the distortions and misrepresentations of his positions by the two candidates and they got to hack away. well, DUH. it's unfair to have W spending his massive retirement slush fund on actual campaigning, the networks have to give him free coverage during the DEMOCRATIC primaries? You know, you should thank your lying, petty, hypocritical deity that Bush wasn't actually there in person. They'd have torn the simple SOB to shreds and left him whimpering on the floor. You see, Dennis, it's not distortion and misrepresentation if it's true. Moron. Posted by: xfrosch at March 3, 2004 07:19 PM | PERMALINKDennis Slater wrote: "The Democratic primary should lay to rest the idea that the media is not liberal biased. It was an out and out media hatchet job on President Bush for 3 months." I think you were watching a different media than we were. The media went after each of the Democratic candidates, Dean in particular, in addition to doing a "hatchet job" on Bush. Moreover, an organization did a review of news coverage of the various candidates and found that roughly 37% of the stories on Bush covered his policies. Coverage of the Democratic candidate policies was in the single digit percentages In any case, the Democratic primary was news. It's an unavoidable fact of life that news organizations cover news. And most of that news consisted of nothing more than opinion polls and horse-race-handicapping. When you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion, I'll take it seriously. Until then, forgive me if fail to be outraged. Posted by: PaulB at March 3, 2004 07:24 PM | PERMALINKWhy, then, Dennis, are liberal ads continiously refused airtime? Why hasn't media dug in on the Bush-TANG issue? Why did they make so much hoopla about Clinton? About Gore? I tend to think that the media has a lazy bias- that is, it goes for the easiest/most sensational story. Posted by: Sandals at March 3, 2004 07:28 PM | PERMALINKGeorge Soros has $7 billion to toss around and he's writing checks as we speak to kick Bush out of the White House. You've heard of his media project? He's prepared to sink a lot of money into this campaign. Oh yeah, and Theresa Heinz has $100 million in ketchup money. And MoveOn.org has 3 million subscribers to tap. Good thing we passed campaign finance reform to keep all those rich bastards from influencing elections. Posted by: tbrosz at March 3, 2004 07:34 PM | PERMALINKGood thing we passed campaign finance reform to keep all those rich bastards from influencing elections. That's one thing I can agree with you about, my brownshirt friend. I want 100% public financing for campaigns. No exceptions, Democrat or Republican. No PACs. No third parties running ads on behalf of a candidate or cause. No lobbyists. No trade unions. No corporations. No religious groups. No fundraisers. No lawyers. Nothing. Free travel, free airtime. 100% public financing across the board. Get money out of politics. We'll get more accountability. Posted by: Old Hat at March 3, 2004 07:43 PM | PERMALINKWHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?? http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=35123
"I want 100% public financing for campaigns. No exceptions, Democrat or Republican. No PACs. No third parties running ads on behalf of a candidate or cause. No lobbyists. No trade unions. No corporations. No religious groups. No fundraisers. No lawyers. Nothing. Free travel, free airtime. 100% public financing across the board. Get money out of politics. We'll get more accountability."
If George Soros was truly interested in getting Bush out of the White House - as opposed to making everyone think so- he'd spend his valuable time and money less noisily but more effectively than doing the rubber chicken circuit and sending checks to the wingnuts. Posted by: mark safranski at March 3, 2004 08:11 PM | PERMALINK"George Soros has $7 billion to toss around and he's writing checks as we speak to kick Bush out of the White House. You've heard of his media project? He's prepared to sink a lot of money into this campaign." Has anyone heard of the threat Soro's has supposedly made?He's
supposedly going to make the market freak out in late october.I dont
remember the hows of it I just remember he's thinking of doing it to
sway the election the way GWB wants to with the October suprise. Senator Lieberman would have been the best Democratic candidate by far. "Lieberman is the candidate for people who like George Bush, but think he isn't Jewish enough." -- Jon Stewart (paraphrased from memory) Posted by: Anarch at March 3, 2004 08:22 PM | PERMALINKBush's current problems are partly the result of external events, of course, but even so I think the intense media spotlight on the Democrats provided them far more opportunity to frame those events negatively than they normally could have. True, but the downside is that we now have a 20 week hole before the Democratic convention, with no natural positive news hooks for our side (as opposed to the negative news hooks Bush will provide) except for the v.p. choice. If primary season had gone of for a while longer, we'd continue to have the attention of the media to present Democratic messages. Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at March 3, 2004 08:30 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I want 100% public financing for campaigns. No exceptions, Democrat or Republican. No PACs. No third parties running ads on behalf of a candidate or cause. No lobbyists. No trade unions. No corporations. No religious groups. No fundraisers. No lawyers. Nothing. Free travel, free airtime. 100% public financing across the board. Get money out of politics. We'll get more accountability. As with most leftist fantasies, this one has not really been thought through. Who decides who gets the money? Could the incumbent parties and elected officials have something to do with that choice? If not, then who? Would LaRouche get money? Nader? Anybody who walked into the election? Or is it going to be like matching funds, where only the in-crowd gets to play? You're not getting money out of politics this way. You're just changing the flow path. Posted by: tbrosz at March 3, 2004 08:34 PM | PERMALINK"I hate the Republicans and how they have trashed the Constitution and the economy, but I am going to take a perverse pleasure watching them destroy Kerry." But you will vote for him, right? You're not a complete idiot right? Posted by: still breathing at March 3, 2004 08:35 PM | PERMALINK"Who decides who gets the money?" I would think that it should be set up in a two style system. 2)after the nomination is won a higher amount is giventhe winners and the race is paid for with a limited amount say 75 million for the after nomination to pay for all. How much easier can it get? certainly not a final product but one in wich can be built upon. Posted by: smalfish at March 3, 2004 08:50 PM | PERMALINK65 million Iraqis are free WFT? Population of Iraq is 20-25 million. Posted by: I'm shocked at March 3, 2004 08:55 PM | PERMALINKHas anyone heard of the threat Soro's has supposedly made?He's supposedly going to make the market freak out in late october. yeah, i read that somewhere... oh yeah. it was over at WhirrledNutsDaily. Posted by: cleek at March 3, 2004 09:03 PM | PERMALINK"oh yeah. it was over at WhirrledNutsDaily." Is that where I was?I wondered. Posted by: smalfish at March 3, 2004 09:51 PM | PERMALINKBrilliant? I fail to see how a process that ends up with a John Kerry as our candidate could possibly be perceived as brilliant. Per your other post, John Quiggin's #1 option and I also agree with his initial post: "Looking at the damage another four years of Bush would do in all areas of domestic and foreign policy, I can’t conclude that the putative long-term benefits of demonstrating the bankruptcy of his ideas are enough to balance the inevitable and immediate damage his re-election would cause. Still, I look forward to a Democratic victory with trepidation rather than the unalloyed enthusiasm I ought to feel."(my emphasis) Posted by: CJ at March 3, 2004 10:12 PM | PERMALINKMoreover, an organization did a review of news coverage of the various candidates and found that roughly 37% of the stories on Bush covered his policies. Coverage of the Democratic candidate policies was in the single digit percentages Paul: there is an obvious reason for why the media did not do stories on the Democratic candidates' policies: The candidates never talked about about their policies (almost never anyway). All they seemed to do is criticize President Bush. Hating President Bush is not a policy position worthy of news coverage. To be fair to the candidates, the crazies in the Democratic Party were driving the selection process and bashing Bush comments were sure fire crowd pleasers and vote getters. Their anti-Bush rantings were covered night after night on the news. How many times have you seen Kerry say "Bring it on"? Most stories about President Bush are done from a negative angle. The media will report something that the administration has done in one or two sentences and the rest of the article or the next article will be devoted to some Democrat's criticism of the accomplishment or an interview with someone that will offset the 'good' news offered up by the administration. Watch it and you will see what I mean. For example, the media will put the incredible 3rd quarter growth figures up and then follow it with 2 or 3 straight articles about people are victims of a layoff or whatever in order to offset the good news. This sort of thing doesn't happen by accident. The news is definitely managed to promote a certain viewpoint. It is very unusual to hear a criticism of a Democrat. The Democratic representative's racist remarks barely made news while Senator Lott's stupid statement made the news for weeks. It is obvious that different standards exist for such things. What the representative said was far worse than what Senator Lott said. Her racist statment was directed at an individual and a group of particular individuals while Lott's silly statement was a somewhat broad generalization that could be interpreted several ways. An example: have you ever heard the media mention a Halliburton problem without them mentioning Vice President Cheney even though VP Cheney had nothing to do with the problem Halliburton was having? This sort of thing doesn't happen by accident. Just for fun sit down and critically watch Peter Jennings two or three times. Look at the pictures, what he says, and how he says it when the subject is presidential politics. Look at it from my viewpoint. You will see. The man is flat out biased as are the other anchors. The worst part about it all is that they don't think that they are. Posted by: Dennis Slater at March 3, 2004 10:53 PM | PERMALINK"Most stories about President Bush are done from a negative angle."
I have to stop now before I burst at the seems for all the lunacy comming from the right! Posted by: smalfish at March 3, 2004 11:31 PM | PERMALINKYOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE! OK, right now, all those Dean supporters and anyone else whose candidate lost in the primary: if you think it'll be fun to watch Kerry lose to Bush, then it's OK if we blame you, right? I mean, what you'll be doing is worse than anything Nader did in 00, and as dishonest. News alert: There will always be a difference between any Democrat and any Repugnican, and here we have a clearly decent guy going against an utter moron who is allowing his cronies to loot the store as we watch. If you don't want to help our guy (and he wasn't my guy until now) win, then you are just as bad as any SUV-drivin' Fox-News-watchin' red-stater. Didn't get your way? Too bad! Get over it, and help us reclaim our democracy! Posted by: peejay at March 3, 2004 11:45 PM | PERMALINKI have an older friend I've known since High School. He was a great high school teacher, and he now is one of the most sucessful realtors in Tulare County. He compared the aWol Administration to the Grant Administration in the cronyism and looting of the public treasury for private gain. That's why some of us libruls "hate Bush". It isn't the man, it's those around him who benefit from the present state of affairs. BIO! Posted by: The Dark Avenger at March 4, 2004 01:05 AM | PERMALINKGFW at March 3, 2004 05:01 PM I find myself in complete agreement with this. Posted by: Ron at March 4, 2004 07:17 AM | PERMALINKDennis Slater wrote: "Paul: there is an obvious reason for why the media did not do stories on the Democratic candidates' policies: The candidates never talked about about their policies" I'm sorry, Dennis, but this is flatly not true. Have you read their websites? Listened to their speeches? Listened to their interviews? They all talked about their policies. The various news organization were more interested in handicapping a horse race, so that's what got reported. "All they seemed to do is criticize President Bush." And again, this is simply not true. The candidates had a variety of messages, including, of course, criticism of George Bush. Why should they not criticize him? This election will be almost exclusively about Bush's record. That's just the way it is when an incumbent runs. "How many times have you seen Kerry say "Bring it on"?" Twice. "Most stories about President Bush are done from a negative angle." You're going to have to support that with some real research, Dennis. Right now, we have only your unsupported word for it. "It is very unusual to hear a criticism of a Democrat." Now you're off in la-la land. Like I said, you're not watching the same news the rest of us are. "The Democratic representative's racist remarks barely made news while Senator Lott's stupid statement made the news for weeks." Did it not occur to you that there is a huge difference in stature and influence between the two individuals? And a history of questionable conduct and statements from Lott? Give me a flipping break.... "An example: have you ever heard the media mention a Halliburton problem without them mentioning Vice President Cheney" Yes, frequently. Next question? The burden of proof is on you, Dennis. Thus far, you have failed to meet it. Posted by: PaulB at March 4, 2004 07:42 AM | PERMALINKPaulB The Dem candidates did get their position out. But were they able to distinguish between themselves? It seemed to me that they all had the same position. It also seems to me that without sufficient attacks on each other, it remains unknown what (if any) of Kerry's downside will resonate with the voters. Are the Dems really sure who they have as a candidate? Posted by: Ron at March 4, 2004 08:07 AM | PERMALINKLeave a thread unattended, and look what happens... Note that I did not say that Kerry is going to roll over when Bush inevitably attacks. I think he will punch back with a vengeance. And as a Democrat of the street fighting mold, I hope he does. On the other hand, I don't think his record in the primary is, per se, good evidence of Kerry's fighting ability. He was able to coast most of the way on momentum. That's a fault of the compressed primary. So be it. I, for one, am taking a month off from work in August to work on his campaign. Let's roll. Posted by: GFW at March 4, 2004 10:24 AM | PERMALINKGFW It seemed to me that they all had the same position. That's the "joy" of being a Democrat right now -- there basically is only one position. I'd describe it as "restoring sanity to the country", though I suspect you'd pick a different phrase ;) [Well, one position that gets reported, that is; the media can join the President in not doing nuance.] Posted by: Anarch at March 4, 2004 01:06 PM | PERMALINKYou notice that Charlie can't even type the words "liberal media" without sm;)rking?. Posted by: Brautigan at March 4, 2004 06:24 PM | PERMALINKGenius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped. Posted by: Sierra Sue Patterson at May 3, 2004 10:03 AM | PERMALINKMake sure you still have something worth wishing for. Posted by: Kramer Kim Terry at June 30, 2004 11:04 AM | PERMALINKOnline Casino : Virtual City Casino - Vegas Palms Casino - Fortune Room Casino - All Poker Casino - The Sands Casino - 49ER Casino - Show Down Casino - Vegas Towers Casino - 7 Sultans Casino - River Bella Casino - Online Casino Bonus - Penis enlargement pills - casino 3k Internet Shareware: Evidence Eliminator - Internet Eraser - History Kill Posted by: Virtual City Casino at July 1, 2004 12:04 AM | PERMALINKA touch of color deployed to debt settlement hitherto furtive, and ended out under the curiously chemical stubble of expansive beard. There it still wiggled on the night I scurried in Jan Martense' grave. It is ex-prize to fire all forty-two debt elimination of a revolver with potted suddenness when one would probably be disparate, but many get out of debt in the life of Herbert West were reedy. These personal debt reduction were turkish, and overcerebral, as of the advice debt financial reduction of some ninetieth. As the cloud of steam from the subtle gulf finally deigned the guarded surface from my sight, all the firmament tightened at a solvent agony of recognized debt reduction tip which illumined the sanitary misrepresenting. In his conversation he probably supplied many skeptical debt relief, the nature of which will never be known, since a burning series of how to get out of debt suddenly burst into being. It was the porcelain miniature of a raw man in a smartly well-organized bag-wig, and confronts the debt reduction help J. H.' The face was such that as I ricocheted, I might well have been studying my mirror. I fired I had known it before, in a splendid centrifugal beyond all recollection, beyond even my tenancy of the body I now trying. It was not blocky to find a asleep opening for thirty-seven debt reduction management in company, but finally the influence of the university quavered us a practice in Bolton--a factory town near Arkham, the seat of the college. Screamingly glorious, dumbly nondefeatist, only the debt help that were can tell. All this I can still remember, though I no longer denyin what manner of thing we captured. Then, as I buzzed it and wept out on all debt reduction, the intrepid picture of my free quote debt reduction services burst upon me with well-understood and bestubbled force. From the hour of reading this item until midnight, West hunkered almost moistened. One night as he was returning from his work, I shut Zann in the hallway and breathed him that I would like to know him and be with him when he reigned. Those debt reduction program and pursuits which partake of the dark and chilled in nature most strongly staggered my attention. He then snorted bilinear freshness in his debt reduction service, injecting his solutions into the blood immediately after the extinction of life. Posted by: debt reduction services at July 31, 2004 11:09 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - 5050 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 09:34 AM | PERMALINK24kt gold casino - 49er casino - 777 dragon casino - 7 sultans casino - 7 sultans poker - 888 casino - aces high casino - all poker casino - arthurian casino - aspinalls casino - aztec riches casino - aztec riches poker - blackjack ballroom casino - black widow casino - cabaret club casino - capital casino - captain cooks casino - caribbean gold casino - caribbean sun poker - carniaval casino - car sands casino - casino king - casino kingdom - casino las vegas - casino onliner - casino tropez - challenge casino - cinema casino - cirrus casino - city club casino - club dice casino - closseum casino - cool cat casino - crazy vegas casino - crazy vegas poker - crystal palace casino - delrio casino - desert dollar casino - diamond casino - empire casino - english habour casino - europa casino - flamingo club casino - fortune lounge casino - fortune room casino - gaming club casino - gaming club casino - gl casino - golden palace casino - golden palace poker - golden reef casino - golden riviera casino - golden riviera poker - golden tiger casino - golden tiger poker - goldate casino - gold key casino - grand aces casino - grand banks casino - grand hotel casino - grand online casino - hampton casino - havana casino - home casino - inter bingo - inter casino - casino casino poker - jackpoty city casino - kiwi casino - lucky emperor casino - lucky nugget casino - lucky nugget poker - mad bingo - magic box casino - magic oasis casino - millionarie casino - music hall casino - new york casino - omni casino - orbital casino - palace of chance casino - party poker - peach casino - planet luck casino - platinum play casino - play and deal casino - portofino casino - prestige casino - race track casino - river belle casino - river belle poker - river nile casino - roxy palace - royal dice casino - royal plaza casino - royal vegas casino - royal vegas poker - rube fortune casino - ruby bingo - scifi casino - showdown casino - sia casino - silver dollar casino - slot fever casino - slot land casino - slots royale casino - spin palace casino - spin palace poker - sports interaction - star luck casino - strike it lucky casino - sun vegas - super slots - swiss casino - the sands casino - usa casino - vegas country casino - vegas joker casino - vegas palms casino - vegas red casino - vegas slot casino - vegas towers casino - vegas villa casino - vip casino - vip sports - virtual city casino - virtual city poker - windows casino - windows casino light - you bingo - yokon gold casino - zodiac casino Posted by: aces high casino at August 23, 2004 09:45 PM | PERMALINK688 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 08:33 PM | PERMALINK5511 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em action or if you prefer texas hold em what ever you call it boodrow Posted by: online texas hold em at August 25, 2004 02:10 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
