Sen. John F. Kerry will win in November, because...

[WilliamPitt]

1. Sure, the Bush campaign has a lot of money, but the left-leaning groups are organizing at a frantic pace and planning an unprecedented assault on the sitting president. MoveOn.org has already financed about $1.9 million in Bush-bashing ads in key battleground states. Another group calling itself the Media Fund, run by former top Clinton White House adviser Harold Ickes, announced it will begin running about $5 million worth of ads in key states this week. Another organization, Americans Coming Together, funded primarily by billionaire financier George Soros, has vowed to spend millions to defeat the president this year.

2. Polls show Bush with the lowest approval ratings among members of the opposite party of any president since World War II. Bush is less popular among Democrats than Bill Clinton was among Republicans going into the 1996 presidential election. Democratic voters are highly motivated to defeat this president, so much so that the term ABB (anybody but Bush) has entered the political lexicon as an instantly identifiable acronym. Most importantly, the polls show that Bush is the first incumbent president to trail or be essentially tied with any prospective opponent this early in the election, going back to World War II.

3. Don't underestimate Kerry. He's promised to aggressively fight the Bush campaign's negative attacks. He's a decorated Vietnam war veteran who repeatedly put his life on the line for his country, and he will surround himself with veterans who will vouch for his character and patriotism. Most of all, Kerry learned something from Howard Dean: Don't fear standing up to this president and don't back down in the face of intimidation from the right.

4. Democrats may be behind on the advocacy media front, but they are catching up. A group of influential progressives is getting ready to launch the first liberal talk radio network, Air America Radio. Celebrities, including Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo have signed up for what could be a powerful counter punch to conservative radio. Similarly, former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta has formed a new left-leaning think tank called the Center for American Progress, which is acting as a sort of guerilla message and instant-response machine. The Democrats will no longer cede the rhetoric war to the other party.

5. Many people no longer trust this president. If you look at the polls, they're showing that people are increasingly questioning whether they were misled about going to war in Iraq. That has eroded the president's credibility among Democrats, but more importantly among independents, who are now split almost evenly over whether it was worth it to go to war in Iraq. Bush's credibility is being challenged in a number of other areas as well, including whether the administration purposefully underestimated the fiscal impact of the new GOP-backed Medicare prescription drug law. If Bush loses his ability to portray himself as the candidate of integrity and character, he loses. Period.

6. It's the issues, darn it. According to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, conducted earlier this month, Bush is at or under 50 percent approval for his handling of the economy, taxes, Iraq, education, job creation, health care costs and availability, Social Security, the budget deficit, the issue of same-sex marriage and prescription drug benefits for the elderly. Bush scored above 50 percent approval only in his handling of the war on terrorism and protecting constitutional rights and freedoms. How can a president win with such low approval ratings in so many areas? The answer: He can't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63776-2004Mar16.html

[TomSeaverr]

1. If he picks Clark

as VP he will win big.

[dpbrown]

31. A vote for Clark for VP is a vote for Bush

Two soldiers is obscenely military, and choosing that route will be saying to the "strength through peace" wing that they should look elsewhere for a candidate, therefore a vote for Clark for VP is a vote for Nader - and as folks seem fond of saying around here - "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

[leyton]

33. I disagree.

I think having a veteran who protested the Vietnam war and who has qualms with the current war shows that being a soldier doesn't equal being a warmonger. Same for Clark. People will see credibility on national security, they will see people who understand the military, and those who respect the military will respect Kerry and Clark.

[dpbrown]

35. The "right" and "left" of the Dem vote are nearly equal

The "left" is worth about 3 million votes, judging by what Nader took in 2000.

The "right" side of the Democratic vote is worth only about 5 million votes (use the 40/40/20 rule or the VNS exit polling results and get the same conclusion).

Going after former Bush votes is only worth about the same as going after the liberal base and securing the "peace wing."

Doubling up on the "right" side of the Democratic vote by running two soldiers is inviting the "left" side to go take a hike - and with Nader as an option, plenty might.

The macho "I'm a better enforcer on the war on terror than the chimp is" will fail if that's the only strategy. Doubling it by running two soldiers would make it worse, not better.

[leyton]

38. I don't think your argument holds....

For starters, 5 million is 2 million more than 3 million. That's a 40% or a 66% difference, depending on which way you look at it. Second, the centrist 5 million are facing a choice between Kerry and Bush, while the leftist 3 million face a choice between Kerry and Nader. If we're going to lose votes somewhere, I'd rather lose them to Nader, because then Bush can't have 'em.

[flaminbats]

45. Is your swift boat sinking??

As I keep posting, Nader must get on state ballots before he can take votes from anyone. You've also forgotten about the conservative votes Kerry can win! Not the Nazis in the south..but the common conservatives in the Midwest, the northwest, and the southwest. Kerry can win all of these votes by making the case that Bush has failed miserably on national security. He can win votes on healthcare..by knocking Bush for supporting discrimination of healthcare against any with medical conditions. Finally we can shred Bunny-pants for crippling the military, which was modernized by Clinton...

This isn't about liberalism vs conservatism, it's about enhancing the security, solvency, and strength of America!

[leyton]

50. Credibility is key to making any of those arguments.

"Kerry can win all of these votes by making the case that Bush has failed miserably on national security."

That case is a lot easier to make if your VP is a four-star general. I think in politics, saying it don't make it so; you have to say it believably.

[dpbrown]

53. That argument only works for "national security" voters

And that argument depends on giving Bush a pass on the manner in which his mismanagement and war hard-on contributed to the global emergency we're supposedly facing.

There are plenty of people who believe that in order to secure peace we have to start acting more peacefully - regardless of whether some aggressive people in an online forum think so or not.

Running on "national security" gives Bush the upper hand, while giving progressives who are not solely motivated by a desire to "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" (as Annthrax Coulter has opined) one more reason to support an alternative candidate or to sit home this election.

Because giving progressives reasons to vote for Nader is (as is said around here a bit too much) "a vote for Bush," and there are plenty of progressives who are not fooled by Bush's fake "national security" agenda, and a Clark VP appeals only to that "national security" theme, then a vote for Clark for VP is a vote for Bush.

[dpbrown]

52. It's not whether the opportunity is available to vote Nader that matters

Because 80 million people already sat out the election in 2000, if fewer than 1 million choose to sit out this time because the choices are too similar or their concerns are addressed by neither, that fact changes the outcome of the election.

You and others miss the point by thinking you can win progressive votes simply by eliminating other choices - not voting is a choice that's on every ballot in every state already.

[dpbrown]

51. The 3 mill is "outside" Gore and the 5 mill is "inside" Gore

And what it means is that a candidate who captured the 3 million Nader voters could lose 2.5 million previous Gore voters and still win.

There isn't any such thing as a "centrist." The only "centrists" that matter are those at the core constituency of both parties. Both sides are built like "bell curves" with their own core constituencies. What fools people is the concept that the idiots in the middle who can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans are at the middle of a bell curve of their own. "Centrism" is a lie and a fairy tale - it's built out of the so-called effect of people who pathologically can't make up their minds between Democrats and Republicans - people for whom the accusation by Nader that the Democrats and the Republicans are the SAME is essentially TRUE. Are those the people who should control the direction of the Democratic Party?

The electoral theory of 40/40/20 predicts, and the VNS exit polls confirm, that the Gore voters who are on the "right" side of the Democratic bell curve are only worth 5 million.

What Nader's voters add to the mix is that a candidate who appealed to the Democratic core and also to the previous Nader voter could lose previous Gore voters and still beat Bush.

Kerry, of course, is not in that position, having decided to compete for previous Bush voters and to some extent disregard the platform and desires of the progressives who voted for Nader last time, or those who didn't vote at all (something like 80 million in 2000).

In this context, then, must the decision to foist yet another soldier on the electorate be made.

I contend that the margin of victory could easily be found in capturing the votes of previous Nader voters, since Gore and Bush essentially tied (although Gore won by more than 5 times the margin by which Kennedy beat Nixon). But even if the decision has already been made through the primary season to go "right" toward fear rather than "left" toward hope, then choosing a second soldier for the ticket is a waste of disrespect for the "left" while proving ineffective in capturing more of the "right" and is therefore a self-destructive choice.

Since the margin of victory could easily be found in the 3 million former Nader voters, allowing the candidate to even give up 2.5 million former Gore voters while solidifying the Democratic core around "hope," then a Vice-President choice that further alienates those potential voters through inviting them to choose Nader again, represents the vote for Nader that everyone insists today that is a vote for Bush.

Therefore, a vote for Clark for VP is a vote for Bush.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[shoopnyc123]

46. Wait; how about Clark being bloody BRILLIANT????!!!!!!

Rhodes Scholar...HELLO!

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. One problem.

Absolute, unrelenting media whoredom.

[Snivi Yllom]

22. true, right now Kerry has the media on his side....if it changes..

[Kagemusha]

3. What if they shut MoveOn down?

Certainly they're trying to.

[mopinko]

23. fec ruled

move on is ok. ads do not violate rules.

[jsw_81]

4. Because...

Presidents with the worst economic record in 75 years don't get re-elected.

[Sulldogg]

5. You have an example of that?

[jsw_81]

6. Look up "Bush, George H.W."

Presidents with poor economic records lose their re-election bids ninety percent of the time. Presidents with poor economic records and a foreign policy crisis always lose. Presidents with poor economic records and a foreign policy crisis and a tall, war-hero opponent always lose. Bush has hit that trifecta; like father, like son, one term and you're done!

[Sulldogg]

7. Sorry

My sarcasm wasn't apparent.

[Art_from_Ark]

14. But bu$h has an ace up his sleeve that the others didn't--

Voting machines that don't leave a paper trail

[ithacan]

18. and don't forget the terrorists: Al Qaeda deciding US election = Bush wins

That's the real danger of terrorism affecting elections: leading people to vote FOR Bush...

ANd of course, if Al Qaeda doesn't cooperate, Rove will pull some kind of "attack" out of his sleeve...

[For PaisAn]

43. Precisely

Kerry may win but Bush will remain in power. Gore won and look who's squatting in the White House.

[PoundSiO2]

8. He's a decorated Vietnam war veteran who repeatedly put his life on line

That's why I sent him $2000.00

He nearly gave his life fighting communism and the people that wanted to destroy America and never backed down. He stayed and fought his whole term there keeping America safe. The cowards asking him to release his war records are just looking for dirt and he should keep them secret to shut them up.

[northernsoul]

27. $2K? Good for you!

It's one thing to sit here and talk big, it's another to walk up to the barrelhead and slap down some authentic greenbacks!

Hats off to you, PoundSi02!

:kick:

[blm]

36. Kerry has released his war records. Why do you say he hasn't?

Tour of Duty ring a bell?

[VOX]

58. Well said, and many thanks for the generous donation!

Victory requires many things, including $$$, it's that simple.

I gave to Kerry today, also.

:toast:

[UrbScotty]

60. YEAH! $2,000 for the 44th President!

[VelmaD]

9. I feel better already...

When I read the thread title the first answer that popped into my head was "Because the alternative is unthinkable". But then I read the rest of your post and I'm feeling pretty hopeful about this thing. The Center for American Progress sounds interesting and worth a little extra investigation I think tomorrow while I'm avoiding work. :)

[Jeebo]

10. That's a great piece.

And very optimistic. Thank you very much for making me feel better. But I still cringe at the thought of the electronic paperless touchscreen voting machines, and what Diebold CEO Wally O'Dell said about being "committed to delivering Ohio's electoral votes to Bush," and October surprises, and all the other many shenanigans Republicans are doubtless going to try to steal the White House again. We let them get away with those shenanigans four years ago. Are we going to let them get away with it again?

Ron

P.S. -- We'd better be sure that somebody is doing exit polling on Nov. 2. If Republicans rig the paperless voting machines, WE'VE GOT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. And exit polling is the most accurate kind of polling there is, because you're polling a truly random sampling of people who actually do vote, and you're catching them at the same time that they actualy cast their votes.

[punpirate]

11. I would feel a lot better about the Democrats winning...

... if we started seeing job approval ratings for Bush II that would match the worst of those of Bush I.... They're not even near that point yet.

Not naysaying, exactly--it's early yet in the campaign. But, what we know to be true about the Bush administration hasn't yet sunk in with the general voting populace. With luck, it will, in time.

Cheers.

[roguevalley]

12. there are also odd ball alliances and movements forming. Say what you

will about Howard Stern, who usually I despise, I am
rolling on the floor over his unrelenting punking of
Bush. Sarcasm and satire and relentless punishing of
bad leadership used to get rid of Celtic kings. It is
no less true now with him. Make him a buffoon and make
it obvious. You can't sustain that kind of punishment.

Repugs for _____________. (Many formed committees to
support our guys.) That won't transfer back.

Religious splitting over issues that matter. Many staying
home. The military speaking out. Widows and orphans forming
groups-9/11, soldier's families, veterens of all wars- it
adds up. People turning their backs because the party they
believed in for their whole lives turned on them with their
neocon ways. Disillusionment is a harsh burden for true
believers.

None of this is wishful thinking. Its happening. It must
be counted.

[rumguy]

13. tl

[Barad Simith]

15. kick

This is encouraging. I've been watching the cable news stations tonight, and the general coverage of the campaign was looking even more pro-Bush than usual. Thanks.

[dusty64]

16. Don't they control the FEC who

is trying to stop groups like MoveOn from running their ads? Meanwhile the corporate "news" channels are vomiting their extreme right talking points and lies 24/7. I agree that Kerry should win a FAIR election, with the key word being "fair", but its becoming obvious the heinous scenarios the rethugs have planned (including the possibility of new "terra" attacks against us).

[Rob in B_more]

17. Death by a thousand cuts,

I think that was one of their strategies with all the right wing radio. I believe the blogosphere is our version of it, that and fielding all of the initial candidates, especially the "angry" ones. Some one else here once posted a link to sight that encouraged groups of people to show up at Bush rallies in groups (undercover) and break out into laughter at the lies. Trying to create the "emperor has no clothes" moment. I think Howard Stern is doing this to an extent, he ain't my cup of tea by along shot but the demographic he is hitting with this kind of message is priceless, think about what it would cost in advertising dollars, and because he doesn't normally play in politics I think he has more credibility to his audience.

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. ...because November is when the election is.

I like simple answers. I'm a simple guy. :)

20. Optimism is good

We should not get overly optimistic however and become too self confident.

I hope people clicked on the link, seeing as how Will only quoted half the article and the other half (the first half, by the way and you know how many people don't read the second half of articles -- a lot)says Bush will win.

Then at the end, the writer really gets to the heart of what he thinks in my opinion


"The objective here is merely to play the devil's advocate. Political reporters and columnists are constantly being asked to predict the outcome of this election. But no professional worth his salt would dare do so--at least this early in the campaign. For all the arguments set out above, the election could very well hinge on a number of things that can't be predicted."

For the sake of accuracy, I wish Will had been a little clearer about this being a citation. Not everyone clicks on links after all.

[Snivi Yllom]

21. it all sounds good, but we heard the same arguments before 2002...

[sangh0]

24. Not true

There are several facts listed that had nothing to do with 2002, such as the 527 groups like Moveon.org, the changes in the campaign finance rules, the economy (which wasn't much of an issue in 2002), and the occupation of Iraq (which wasn't an issue in Election2002 because we still hadn't invaded yet)

Just another example of how some people continue to think "there's no difference".

[Snivi Yllom]

25. you are trying to tell me Iraq was NOT an issue in 2002?!?

It was mostly about the war on terror, Saddam was part of the argument. granted the eocnomy and other issues were trivialized, but I do remember corporate scandals and the Enron layoffs?

2002 should have taught us that you can't predict anything, especially this far away. Comparing this elections to past elections and trying to divine a direction is poiintless in the 24/7 volatile media world we live in.

[sangh0]

28. Not true...again

It was mostly about the war on terror, Saddam was part of the argument

The occupation of Iraq and post-invasion American casualties was NOT "a part og the argument" in 2002, so please try to stick to things that actually happened.

And corporate scandals are not the same as unemployment and budget deficits.

2002 should have taught us that you can't predict anything, especially this far away. Comparing this elections to past elections and trying to divine a direction is poiintless in the 24/7 volatile media world we live in.

So is that why you hypocritically compared this election to a past election?

[Walt Starr]

26. I agree with you Will, now we need to make the win bigger

Let's get out support for every Dem out there running for office!

Kerry will win the White House, but that will be a somewhat hollow victory unless we can deliver at least one, and preferably both congressional houses to Kerry in order to get the right agenda moving along!

Let's get those Bush bastards and let's do it AT ALL LEVELS!!

Thanks for the post, Will.

[BuelahWitch]

29. We've got someone to run against Brownback in Kansas

Her name is Joan Ruff. She has a (rather sparse) website: www.joanruff.com.

Then there is Nancy Boyda who is running against Jim Ryan in the 2nd Congressional district: www.nancyforcongress.com.

Sorry, don't mean to "take over" the thread, just thought I'd throw some websites out there for those interested. :hi:

[dpbrown]

30. Things are going to blow up all over from now until then

So Kerry's strategy is going to have to be to become a better "architect" on the made-up "war" and this gives the incumbent the edge.

You could be right, but Kerry will have to control the debate from now until November and make the coke-head look like the failure that he is.

[Mobius]

32. Whats your take on the Nader threat

to the Dem nominee? It has me worried.

[dpbrown]

37. There is no Nader threat

The "left" is worth about 3 million votes, judging by what Nader took in 2000.

The "right" side of the Democratic vote is worth only about 5 million votes (use the 40/40/20 rule or the VNS exit polling results and get the same conclusion).

Going after former Bush votes is only worth about the same as going after the liberal base and securing the "peace wing."

Either Kerry's going to figure out how to be attractive to the 3 million who voted for Nader in 2000, or he's not. The ball's in Kerry's court on this. If he can't offer what the progressives want, then he'll decide to more aggressively court the previous Bush voters and hope to shame enough progressives into submission. That's the kind of scenario that leads to a Clark VP (won't happen), and the implicit invitation to "security through peace" liberals that they should look elsewhere for a candidate.

I don't think Kerry's naive enough to ask Clark to be VP, but who knows.

[Leilani]

40. Because Clark was in the military

you automatically write him off.

Isn't that stereotyping? You wouldn't do that to any other demographic, but it's always OK to TRASH the military among some Dems.

Wes Clark was one of the most progressive candidates running!

Repubs always say Dems are anti-military, & you know what? They're right about some, they are anti-military!

[dpbrown]

55. I don't write Clark off - I think two soldiers is anathema to progressives

You set up a straw man so you can accuse Democrats of trashing the military - that's your argument, not mine, so you both win and you lose (that's what you get when you talk to yourself).

I know because I did the research, that Nader got 3 million votes and Gore got the votes of about 5 million people who considered themselves "conservatives." (And these are the same people who pathologically can't make up their minds between Democrats and Republicans - the people for whom Nader's accusation that the parties are the same is essentially TRUE. Why should these people be in charge of the direction of the Democratic Party?)

That 5 million is all there is in the mushy middle of "centrism" that people think is so all-powerful. A paltry 5 million votes.

Fully 80 million people didn't vote.

Picking up a significant number of former Nader voters would put the candidate in a position to lose former Gore voters and still win the election. Kerry, and the activists who participated in the primaries and caucuses, obviously don't want to build on Democratic strengths - they want to compete head-to-head for former Bush voters instead.

Disregarding former Nader voters as a class means that the candidate will have to get every single Gore voter, plus enough votes to erase the increasing likelihood of BBV theft.

Choosing the former head of NATO, a soldier, might feed into that strategy, but it runs the risk of further alienating former Nader voters, and anyone who's taken the opportunity to look at the perils facing us in the world and come to the conclusion that in order to live in a peaceful world we have to begin to act peacefully - the opposite of the fear-based conclusion that we can't be safe until we win the made-up war on terror.

Because choosing another soldier for the ticket will give the 80 million who didn't vote and the 3 million who voted for Nader another reason to choose Nader (or sit out the election) this time around, and (as the quaint and yet puerile logic thrown around here goes) a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush - then a vote for Clark is a vote for Bush.

Maybe that's what people want. Not me.

[blm]

34. Great...until...why throw baloney like this in your post?

"Most of all, Kerry learned something from Howard Dean...."

That perpetuates the lie that Kerry never stood up to the right before Dean. Didn't you ever read Conason's article back in Aug 2002 where he observed that Kerry was the Democrat challenging Bush the most substantively? Remember Joe Klein's New Yorker piece in Dec.2002 making that same observation?

I know some of you want to play kissy face with some Dean supporters and that is fine, but, please don't revise history and play to deluded perceptions just to make nice. Some of us have been fighting those lies for over a year now and were hoping for a break.

Nothing personal.....but I prefer accuracy, even from my favorite posters. ;)

The rest of the post was just about perfect.

[AmyStrange]

41. "kissy face with some Dean supporters...???"

Will Pitt playing kissy face with Dean Supporters? I don't think he has ever done that.

And since when has opinion been considered fact? If so, then Will Pitt's opinion is just as much an accurate fact as Conason and Klein's. And, Bush and Cheney's opinion that the Unilateral War in Iraq was the right thing to do is also a fact etc. etc.

For the best "unofficial" DU Slang Dictionary in the world:
http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/




Serial Killer Cafe...
and searchable missing person news archives:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org /
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe /



Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org /




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe /

[DMel]

39. Important - Please sign and help to circulate this.

Please email this to everyone on your list.

http://www.petitiononline.com/abctsv/petition.html

[AmyStrange]

42. !!! Welcome to the DU !!!

For the best "unofficial" DU Slang Dictionary in the world:
http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/

d

[For PaisAn]

44. Done

This is the most important issue. Thanks for the link.

[nomatrix]

47. I don't know how reliable this is

"Over the past few days, in the wake of the bombings in Karbala and the ideological disputes that delayed the signing of Iraq’s interim constitution, there have been reports that U.S. forces have unloaded a large cargo of parts for constructing long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the southern ports of Iraq."
Tehran Times, March 13, 2004

-snip-

“Most of these weapons are of Eastern European origin and some parts are from the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. The U.S. obtained them through confiscations during sales of banned arms over the past two decades,” he said.

This action comes as certain U.S. and Western officials have been pointing out the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq and the issue of Saddam’s trial begins to take center stage."



http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=587&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[nomatrix]

48. What do you do, Jack? What do you do?

I'm posing this question to you all who are dead sure this is gonna play out to the end with no weapons found.
You voted No to Iraq.
(it made no diffence, because there wasn't enough votes to prevent it)

You're dead. Period. You just wasted your money, time, your only shot at the WH. What are the odds? But you get to go home every night assured that you gave Bush 4 years because you stood up and said no, and got labeled weak on defense.

Since you are JFK, who has investigated BCCI, the Persian Gulf War, and know the war that almost took your life was based on a lie, you have come to know first hand what the odds of finding WMD's are. As the Bush poll numbers go down, the odds of finding some go up.

Like the mantra "we never said imminent threat" the new one could be, "We never said they had to be Iraq's WMD" only that he was an evil dictator, and he could use them.

On the other hand if you vote yes, reluctantly, you could beat him, and get the military home sooner and give the country back to the voters, and out of the corporate hands. You also prove you have the balls to go to war, as a last resort. Consumer confidence returns, as you put the breaks on WTO and outsourcing.
All you had to do was vote yes. Sometimes you have to.

[nomatrix]

49. I watched this run up to war

every single day.
CSpan2 is always on. The Senate in the day, CSpan (after 6) the House at night.
When the 1st hint started, about going into Iraq, Senator Warner (boot licker Rep) got really indignant that Bush was going alone, based on the Gulf War resolutions. No authoriztion from congress, just on that alone.

He told him, the WH doesn't have the right to take this country to war. The american people have the right to know what intel you have to do this. Bush needed to go to the UN. Really, he was scared, and this is the head of the armed services.

He was seeing 1st hand the war machine taking over. Other than the neocons at the WH and their minions, no one was cheering this on. Still shook from 9/11. The only one who really hit it outta the park from get go was Byrd. A blank check. Over and over, a blank check.

The Dem's didn't hear all the intel. Remember? Just the ranking republicans. Fraid it was gonna leak. Something had leaked to the press and the Pub's said the Dem's did it.
So they weren't letting them in on classified doc's. Treated them like bad children. They were pushing ANWAR. Then after Welstone died and 2002 senate change they have had complete control.

No one has more than an hour or so before committees, notice that? If any Dems say something negative, the Pugs jump in slobbering all over whoever, Powell, Rummy, Bremmer, Perle, Wolfie, Bush etc.

So you gotta weigh the odds, because you know, you can't change the outcome without a majority. What was it, 21-73? Not enough to make a difference. So if you are mad at Kerry, you gotta be mad at everyone else too. And by the way, Dean, Nader, Al, Clark didn't have a vote. They can say whatever. They weren't in congress.

So you can hate him for it, but none of the others have to fight to endure, the inside knowledge to punch back, the money to stay the course. We can't make the perfect candidate, we just need one to win.
I thin Kerry can.

[Lexingtonian]

54. I don't get the neurotic defeatism and insecurity around here either

Kerry and Democrats have just come off three months of a pretty furious primary campaign. At least the Kerry part of the whole is pretty exhausted and needs some time to recuperate and reconsolidate.

Of course Bush and the rest meant to catch Democrats when they're most running on fumes, at their most divided over the course of the year, and shift the debate to the ground on which they're at their strongest.

Bush has burned through one source of Republican political capital with the average American voter after another. He's left a wreckage of all that were easy and has to reach deeper and deeper into the well of stupid conservative myths embraced by the People to exploit every time he finishes off another one.

Notice how his team has been unable to find any that work which claim greater Republican/conservative ability. It's all down to thirty-to-fifty year old ones about Democrats along the lines of 'Democrats are weak on defense' of the Fifties/Sixties and conflating Arab terrorists with the Red Commie Asiatic Hordes and Viet Cong.

We are dealing with Nixon era arguments and methods, and it simply takes time (along with the energy) to slowly delegitimize those with enough voters. Trust me, once our side does so with enough people the Bush/Cheney people move on to other, weaker, versions.

We're given the task of grinding down the whole Republican argument of the past lifetime in the minds of The People. The Bush/Cheney election effort will relentlessly and callously and inexhorably burn up every last bit of irrational and rational hold it has on swing voters before it concedes defeat. But waging Total War against us also means Total Defeat for them and Total Victory for us when they run out.

And truth is, we've made great progress as they've blown through political capital like there's no tomorrow for them (and there isn't). None of the things they got capital out of after 1976 works for them anymore- taxes, free markets, interest rates, gays, race, abhortion, sexual mores, Iraq and Evil Dictators, drugs.

We have almost eight months to drive them back even further, across the Watergates of the present to the things they clung to before the Red Menace. The Red Menace in its Arabic variant is all they have to play- and play well it will for a while, only to crumble too as reality undermines the fantasy.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

56. I liked this post

Good analysis.

[Nicholas_J]

57. Bush has the lowest

popularity rating of any incumbent going into an election season than any one in American History, and is the only resident in the last 100 years to go into an election with a majority of polls showing him losing or neck and neck with his opponenet so early in the season.

It is gettin so bad that they are pulling out Cheney to attack Kerry. Cheney now has one of the lowest popularities of any Vice President in history hovering in the low thirty percent area. He is popular with the hard core Bush supporters, but with almost no one else.

In the end, the issue if his strength on national security will fall by the wayside if terrorists continue to freely work in Iraq and around the world. The end of Saddam's regine will be for naught if Osama and terrorists limnked to Al Qaeda can be seen to freely operate all over the world. One more event like the Madrid bombings will put the Bush administrations credibility seriously on the line as hundreds of billions of dollars of military resources are seen to be wasted in Iraq, that would be better spent on trying to caprure the Al Qeada leadreship. Each attack in Iraq Europe of Asia will be seen as one attack closer to another on U.S. soil.

Then the issue of the economy. If fewer than one million new jobs are created in the U.S. over the next less than eight months, while the economy seems to be improving, the jobless recover will exposse the Bush administration as serving the interests of the very wealthy while saying to the jobless "let them eat cake".

[SendTheGOPPacking]

59. From your lips to God's ears ....