"Bush is a lock."

That's me quoting myself. At Nick Gillespie's insistence, I am saying publicly what I have been repeating privately for a year, and doing so now, when the polling seems to look good for Kerry, so I can't be accused of capitalizing on the news. Just to reiterate: It doesn't matter how much gas costs, how poorly things are going in Iraq, what new torture memos surface, or whether there are new terror attacks inside our borders. John Kerry hasn't got a whore's chance in a convent, Bush is going to kick his ass all over the United States, and when we see the results in November, the idea that anybody ever thought Kerry had a prayer will seem as quaint and absurd as the brief flurry of "excitement" for Dukakis (or was it Kakdukis?) back in Old '88.

I realize that this isn't a particularly bold prediction, and of course if I'm wrong I'll just throw up my hands and chalk it all up to the mysteries of this great democracy we're privileged to live in. Nor is this one of these "predictions" that really expresses a heartfelt wish: Though I find Bush slightly (ever so slightly) less emetic than Kerry, he's a crook, a stumblebum, and a lazy, mirthless little prince, and any country that would re-elect him deserves every bad thing that will happen to it. If I have any degree of preference between the two candidates, the best word for it is the vaguely theological term velleity: the lowest level of volition, unaccompanied by any intention to act.

But I do have a reason for my prediction: When U.S. troops are in the field, the candidate perceived as more hawkish always wins. If you can find an instance where this was not the case, let me know. Since I suspect somebody will raise the counterexample of 1968, when Johnson supposedly had his presidency destroyed by a war many times more controversial than the current one, let me show how this election demonstrates my thesis dramatically: We'll never know how LBJ would have done in a general election, but in the event Nixon squeaked by Humphrey (at best a lukewarm antiwar prospect, but in style and substance clearly less hawkish than Nixon). Even in 1972, when public opinion had supposedly shifted decisively against the war and it was clear to all that we were going to lose, Nixon vivisected McGovern—just on the promise of losing it a little more slowly than McGovern would have.

Bush is a lock.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Huh, this is a bit surprising. I know at least a few dozen people who supported Bush in 2000 but are strongly rooting for Kerry (well, against Bush, at least) now; I don't think I know anyone who's gone the other way. Guess I've got my own bit of Pauline Kael syndrome.

  • ||

    "I�m pretty sure that i read American media more than you read European, Asian, or whatever."
    Assumption. But even if you read American media....you still don't understand Americans. Therefor your input isn't worth the electrons it's whizzing around the universe on.

    "So maybe I�m not that biased after all as far as having a global view goes.."
    Having a global view has nothing to do with US electoral politics. In fact it's a detriment.

    "China and Russia was prepared to do it."
    HAH HAH HAH. What have you been smoking?

    "USA apparently isn't. Everybody should have the right to drive a SUV i guess."
    Yes, they should have that right if they choose.

    "To fight terrorism you should start with making life so bearable that killing yourself doesn't sound like a good idea anymore."
    Or alternately kill all the terrorists and those that support them.

    "Instead the US supports Sharon at all cost."
    Ah...the meat of the issue...it's always about the JEWS isn't it.

    I must not understand Europeans any better than they understand Americans... because I don't get how they could kill 6 million Jews and still think everything is all their fault.

    Europe: It's always there when it needs us.

  • ||

    Ander -

    Re-read the responses to your last post. The issue isn't whether Americans are concerned about CO2 - it's that Kyoto doesn't work! It's a huge expenditure for almost no return, that will leave us with no money to invest in more effective environmental measures. I don't know about Europeans, but Americans don't tend to throw good money after bad - in other words, Kyoto is not a "first step," it's a "last step" that would sour the electorate on large scale environmental initiatives for a long time to come. If I hated the environment I would want it to pass ... .


    Let's pretend for just a moment that the entire terrorism problem centers around "making life bearable," not making middle-east dictators afraid to sponsor terrorists or unable to give those terrorists nuclear weapons.

    Bush's U.S., since occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, has spearheaded democratic elections, built sewers and schools, and made moves to establish an objective rule of law in those two countries. Europe has done ... what? Think happy thoughts at them?

  • ||

    thoreau, there are a lot of us that read the comments and don't always post our own thoughts. It appears this topic has caused quite a stir, as I feel it should.

    So here is my contribution, I am a registered Independent. I evaluate all candidates and vote for the one offeringto lead the country the way I believe it should be led. This time I will vote Republican. /R

  • ||

    The key question is, how many people believe that the Bush Administration's Iraq War and other Middle East policies is enhancing US national security. To me the idea is insane, but I am usually at odds with most people.
    I will probably vote for a nut candidate like I usually do. If I had to pick either Bush or Kerry, I would choose Kerry in order to punish the arrogant stupidity that led America further into the Middle Eastern quagmire.

  • ||

    All these folks are coming from INSTAPUNDIT.

    Which does not discount what they are saying about "Voted Gore, Voting Bush." After all, they are now Repubs (or frustrated Dems).

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva treaty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."

    Probably not entirely. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • ||

    I've noticed that in my area of the country quite a few of the democrats running for congress are "scoop jackson" types, or at least try to sounds like such. I have to wonder if many of the 911 republicans intend to vote a split ticket and let a democratic congress can keep a lid on bush domestically while giving him a free hand to pursue terrorists. Anyone else care to speculate on the length of bush coat tails in the event of a land slide?

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva treaty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."

    Probably not entirely. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • ||

    All these folks are coming from INSTAPUNDIT.

    Which does not discount what they are saying about "Voted Gore, Voting Bush." After all, they are now Repubs (or frustrated Dems).

  • ||

    You're all a bunch of spoon-fed idiots.
    Do any of you really think there's an ounce of difference between Bush and Kerry? They're both rich guys who will say or do whatever they have to do in order to get elected or re-elected.
    Do you really think Islamist terrorism is this huge, looming crisis for the United States?
    How many people died on Sept. 11? OK, now think: How many people live in this country?
    Get an effing grip!

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva treaty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."

    Probably not entirely. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • ||

    Anders, thoreau and Jesse A are doing an excellent job of illustrating why Kerry is in such trouble. Responding to the thread with one or more of the following:

    1. You people are stupid.
    2. You "people" are lying.
    3. You people are Bush fellators

    may be a lot easier than making substantive arguments, but it sure isn't going to persuade anyone either. I guess in fairness I wouldn't want to be the one defending Kyoto or the ICC either. Or John Kerry for that matter.

    To answer Thoreau's question, I'm an occasional lurker. I read many of the threads but rarely respond since I'm not a libertarian, but felt like responding to c since I didn't vote for Bush last time but might this time.

  • ||

    "c" is so wrong for so many reasons. I feel fairly certain that significant numbers of traditional democratic voters are going to vote for Bush. Some will do so enthusiastically and some will have to hold their noses, but they will do it. Not because they like Bush, but because they don't trust Kerry to fight terrorism. On the other hand, I can't imagine ANY traditional Republican voters going for Kerry. Even if the number of "9/11 Republicans" is fairly small, it should be enough to tip a lot of races in a 50/50 country.

    As for those who voted Nader last time around, some will stick with him and some will defect, but I think it's a mistake to think all the defectors will flock to Kerry. Let's be generous and say they go 65% Kerry, 35% Bush. But this has to be balanced against anti-war Dems defecting from Kerry to Nader. The conventional wisdom holds that Kerry needs to move to the center to win the battleground states, but when he does this he will lose support on his left. The urge to register an anti-war vote will be too great for some former Deaniacs once Kerry starts talking tough on Iraq. In the unlikely event that Kerry tries a left wing gambit, he will lose even more votes in the center than he finds on the left, so he's boxed in.

    Finally there's the terrorist attack wild card. If Al Qaeda manages a successful attack between now and November, it helps Bush because Americans will never vote for appeasment (unlike Spain). On the other hand, if there is no attack on US soil since 9/11 Bush will be able to take most of the credit.

    Any way you look at it, Bush wins and Kerry is screwed. By the way, I'm not some Bush cheerleader, that's just the way I see it. I am another "9/11 Republican" who worked on Gore's campaign in '88 and voted for Clinton twice. Bush is getting my (absentee) vote this time.

  • ||

    hey thoreau,

    I was not sure if this was an H&R forum until I saw Jason Ligon's post half way down! Now that Mo and yourself are here, it must be!

    I wonder how Joe will receive all this "Kerry-bashing" ...

    Hi there Anders,

    Now that you have a message to preach to the dumb Americans about what is really good for them, all you need to do us raise some money, buy TV time, and run ads. It is the American way. At least it was until the Campaign Finance Reforms.

  • ||

    1. Kerry hasn't announced his running mate.
    2. Fahrenheit 9/11 hasn't hit the theaters.
    3. The face to face debates haven't happened.

    In regards to number 1, Kerry is going to pick the candidate that gives him the greatest advantage over a Bush-Cheney ticket. His running mate will complement and make up for his own shortcomings... trumping any false "common touch" Bush may have.

    In addition, I predict that Fahrenheit 9/11 will not only be a big hit, but also will so unite the left against Bush that the sentiment will trickle over into the middle and even taint parts of the right. It will unify swing voters against Bush. Think I'm wrong? We'll see what people around your water cooler are talking about June 26th - the day after the movie opens.

    Lastly, and we all know this, Kerry is absolute going to hand Bush's ass to him during the debates. There is no way in hell the tongue-tied, ambiguous Bush with his "heartfelt nonsense" is going to hold a candle to Kerry's sharper wit and greater articulation.

    These three factors - in addition to several others are why I think Kerry will win in November.

    Tim points out that it's hard to win against a more hawkish sitting president when troops are in the field. This may be true, but another interesting "fact" is that for Bush to pull off reelection in the Fall it would be the first time a president did so with poll numbers so low this close to the election...

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva teraty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."
    Probably not. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility.

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • ||

    The key question is, how many people believe that the Bush Administration's Iraq War and other middle east policies is enhancing US national security. To me the idea is insane, but I am usually at odds with most people.
    I will probably vote for a nut candidate like I usually do. If I had to pick either Bush or Kerry, I would choose Kerry in order to punish the arrogant stupidity that led America further into the Middle Eastern quagmire.

  • ||

    "I'm glad to see someone do something about the pathologies of the middle east at long last, which have been allowed to run in full crazy mode for my whole life."

    Yeah, I'm glad he is going out of his way to make them 100 times worse.


    Clark, please provide support for this sweeping statement in:

    1. Increased terror attacks in the US in Israel
    2. Behavior of Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.

    Or any other measure you'd like.

    There are new (or in my case infreqent posters because it was linked to on Instapundit, BTW.

  • ||

    I'm sure the people who run this site would be able to tell if people were posting under multiple names.

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva treaty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."

    Probably not entirely. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • ||

    I'm sure the people who run this site would be able to tell if people were posting under multiple names.

  • Kevin Carson||

    "'Instead the US supports Sharon at all cost.'
    Ah...the meat of the issue...it's always about the JEWS isn't it."--chris

    Rolls eyes. Is Stephen Fetchet posting under a new name now?

  • ||

    1. Kerry hasn't announced his running mate.
    2. Fahrenheit 9/11 hasn't hit the theaters.
    3. The face to face debates haven't happened.

    In regards to number 1, Kerry is going to pick the candidate that gives him the greatest advantage over a Bush-Cheney ticket. His running mate will complement and make up for his own shortcomings... trumping any false "common touch" Bush may have.

    In addition, I predict that Fahrenheit 9/11 will not only be a big hit, but also will so unite the left against Bush that the sentiment will trickle over into the middle and even taint parts of the right. It will unify swing voters against Bush. Think I'm wrong? We'll see what people around your water cooler are talking about June 26th - the day after the movie opens.

    Lastly, and we all know this, Kerry is absolute going to hand Bush's ass to him during the debates. There is no way in hell the tongue-tied, ambiguous Bush with his "heartfelt nonsense" is going to hold a candle to Kerry's sharper wit and greater articulation.

    These three factors - in addition to several others are why I think Kerry will win in November.

    Tim points out that it's hard to win against a more hawkish sitting president when troops are in the field. This may be true, but another interesting "fact" is that for Bush to pull off reelection in the Fall it would be the first time a president did so with poll numbers so low this close to the election...

  • Jim Valvis||

    --All the new posters who switched votes seems kind of suspicious. Their writing styles are also very close.

    Well, unless I invented a whole new blog (not to mention my six-year-old journal) just for the deception, I think maybe I might be real.

    I suspect that many of the new folks, like me, came via Instapundit. Truth is, Dems don't want to admit that they're sunk this election. But they are.

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva treaty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."

    Probably not entirely. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva treaty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."

    Probably not entirely. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • drf||

    tack, Anders!
    mvh

  • ||

    To fight terrorism you should start with making life so bearable that killing yourself doesn't sound like a good idea anymore.

    Gee, Anders, the dole as the answer to everything-- could you be more European? Let me hit you with the clue stick-- France puts Muslim immigrants on the dole. America challenges them to run 7-11s or starve. Now one country has a moderately well-assimilated Muslim population full of people who run their own businesses, and one has seething suburbs full of angry unemployed bombmakers and synagogue-burners. Guess which one is which.

    Actually, The New Republic (a rightish magazine which, however, promoted Al Gore for longer than anyone on earth except himself) has an article up by Lawrence Kaplan which says the following(I'm stealing this directly from Roger Simon's site but hey, I subscribe, I'd have read it anyway):

    A recent study by Princeton's Alan Krueger and Czech scholar Jitka Maleckova analyzed data on terrorist attacks and measured it against the characteristics of the terrorists' countries of origin. The study found that "the only variable that was consistently associated with the number of terrorists was the Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties. Countries with more freedom were less likely to be the birthplace of international terrorists."

    What a surprise. Leaving the masses festering under a dictator and feeding them constant anti-American propaganda results in... anti-American terrorism. Imagine!

    Bush is twenty years ahead of you guys. That's why I'm no longer one of you guys.

  • ||

    All these folks are coming from INSTAPUNDIT.

    Which does not discount what they are saying about "Voted Gore, Voting Bush." After all, they are now Repubs (or frustrated Dems).

  • ||

    "c" is so wrong for so many reasons. I feel fairly certain that significant numbers of traditional democratic voters are going to vote for Bush. Some will do so enthusiastically and some will have to hold their noses, but they will do it. Not because they like Bush, but because they don't trust Kerry to fight terrorism. On the other hand, I can't imagine ANY traditional Republican voters going for Kerry. Even if the number of "9/11 Republicans" is fairly small, it should be enough to tip a lot of races in a 50/50 country.

    As for those who voted Nader last time around, some will stick with him and some will defect, but I think it's a mistake to think all the defectors will flock to Kerry. Let's be generous and say they go 65% Kerry, 35% Bush. But this has to be balanced against anti-war Dems defecting from Kerry to Nader. The conventional wisdom holds that Kerry needs to move to the center to win the battleground states, but when he does this he will lose support on his left. The urge to register an anti-war vote will be too great for some former Deaniacs once Kerry starts talking tough on Iraq. In the unlikely event that Kerry tries a left wing gambit, he will lose even more votes in the center than he finds on the left, so he's boxed in.

    Finally there's the terrorist attack wild card. If Al Qaeda manages a successful attack between now and November, it helps Bush because Americans will never vote for appeasment (unlike Spain). On the other hand, if there is no attack on US soil since 9/11 Bush will be able to take most of the credit.

    Any way you look at it, Bush wins and Kerry is screwed. By the way, I'm not some Bush cheerleader, that's just the way I see it. I am another "9/11 Republican" who worked on Gore's campaign in '88 and voted for Clinton twice. Bush is getting my (absentee) vote this time.

  • Rusty Shackleford||

    Great post Tim. But there are many other reasons why he will win. Strong economy, Incumbency, and Kerry being a Senator seem even bigger factors. Last time a sitting US Senator won the WH was in 1960. Last time a sitting US Senator beat the icumbent during prosperous times was....er, when?

  • ||

    Sorry, Jesse A, I'm another Libertarian for Bush (huh huh, that sounds kinda dirty), and I haven't posted on this thread yet. I took the nihilistic coward's way out and voted for (shudder) Harry Browne in 2000. It's gonna be Dubya this time.

  • Rusty Shackleford||

    Great post Tim. But there are many other reasons why he will win. Strong economy, Incumbency, and Kerry being a Senator seem even bigger factors. Last time a sitting US Senator won the WH was in 1960. Last time a sitting US Senator beat the icumbent during prosperous times was....er, when?

  • Jim Valvis||

    --All the new posters who switched votes seems kind of suspicious. Their writing styles are also very close.

    Well, unless I invented a whole new blog (not to mention my six-year-old journal) just for the deception, I think maybe I might be real.

    I suspect that many of the new folks, like me, came via Instapundit. Truth is, Dems don't want to admit that they're sunk this election. But they are.

  • Rusty Shackleford||

    Great post Tim. But there are many other reasons why he will win. Strong economy, Incumbency, and Kerry being a Senator seem even bigger factors. Last time a sitting US Senator won the WH was in 1960. Last time a sitting US Senator beat the icumbent during prosperous times was....er, when?

  • STOPBUSH||

    None of you get it. Do you care about Leftists at all?

    Kerry MUST win, or rabid anti-bushies will committ mass-sucicide the day after the election.

    DO YOU GOPNAZIS WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOUSNADS OF DEATHS?!?

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva treaty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."

    Probably not entirely. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva treaty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."

    Probably not entirely. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • ||

    People like to talk about the 50 - 50 election of Bush vs Gore but they forget the context of that election.
    One October surprise and the behavior of the news media on election night depressed Bush's popular vote numbers.

    The weekend before the election is when the DUI charge broke and washed out Ross Perot's endorsement of Bush. I remember seeing Perot on CNN trying to endorse Bush and having to answer DUI question after DUI question. He was obviously upset that the interview was getting away from him. The DUI undoubtablely cost Bush votes in 1999. Polls showed as much as 5% of the voters considered it in their vote. If I can believe sites I find by googling "bush DUI democratic convention" it was a planned dirty trick. Barbara Boxer out here in California has done this twice so it fits the modus operandi.

    The second thing that hurt Bush was the early calls for Gore. You may not remember this well but again google for "networks early call for gore" and you will find a lot of articles on depressed voter turnout. I live in LA and when I got home at 5:00 (with the polls still open) the networks were all but declaring that Gore had won. They declared Florida for Gore while the polls were still open in west Florida. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/10/politics/main248524.shtml Early calls do depress voter turnout.

    This double whammy had more to do with the final popular vote than anything else in the 1999 election. If you believe the voters are going to repeat the 1999 patterns do you also believe that we will have another DUI and early call?

  • ||

    In addition, I predict that Fahrenheit 9/11 will not only be a big hit, but also will so unite the left against Bush that the sentiment will trickle over into the middle and even taint parts of the right. It will unify swing voters against Bush. Think I'm wrong? We'll see what people around your water cooler are talking about June 26th - the day after the movie opens.

    Haaahahahaha...

  • ||

    I've noticed that in my area of the country quite a few of the democrats running for congress are "scoop jackson" types, or at least try to sounds like such. I have to wonder if many of the 911 republicans intend to vote a split ticket and let a democratic congress can keep a lid on bush domestically while giving him a free hand to pursue terrorists. Anyone else care to speculate on the length of bush coat tails in the event of a land slide?

  • ||

    Sorry, Jesse A., I'm another Libertarian for Bush, and I haven't posted on this thread yet. I took the nihilistic coward's way out in 2000 and voted for (shudder) Harry Browne, but this time, it's gonna be Dubya.

  • ||

    People like to talk about the 50 - 50 election of Bush vs Gore but they forget the context of that election.
    One October surprise and the behavior of the news media on election night depressed Bush's popular vote numbers.

    The weekend before the election is when the DUI charge broke and washed out Ross Perot's endorsement of Bush. I remember seeing Perot on CNN trying to endorse Bush and having to answer DUI question after DUI question. He was obviously upset that the interview was getting away from him. The DUI undoubtablely cost Bush votes in 1999. Polls showed as much as 5% of the voters considered it in their vote. If I can believe sites I find by googling "bush DUI democratic convention" it was a planned dirty trick. Barbara Boxer out here in California has done this twice so it fits the modus operandi.

    The second thing that hurt Bush was the early calls for Gore. You may not remember this well but again google for "networks early call for gore" and you will find a lot of articles on depressed voter turnout. I live in LA and when I got home at 5:00 (with the polls still open) the networks were all but declaring that Gore had won. They declared Florida for Gore while the polls were still open in west Florida. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/10/politics/main248524.shtml Early calls do depress voter turnout.

    This double whammy had more to do with the final popular vote than anything else in the 1999 election. If you believe the voters are going to repeat the 1999 patterns do you also believe that we will have another DUI and early call?

  • ||

    i don't think anyone can call this election quite yet, no matter how confident one is about his/her team winning, but...the idea that farenheit 9/11 is going to suddenly SWEEP THE NATION and CHANGE THE WORLD...is silly.

    very, very silly.

  • ||

    this is 1948 with dewey being the northeast elitist versus the plain spoken mid westerner, harry truman. bush by a mile.

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva treaty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."

    Probably not entirely. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • ||

    "All the new posters who switched votes seems kind of suspicious."

    It's an Instalanche, you ninny.

  • Ken Layne||

    I quit reading the comments about a third of the way in, so I don't care if this is repeating somebody else's brilliant point.

    What the mirthless prick has taught me & pretty much every other registered voter I know (a self-selected sample of people with vaguely similar political leanings) is that personal dislike of the Democratic nominee is a luxury we will no longer indulge.

    My friend Charlie -- a Nader voter in 2000 -- came up with a simple little mantra: I Can't Wait To Vote.

    I don't care if Kerry wears a funny helmet and rides around in a tank from now 'til November. Don't care if his wife goes crazier than Courtney Love. Don't care if he picks a bag of medical waste for a running mate. Don't care if he loses the nomination to a bag of medical waste. I can't wait to vote.

    (In retrospect, the weeklong Reagan funeral was the best thing that could possibly happen, because Kerry said nothing all week. Hopefully his campaign will realize the brilliance of this strategy: Just shut up and let Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld & the other inept crooks talk themselves out of Washington ... maybe for good this time ... assuming the GOP doesn't dig up the whole rotten bunch to run Jenna Bush's administration in 2030.)

  • ||

    And I have to say about this "mirthless little prince" meme -- Nick Gillespie must be real generous with his crack stash around here. You folks are losing it.

  • ||

    Europe: It's always there when it needs us.

    Anders, understand these words, and you'll begin to see why we could not possibly care less whether EUrope approves of our president.


    WHERE ARE YOU PEOPLE COMING FROM?

    America, and proud of it! Those not so proud are the ones driving the Kerry bandwagon. And that's the big problem the Democrats are facing. If they want to remain viable, they need to recapture the 'proud American' vote.

  • ||

    Kerry is going to pick the candidate that gives him the greatest advantage over a Bush-Cheney ticket

    Name this miracle person. He/she doesn't exist. At best you can come up with someone of a modest regional appeal (although I don't really believe in "delivering states" any more; it's a national race conducted by national media). The VP may help the ticket if the two of them, like Clinton and Gore, seem like more than the sum of their parts. He's a wash or even a mild negative if he 1) outshines Kerry, like Bentsen did Dukakis, or 2) reinforces Kerry's negatives (another bloviating liberal senator like Kerrey or H. Clinton, or another snoozebox like Vilsack). But there isn't a Colin Powell on the Democratic side who offers a wow factor (rightly or not). Name this person and I'll give you $50. Edwards is about the best choice there is, but Kerry may rightly feel, what's so great about a guy I already whipped? For that reason, I suspect Evan Bayh-- he's the John Edwards who's not actually John Edwards. A pretty good choice, probably, but not one that will instantly electrify voters.

    "Fahrenheit 9/11 hasn't hit the theaters."

    Yeah, but Air America's already broadcasting. Has the world changed yet? That's a Democrat for ya, convinced that millions of people are going to change their politics because millions of people are going to go pay $8 to watch a DOCUMENTARY this summer. In what alternative universe, I'd like to know.

    Lastly, and we all know this, Kerry is absolute going to hand Bush's ass to him during the debates.

    Oh, THAT alternative universe. The one in which Gore won even a single debate. George W. Bush, master of rope-a-dope...

  • ||

    Yeah, what Jesse A said. All you guys talking about switching from switching to vote for Dubya don't fit with Jesse's idea of how you should vote based upon the Democratically sanctioned media spin about disgruntled voters who hate Bushitler's war for oil in Iraq. Get with the program people, no independant thinking here - just vote the way your told to and like it.

  • ||

    "Lastly, and we all know this, Kerry is absolute going to hand Bush's ass to him during the debates. There is no way in hell the tongue-tied, ambiguous Bush with his "heartfelt nonsense" is going to hold a candle to Kerry's sharper wit and greater articulation."

    You obviously missed the Dem primary debates. Not sayin Bush is a debate master, but Kerry was not impressive nor witty.

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva treaty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."

    Probably not entirely. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • ||

    I thought at first it was an influx of NROers.

    First there was repeat posting. Now we have cross- repeat posting. This is getting very bizarre and Dada. For the record, I'm only hitting Post once.

  • ||

    And understand and respect global opinions

    Please Anders tell us why we should give a rat's ass about global opinion? None of you understand let alone respect our opinions, but you'll tell us how to vote and how to act anyway. You want America to respect European opinion, because you want Europe to inherit the position America now enjoys. In re: Iraq, the last European opinion on a brutal dictator was, "give him Poland." You have no cred with us when it comes to defense, of ourselves or others. So we're not going to take your advice on how to act when we feel threatened.

  • ||

    Hey everybody, I know it's slow but

  • ||

    "The war in Iraq didn�t make America more secure. To fight terrorism you should start with making life so bearable that killing yourself doesn't sound like a good idea anymore. Instead the US supports Sharon at all cost. But Kerry would probably not be any better at that."

    Finally Anders gets around to what's really bothering him: The U.S. supports "Sharon at all cost." I hope he's not one of those Europeans who have a problem with "the Jooooos".

    As far as suicide sounding like a good idea, don't make me laugh. Only to those followers of the Hamas/Arafat death cult. Palestinians (how did we get on them, anyway) living peacefully in Israel are the freest Arabs in the Middle East. Why is that? Oh, yeah, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East (to be joined soon by the new Iraq). I guess that's not worth supporting. Do you live in a democracy, Anders? Have you ever looked into what radical Islam has in mind for infidels living under their sway?

  • HH||

    Will - Good to see Michael Moore here today...

    Moore's film will only increase the publicity for the anti-Moore book and film coming out later in the summer.

  • ||

    Anders,

    I think everyone got your point the first time.

    Repeating the same post over and over isn't necessary.

  • ||

    "One October surprise and the behavior of the news media on election night depressed Bush's popular vote numbers."

    Why did the early and incorrect calls for Gore hurt Bush any more than Gore? Gore folks would have stayed home (or voted for Nader) just as much as Bush folks if they thought the election was over.

    Also, I'm going to make my own bold prediction and say "meme" will very soon replace "canard" as the most overused word on these threads (if it hasn't already).

  • ||

    I wouldn�t be surprised at a Bush landslide, but for reasons different from those mentioned above.

    Look at Bush's poll numbers; they reveal something interesting: 45% of Americans have already decided to vote for him. Bush's positive numbers have varied with the news, but his negative numbers are rock solid. The last two months has been hard on President Bush, but the worst that happened was that he tied Kerry at 50%. And the news can't be bad forever; no matter how the Media tries to play it. Since 10 % of the people tend to make up their minds in the last week before the election, let us look at the issues that might sway them.

    Iraq. News about Iraq tends to favor Bush. Why? Good news tends to confirm the President's leadership, and good news is bound to slip out of Iraq. The Media has seriously injured their credibility in the last two years. Much good news is not being reported, and that it is not being reported-- is news. The voter is not dumb; there are enough returning service people telling them about Media bias.

    The current wave of terrorism in Iraq is consuming valuable resources of money and personnel; the question is how long the Islamists can keep it up. The terror is geared to defeat the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi's on June 30th, not to defeat President Bush. We should expect that in July for the terrorism to taper off and ramp back up again in January for the general elections. But, bad news tends to favor Bush too. It forces people to ask who they want as their Commander in Chief. No reasonable person would answer-- Kerry. Kerry knows this and wishes Iraq would go away, so that he can campaign on social issues.

    But, America's problems won't go away. 3/11 created a danger for us, because terrorist�s acts overthrew the Spanish State. And the Islamists are likely to misread this and will plan a repeat event in America before our election. If they succeed or fail-- Kerry loses. If they fail then it is because our government was effective. If they succeed then the terrorists remind us why we are fighting. Millions of American's will not just be scared, but pissed. The married women's vote after 9/11 moved to the right and will stampede at a major terrorist act. Their expectations of leadership will change-- inarticulate, but strong men will trump glib, but wimpy one�s any day.

    Social Issues. This is Kerry's strong suit, but survival comes first. Most people vote their pocketbook after that and, despite the Media, the economy is good-- the best in decades. This cannot be kept from the Public; who knows whether they are working or not. And all the chimeras that the Media has thrown up to diminish the performance numbers are just that-- illusions. Illusion cannot be kept up forever; when illusions fail they rebound for the other side.

    The Media will keep propping up Kerry just to sell newspapers until two weeks before the election. There are too many variables to be certain until then, but Bush is starting on a roll, and it doesn't look good for Kerry.

  • ||

    "Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets."
    But are trying to meet them. The goals are national, so EU don�t get a free ride by taking new memebers freom Eastern Eurioe

    "When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously."

    Like the Geneva treaty?


    "You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America."

    Probably not entirely. But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions

    "Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? "

    Or just make the Palestinian situation bearable by allowing them to work, have a government, not destroy their security forces, not forcing them off their land , etc...

    and drf: Jag �r fr�n Finland, men talar svenska.

  • ||

    Europeans think we're misled and they can't even hit the post button just once?

    No discipline.....

  • ||

    Anders must be pounding his head on his keyboard--"Those poor Americans, they just don't get it!!"

    As soon as the terrorists sign the Geneva convention, I'll feel a little more angst about Abu Ghraib, in the mean time, stuff it.

    I've heard this garbage before about how the U.S. should be held to a higher standard because of who we are. Though I disagree with that sentiment, you obviously believe it. If that's true, then shut up and let your betters take care of the world without any backseat carping from you.

    The Palestinians bailed nearly 60 years ago and set up a pathetic puppet regime under Arafat that is kept alive by Middle East dictators who want to focus internal anger externally and Europeans who hate Jews. I don't like what's going on there any better than you do, but until the Palestinians come up with a credible, elected government, they will always appear to be pretenders in the eyes of Americans.


    I admire your fighting spirit, just feel bad that you are so reflexively toeing the Euro line.

  • ||

    I'm not going to guess the winner of the upcoming election, I lost my crystal ball some years ago. But I'm amazed at the amount of posters who are afraid...or worse, terrified...Of terrorism above all else. Is this the kind of thing that keeps you up at night? Do you people realize you have a better chance of getting maimed or killed while driving your car to and from work every day than from an anthrax letter? I bet the odds are even more outrageous if it was a nuke.

    Chill. Count to ten. And don't hit me with all these negative waves so early in the morning.

  • ||

    sorry for multiple posts, i was hitting the keyboard with my head...
    There seems to be a problem with the server. Maybe it's French?

  • ||

    Holy Christ, 193 posts in 5 hours.

    Good one, Tim.

    Care to prognosticate another impassioned subject?

  • ||

    Julian Sanchez: "Huh, this is a bit surprising. I know at least a few dozen people who supported Bush in 2000 but are strongly rooting for Kerry (well, against Bush, at least) now"

    Julian, I've heard this a couple of times, too (far less than I've heard "9-11 Dems", though), in group settings. Then, when you talk to the person one-on-one, it usually goes like this:

    Me: So you want John Kerry to be your President, huh?
    Angry Republican: Come on! Have you seen how much Bush has raised spending?
    Me: So you think that President John Kerry would *cut* spending?
    Angry Rep: Well, yeah, but, what about, uh, immigrant amnesty?
    Me: So you think that President John Kerry is going to lock down the borders and turn away a generation of incoming, service-demanding, future Democratic voters?
    etc.

    Eventually, the person ends up admitting that yeah, he's sort of mad with Bush, but he'll vote for him in the end, given the alternative.

    I still think the election will be tight, though.

  • ||

    Anders, thoreau and Jesse A are doing an excellent job of illustrating why Kerry is in such trouble. Responding to the thread with one or more of the following:

    1. You people are stupid.
    2. You "people" are lying.
    3. You people are Bush fellators

    I didn't accuse anybody of anything. I'm just kind of amazed at the response that this thread got, and thought it was strange. And, on an anonymous forum, when lots of unexpected comments come from new people, well, pardon me if I get a little suspicious.

    To be honest, I'm not surprised if a statistically significant fraction of the people who voted for Gore decide to vote for Bush this time around. I'm just kind of surprised that they all showed up here. I didn't realize that this forum attracted many people who voted for Gore in 2000. OK, Joe and Gadfly did (I think), and I thought Gore was the lesser evil in 2000, but we 3 have usually been in the minority around here.


    Rick Laredo-

    Your name I recognize, since you're an occasional poster. I've posted here long enough and often enough to remember occasional names. I'm not suspicious of any poster in particular, just surprised by the general response here.

  • ||

    I came here via Instapundit, but would have gotten here later because I read Hit&Run daily.

    I voted for Clinton. Twice. And even though I felt he betrayed his party and me by not doing the things we thought he'd do, as well as gutting the Welfare system, I probably would've voted for him again, if I could. I despised W. I thought him an idiot and nincompoop. I voted for Gore, and stayed up late into the night to hear the results. Not knowing the results would take weeks. And when it was over, I was pissed. THat idiot won!

    And then came September 11. I will vote for Bush. Kerry would be another Carter, and we can't afford that kind of appeasement.

    Mackey wrote:

    "Do you really think Islamist terrorism is this huge, looming crisis for the United States?
    How many people died on Sept. 11? OK, now think: How many people live in this country?
    Get an effing grip!"

    Um...yes, Islamofascism is a clear, present and growing danger. Get an effing clue.

    Another thing. I'm wondering how many posters here are from/in major cities. I'm in NYC, where there's Bush-hatred to spare. But I believe that the rest of the country -- rural and semirural America, the REAL America -- will come down on Bush's side.

  • ||

    Anders,

    I reject the claim that our involvement in Iraq has made us less safe. Perhaps it increases the threat in the short run, but it is the only way we can even hope to eliminate it.

    I'm a military intelligence officer who told all his friends right after the war, "don't worry, they will find the WMD." Despite the eating a lot of crow over this and also the fact that I can no longer believe that Iraq substantially supported Al Qaida before the war, Iraq is now the central battleground in the war on terror.

    The Islamic fascists simply can't help themselves from fighting us there. Whatever the case before the war, Al Qaida is active there now. While I don't credit the Bush administration with planning this, Al Qaida has been drawn into a much more conventional conflict than suits their organization. It is being fought on foreign soil, at a time and place more of our choosing than of theirs.

    I bring all of this to your attention because of your comment to the effect "we should make life more bearable for them, so they wont want to blow themselves up." The Islamic fascists that we are fighting want to ensure that this never ever happens. They will instigate conflict and prompt reprisals, because it is the reprisals that fuel their claim to power. They are essentially abusing their populace for their own political ambitions - this goes for Palestine, Fallujah, Sadr city. While my view from the military may be biased, the only possibility for peace is to burn away the enemy quickly and decisively, and establish law and order - anything less will allow them to keep from losing: the goal of any good revolutionary, Islamic or otherwise. There will be no peace in any of these divided powder kegs without some sort of decisive victory first.

  • ||

    About the idea that Kerry will whip Bush in the debates: Gore in 99 was the "superior intellect with total command of the issues" and Bush beat all three of him: Sighing Gore, Medicated Gore, and no-I'm-not-really-Sybil-crazy Gore.

  • ||

    "So we're not going to take your advice on how to act when we feel threatened."

    But please remember international law and all the other boring stuff...

  • ||

    Sorry for the typo, meant Gore in 00 not 99 in my debate post.

  • john marzan||

    yes, bush will win and mainstream media will suffer a huge credibility blow.

    and we will have our payback after the elections.

  • ||

    But I'm amazed at the amount of posters who are afraid...or worse, terrified...Of terrorism above all else. Is this the kind of thing that keeps you up at night? Do you people realize you have a better chance of getting maimed or killed while driving your car to and from work every day than from an anthrax letter?

    I live in a major port city. I used to work in a building named for a global oil company, and depicted prominently in flight simulator games. My wife and the mother of my children works in a major financial complex next to one of the world's tallest buildings. Oh, yeah, I'm just a weenie obsessing over absurd things to think that the constant threats of losers in shitholes who are working very hard to acquire nuclear capability. At least, that's what my friends who teach at state universities in the middle of corn fields tell me.

    What were the odds that Hitler would want more than the Sudetenland once he had it? What were the odds that hairy, illiterate horsemen could ever sack Rome, capital of the world?

    But please remember international law and all the other boring stuff...

    Okay, I'll remember the 17 UN resolutions and the state of war that still existed in Iraq if you will too.

    While I don't credit the Bush administration with planning this, Al Qaida has been drawn into a much more conventional conflict than suits their organization.

    Why don't you credit them for, as someone put it earlier, luring them to fight in Iraq instead of New York, where we would have the advantage? Isn't that what every commander strives for? That's like not crediting the Germans for digging into the cliffs of Normandy.

  • ||

    J: "Why did the early and incorrect calls for Gore hurt Bush any more than Gore? Gore folks would have stayed home (or voted for Nader) just as much as Bush folks if they thought the election was over."

    J, I'll do this off the top of my head, so please feel free to correct me. The "meme" of the 2000 election was that most of the states were solid Bush or Gore, but that a handful - I think Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and maybe Michigan - would, if they fell one way or another, carry enough EVs to swing the election. All these states were in the east, though.

    I think the other states were called before Florida, and then finally finally around 7PM Eastern time, Flordia was called for Gore. This pretty much meant that if the rest of the states in the midwest and west went the way they were expected to go, Gore wins the whole enchilada. But, 7PM EST is only 6PM in Central time, which much of the Florida panhandle occupies. This Central time portion panhandle, in the parlance, was "solid red" - you can check one of those county red/blue maps of the 2000 election and you can see the part of the panhandle in Central time by drawing a straight line down from the GA-AL border.

    The thinking (or "meme" - LOL, that was great!) was that voters in the heavily Red panhandle heard Florida, and thus the country was going Gore, so instead of stopping to vote on the way home from work and voting for a loser, they just went straight home. Thus, Bush was denied thousands(? - says the meme) votes he would have from the panhandle, and we would never have had the Florida recount mess.

  • Mo||

    Anyone else think H&R should put a warning in the comment boxes that it may take a looooong time to post, so hit the button once. The regulars have enough problems staying multipost free, the newcomers are bound to have issues.

  • ||

    Thoreau:
    I've been lurking, but not posting to this thread. But since you're counting, here's a voter who (barely) voted for Gore in 2000, and will vote ABB in '04. The fact that I -nearly- voted for Bush is embarrassing.

    The overreaction to Islamofascism is a clear, present and growing danger.

  • ||

    I dunno,

    I suppose if Osama had something akin to the german Volk behind him (and the military and industrial might that came with it) I probably would obsess too. But he doesn't. Does he?

    I "work" in a refinery. You get no sympathy points from me.

  • Sonic Puke||

    I think and have thought for a long time that the election will basically come down to 2 things...

    Iraq and the economy...

    Clearly the economy is better and quite likely to get better...

    Iraq is a bit more of a tossup right now...

    Ann Coulter might think it's going great...

    Lou Dobbs sees it as "total chaos"...

    I think it's somewhere in between...

    Clearly the media for the most part has chosen Kerry's side and will do almost anything to support him...

    My thesis is that Bush's best chance is the Democrat's themselves...

    They continue to over-reach in almost every aspect...

    They claim that the economy is in TERRIBLE shape when clearly it is not...

    They seem to often claim that up is down and that black is white...

    They go to far, and continue...

    I think the Democrats could EASILY win this election, but won't because of themselves...

    [spam]PS please visit my blog, particularly if you think I'm an idiot... I like dissent...[/spam]

  • ||

    "I quit reading the comments about a third of the way in, so I don't care if this is repeating somebody else's brilliant point."

    What a coincidence! I stopped reading your post right about here!

  • Znet||

    Will: I agree, the whole "Terrorism will effect YOU" is just scaremongering by the neocon imperialists.

    Think about it. Were any of YOU personally affected by 9-11? Did you personally know anyone who died? I bet not (unless you work for the State-Finance and Zionist-Funding Department, e.g. Wall Street, which then I say to you - tough luck!)

    Noam Chomsky is right. The US is a land of fascist sheep, with no Castro to sheperd them (as they need). Go vote for Bush you sheep!

  • ||

    I think the Democrats could EASILY win this election, but won't because of themselves...

    No one has ever gone broke under-estimating the stupidity of the Democratic Party.

    Nor that of the GOP, now that I think about it :)

    Face it, our political parties do more to make themselves look bad than anybody else could do for them. I mean, just take a long look at them, for God's sake!

  • Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)||

    Hey, nice to see I'm not the only guy to post with more than one alias!

    Might I be the legendary Jean Bart? Only my puppetmaster knows for sure! But I like to think there's a little Jean Bart in all of us.

  • ||

    Thoreau, it is always nice to be remembered, thank you. I too was suspicious of all the posts. Even taking into account that quite a few are multiple posts thereby increasing the total number it is an impressive amount. That said I am also impressed by the amount of GWB support, I have to admit I am pleased. /R

  • ||

    Brent,

    You're right - I was thinking only of the western states and not of the Florida panhandle. I can't imagine it would have been _that_ many votes, but then it wouldn't have taken that many. (Also, the original post I was responding to was talking about the popular vote, but I didn't make that clear in my response and your point about the Florida panhandle and the electoral vote is well taken.)

  • ||

    Hey Mackey, 3000 dead is a hell of a lot of people. Making people decide that a 100 story dive onto concrete was THE best decision possible still enrages me . Btw I voted for Browne in 00 and will be voting for Bush in 04.

  • ||

    thoreau,

    Plaese accept my apologies. I interpreted your "where re all you people coming from" post as a variation on "what the hell is wrong with you people". Your explanation makes perfect sense - sorry for misinterpreting your post.

  • skbz||

    Christ. I just read the whole thing. Fuck instapundit's readers. Fuck them up their butts. I know it's futile to take up the challenge and post my testimony anecdotally, as if this forum could serve as some sort of a legitimate referendum, but, for my part, I resided in DC in 2000 and, knowing my vote didn't matter, voted Libertarian. Now I live in NYC, and again know my vote won't matter, but will switch to the Dems because Bush is the shittiest president imaginable. (Now all I have to do, after I post and repost this several times, is just come up with some different names & email addresses so I can show that my anti-Bush position has strength in numbers.)

  • ||

    I estimate that 99% of these posts are just a single Bush supporter (maybe Instapundit himself).

    Clearly everything above is just propaganda by the Vast Bush Conspiracy.

  • ||

    Thanks for the well-thought-out, intelligently argued response, Skbz.

  • ||

    Anders,

    Global warming is indeed a fact, but it's cause remains somewhat a mystery. There may also be ways of artificially cooling the environment that could compensate for global warming. There is a lot of research left to be done on this. But even if you accept the need to cut co2, the fact remains that Kyoto would have placed a disproportionate amount of the burden on the US, while giving a free pass to China and India. We'll never ratify such a treaty. Make the whole world accountable so we can know our sacrifices will actually contribute to a worldwide reduction in pollution, and we'll talk.

    As for the notion that terrorism results from poverty, I refer you to the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, all of whome were independently wealthy. I also point out that not one terrorist has ever claimed poverty or the relative misery of his life as the motivation of his actions--they all say they did it because we're the mega-evil Great Satan that lets women drive, doesn't flog heretics, and won't let them drive Israel into the sea. Although I suspect some of them were doing it because Sadaam was paying them.

    But let's accept, for the moment, this Marxist theory that terrorism really comes from the unbearable lives of the terrorists, rather than from a malignant, government sanctioned culture of hate. What do you recommend we do about it? As things stand, there's no way for us to alleviate the suffering of the people in Arab states. No matter how much money and resources we pour in, it'll just be sucked up by despotic overlords and thugs and UN bureaucrats. (See: Oil for food progam, or North Korea) And there's certainly no way we can convince Arab governments to, say, stop mutilating their daughters and selling them into slavery.

    Actually, there is one thing we can do, isn't there? We can remove the despots. And that's exactly what we have to do, if we're ever going to protect ourselves from terrorism and improve the plight of the Arab peoples. I, for one, will be voting this November for the candidate who comes closest to understanding this.

  • ||

    Anders,

    Re: Kyoto Treaty and the failure of France and Germany
    �But are trying to meet them�

    In my philosophy, results matter far more than intentions. Furthermore intentions can be faked (see France), results can�t. The French and German failure to follow EU economic treaties may derail the whole EU unified currency movement.

    �Like the Geneva treaty?�

    Yes, like the Geneva Treaty. If you read and understood the Geneva Treaty, you might learn that the US does take it very seriously.

    �But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions�

    Why? What has China or Russia ever done to earn the respect of the US? France earned some respect over two hundred years ago but has long since used it up. (Selling a reactor to Saddam, Oil for Palaces scandals, etc.) The US pays a little attention to Germany due to its small contribution in Afghanistan. (But the growing anti-Americanism in Germany is eroding any respect Germany may once have had.) The US listens closely to countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia who have provided major help.

    Most nations are trying to sit out the WoT, hoping that the US will maintain worldwide security but take major damage in the process. Why should the US respect such cowardly behavior?


    �But please remember international law and all the other boring stuff...�

    International law is built on the foundation of security provided by the US. The former Soviet Union never cared about international law and China today doesn�t care about international law.

    Saddam flouted �international law� for over a decade until the US and its real allies stopped him. North Korea with its Chinese enabler will continue to flout �international law� until the US has had enough. European �respect� for �international law� will lead to Iranian mullahs armed with nuclear weapons aimed at the heart of Europe.

  • ||

    FWIW:

    I voted Browne last time only because I knew Gore couldn't take KY. I have since disagreed with Browne on so many particulars that if I had it to do over again, I would vote Bush.

    I don't like Bush because he is a statist and I hate Kerry because he is more of a statist. I am starting to believe that despite the fact that they talk right and act wrong on most issues, the Repubs are the only hope. There is no one else. The LP is a clown college for the most part, where the most shrill carries the day - and they totally misapprehend the non initiation of fore principle. They make, to me, uninformed arguments about national defence vs. national offence, when the difference to me seems to be whether you fight in NYC or Baghdad. I think we are financially over involved in the middle east and we have been for some time, but to claim parity between Israel and Hizbollah is just ignorant.

    I want reduced government in every aspect of my life and a military with teeth to protect my freedom. I don't know where my political party is, but I know where it isn't. It isn't the party whose sole philosophy is taking and giving.

    While I'm griping, Feinstein has apparently reintroduced an "assault" weapons ban by way of administrative procedure that skips committe. Her bill would extend the ban by 10 years. Call your congressmen, if that is your thing. It is mine.

  • ||

    Anders,

    Re: Kyoto Treaty and the failure of France and Germany
    �But are trying to meet them�

    In my philosophy, results matter far more than intentions. Furthermore intentions can be faked (see France), results can�t. The French and German failure to follow EU economic treaties may derail the whole EU unified currency movement.

    �Like the Geneva treaty?�

    Yes, like the Geneva Treaty. If you read and understood the Geneva Treaty, you might learn that the US does take it very seriously.

    �But when you are as big as the US is, and act globally, you have to take global responsibility. And understand and respect global opinions�

    Why? What has China or Russia ever done to earn the respect of the US? France earned some respect over two hundred years ago but has long since used it up. (Selling a reactor to Saddam, Oil for Palaces scandals, etc.) The US pays a little attention to Germany due to its small contribution in Afghanistan. (But the growing anti-Americanism in Germany is eroding any respect Germany may once have had.) The US listens closely to countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia who have provided major help.

    Most nations are trying to sit out the WoT, hoping that the US will maintain worldwide security but take major damage in the process. Why should the US respect such cowardly behavior?


    �But please remember international law and all the other boring stuff...�

    International law is built on the foundation of security provided by the US. The former Soviet Union never cared about international law and China today doesn�t care about international law.

    Saddam flouted �international law� for over a decade until the US and its real allies stopped him. North Korea with its Chinese enabler will continue to flout �international law� until the US has had enough. European �respect� for �international law� will lead to Iranian mullahs armed with nuclear weapons aimed at the heart of Europe.

  • ||

    I did a quick count of the votes/likely votes of those friends, co-workers and family members with whom I've discussed politics regularly over the past four years (plus mine):

    2000
    Gore - 10
    Nader - 2
    Bush - 1
    Browne - 1
    No Vote - 1

    2004
    Kerry - 10
    Bush - 5

    Nothing scientific about the sample, just the folks I'm familiar with. Both Naders went to Kerry, with two Gores, the Browne and the no vote going to Bush. All other votes stayed in-party. Also interesting to note, both Gore to Bush cross overs were male and don't plan to tell their Dem voting spouses.

  • ||

    Tim is completely right, and the left actually agrees with him. Doesn't anyone else remember that the war was staged purely to boost Bush's popularity and ensure victory in the 2004 election?

    More fairly:

    In addition to not voting out a sitting hawkish president during wartime, I don't think any president presiding over a booming economy has been voted out either.

    "Thirty percent of polled U.S. employers plan to add to their payrolls in the July to September period, the survey by Manpower Inc. showed."

    "The survey hit its highest level of 35 percent in 2000, powered by the Internet-fueled boom."

    "Far fewer companies now plan to lay off employees, the survey showed, making the net year-over-year increase in employers planning to create jobs the largest in the history of the Manpower survey, which was started in 1976."

    This *after* 1M jobs were created in 3 months.

    Get ready for 4 more years.

    A prediction of my own: I predict Dan Rather, et. al. will make much to do about the rising interest rates that are going to come along with the growing boom.

  • ||

    Let me add my name to the honor roll of NYCers who saw the light when The Planes hit The Towers. Literally.

    I voted for Clinton and Gore but now see that Ariel Sharon has the right idea for how to stamp out the haters.

    Obviously me and the many many likeminded posters here will drive NY State into the Bush column where it belongs!

    That'll show Kristin Breitweiser.

    By the way I am A WOMAN. And I didn't post ANY of the SEVENTEEN other posts here, all clearly by MEN, if not by one MAN, that clearly show a unpolled, invisible, yet potent flow from Gore to get behind the greatest president since Warren Harding.

    PS I'm sure "not stupid enough to believe that stacking naked Iraqis on top of each other constitutes torture." That's why I'm smart enough to spend time reading "Reason."

    Do you think that without the former Democrats among the 82nd Keyboard Brigade warriors Bush would be polling even 40%?

  • ||

    I've voted for every LP candidate since 1980, so I'm not a good marker for the swing voters we are discussing here. My family is from New York State, and several of my siblings live in NYC or just outside it. Had the hijackers delayed their attack by one week, they might have killed my sister, who had an appointment at the WTC then. New Yorkers and former NY'ers are still discovering that someone they've been out of touch with for years - an old high school classmate, frex - was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks. But whether you or I had a personal connection to the actual victims, every American was, and is to some extent, a potential target of the murderers. You don't have to work in a skyscraper. Shopping in a mall in Mid-America will do. (Note to Tom Clancy: please stop giving these nuts ideas.)

    http://www.nbc4columbus.com/news/3421457/detail.html

    My state was conceded to the Goresters last time by the Bushies. It might be a toss-up this time. I'm still committed to vote for Badnarik. If the statewide polls show a neck and neck race in late October, I will be in the novel position of having to decide if I want to pick between the D or R, or stick to my Libertarian guns. I can't remember the last partisan race in my area that was competitive, with the exception of Ed Thompson's run for WI governor. (Results: Dem 45.2%, Rep. 41.4%, Lib. 10.5%) That 10% not only was 10 times what we needed for continued ballot status, it gave us a seat on the State Elections Board, so it wasn't just a "spoiler" vote. Plus, we have a Rep. legislature, so there is lots of healthy gridlock.

    Kevin

  • ||

    If Bush is going to do better than the coin-flip the last election was, then he's going to have to either 1) convince some of the people who voted against him last time to change their minds, or 2) convince some righties who didn't vote last time to come out to the polls this time. First of all, there ain't nobody who voted against Bush last time who's looking at the first term thinking "I admit it, I was wrong, this guy's great!" Second, I have to think that the last election's opportunity to give a Clintonite the finger motivated just about every conservative who would ever consider going to the polls.

    So without changing any minds, and without being able to call up some previously silent right wing, where are the votes going to come from? Without them, it's just another roll of the dice.

  • ||

    Exactly what I've been telling my friends. Polling data now is still nebulous... the day of the election people are going to walk into the polls and be faced with Kerry or Bush. No matter how bad things are going, everyone knows Kerry will cut-and-run and Bush will stick it out. To bail on our friends isn't the way people are raised: it's un-American. And so they'll vote Bush...and I'm wagering they'll do it so heavily that afterwards the media will not be able to figure out what happened. Just like the Reagan-Mondale election.

  • Jim||

    An interesting and bold prediction. I come fairly close to sharing your opinion of both Bush and Kerry (well, perhaps you are a little bit harsher than I might be about Bush, but only a little). One of the most positive things I can say about a win for Bush would be that at least it would keep Kerry out. Having him in there would be like having another Carter.

  • ||

    Tim writes: " If I have any degree of preference between the two candidates, the best word for it is the vaguely theological term velleity: the lowest level of volition, unaccompanied by any intention to act."

    Great idea, Tim. "No intention to act" is just what we need when islamofacists are terribly busy killing Americans here & abroad...NOT!

    This is pure back-bench, rubbish from a permenant minority party.

  • ||

    Maybe this isn't a very solid conclusion, but if this thread shows anything, it's that politics is still a stupid little game somewhere between bingo and sports booking.

    A pox on Tim for starting this nonsense.

  • ||

    Nixon was the peace candidate in '68 and defeated HHJ/LBJ - so you're explanation for your prediction is just plain wrong.

    Bush will win in a landslide because - since Andrew Jackson defeated JQ Adams - the candiate who comes off as more "the man of the common people" ("anti-intellectual" according to Richard Hofstadter - see his book: Anti-Intellectualism in American Life))ALWAYS wins.

    When Bush successfully painted Gore as "Prince Albert," and when Gore failed to connect with the common voter - he guaranteed Gore's loss.

    Kerry - whose rhetorical style, demeanor and policy approaches are EVEN MORE "nuanced" and intellectual than Gore's - doesn't have a chance.

    After the first debate exposes Kerry as an egghead and an elitist, Bush will be ahead by at least ten points and he will carry every state he carried in 2000 - and then some.

    Barring some MAJOR stumble or outside event or terrorist mega-attack.

    If Bush is trailing Kerry in the polls at the time of the NY GOP Convention, then I expect Chenbey to step asidem, and I expect Bush to nominate Powell - this will peel off 10% of the African-Americn vote - and lead to a collosal victory for Bush. In the event a Powell VP pick is combined with a horrific outside event, then Bush might carry the popular vote, and lose ion the electoral college (by greatly narrowing the DNC margin in the DNC states).

    The bottom-line is this, though: the egghead ALWAYS LOSES.

  • RattlerGator||

    How wrong you are, c.

    You wrote: First of all, there ain't nobody who voted against Bush last time who's looking at the first term thinking "I admit it, I was wrong, this guy's great!"

    I am one. I've voted Demcocratic my entire life. No more. I credit the man [Bush 43] for changing his anti-nationbuilding course, among others, after the 9/11 attacks and energetically engaging the problem of Islamic fascism that President after President failed to pay enough attention to including Ronald Reagan. The blind spot we had to radical Islamism crossed party lines. Bush, to his everlasting credit, is not making that mistake.

    And I thank God, and I sincerely mean this, that Al Gore is not President of the United States. It would equally horrify me to see John Kerry as President. Yet, I was comfortable with President Clinton and still like him. But the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party? Hell no!

  • ||

    I have heard it said that Dewey was more hawkish than FDR in '44. I am not positive on this, though.

  • ||

    Do you think there are a lot of people in your position? Do you think you outnumber the folks who voted for him because they liked what he said, but are now turned off by his about-face? How many times, exactly, do you intend to vote?

    Just to be clear, I didn't mean to disparage your position -- I agree that we'd be worse off if Bush turned out to be the president he campaigned as. But I just don't think there are lots of people who are going to vote on that.

  • ||

    Is this to say that the last thing a perceived to be hawkish incumbent should do is start talking about force reductions after a hand over of power, even if such a policy polls well?

  • ||

    To whom it may concern:

    I posted my response before the instalanche.

    I, too, am a daily lurker here who rarely posts.

    I, too, am an independent who happened to vote Gore last round because I didn't agree with Bush's isolationist attitude.

    And I, too, was immediately glad Gore lost when I saw how extremely whiny they all became post-election.

    CBK

  • ||

    Cthulhu '04: Why choose the lesser of two evils?

  • John Tabin||

    I do think it's arguable that Nixon was the "peace candidate," but even assuming you're right, I don't buy predictions based on nothing more than a supposed iron law of electoral politics.

    Interesting that you mention '88-- up until then it was an iron law that incumbent vice presidents don't win (the 152-year-old Van Buren Curse).

    And perhaps you weren't entirely serious, but whether you're talking about Bush or any other president, the statement that "any country that would re-elect him deserves every bad thing that will happen to it," taken literally, is depraved.

  • countertop||

    This is part of a longer post i had on the subject after reading Joe Leiberman's editorial on Abu Gharib.

    The Democrats, in their giddy delight and blind embrace of the communist and anti-American ideology of the looney left have made two major strategic blunders in the last 5 years. The first was nominating Al Gore as their nominee in 2000. The second is the Democratic establishment�s wholesale rejection of Sen. Lieberman in this year�s nomination run. He would have defeated W. in 2000 and would stand a very good chance of beating him now, in 2004.

    My prediction - regardless of how close the country is split D vs. R, John Kerry is going to lose this election in a more phenomenal fashion than even Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis did. I think we are going to see Bush getting over 10% more of the popular vote and likely coming awfully close to a clean sweep of the electoral vote. Kerry will win D.C. Will he get much else outside of Vermont??? I don't think so, not at this point.



    I think, especially in light of developments, things might even be getting worse for Kerry.
  • ||

    Tim,

    From your lips to G-d's ear.

    As for Gore voters who will vote for W this time 'round, I offer my sister: a 50-year-old, life-long Democrat, liberal Jewish nurse -- for her, the only issue is who understands the war we're in and who will better defend us, and for all Bush's faults, Kerry is clueless when he's not flat-out wrong.

  • ||

    I wish I could say I agree with Cavanaugh. No way will the outcome be a decisive Bush victory. Maybe a squeaker one way or the other, maybe a Kerry blowout. But Bush winning a landslide? Just too improbable.

  • ||

    Dan,

    You think Bush will replace Cheney with Powell. With all of the neocon crap Powell's had to shovel, I'm wondering if Powell is saving his resignation for when he calculates it could do the most damage to the re-election campaign.

    Assuming of course he doesn't have a misplaced loyalty for an executive (certainly possible - they don't make 5-star generals out of people who might question command) who had him trade on his personal reputation to sell a lie to the UN, Powell has had to stomach a lot of evisceration of powers and being left hung out to dry by this administration. For instance, having State involvement actively cut out from the rebuilding of Iraq; and having a deputy secretary proxy fight between Armitrage and Wolfowitz of the kind for which we hardly get to see behind the curtain; and it seems that Eric Shinseki was from the same school of army doctrine as Powell, which Rumsfeld and Bush have rejected. Powell's also going to have to take diplomatic point with other countries to clean up America's reputation in the Geneva Convention/Abu Grahib mess.

    I don't see Powell as Republican VP candidate, and I peg a maximum-impact resignation before the election at 40% likelihood. A vote of "no confidence" from Powell might kick Kerry over the top.

  • ||

    c: while I'm not a Gorean switching to W, I live in the NYC metropolitan area and know quite a few who are. People who don't like W on domestic policy, but will vote for him because after 9/11 they regard security as almost lexically ordered as an issue: trumps everything. I even know gays and lesbians who hate Bush, but have said that they'll vote for W because Kerry isn't serious about islamonazis who are serious about killing gays.

  • ||

    I disagree with "c" (first comment). I myself voted for Gore, and will now vote for Bush. And I've heard of some other people who feel the same way.

  • ||

    Count me as one.

  • ||

    Bush by a landslide, barring unforseen events. Gore should have swamped Bush in 2000, unable however, to even carry his home state. A part of the Clinton base that stayed with him will flock to the R's this time. Possible repeat of '72.

  • Jon Ihle||

    I didn't vote for Bush and never thought I'd consider a Republican for President and I'm very likely to vote for him in November. Same goes for my mother, brother and sister. We're all single-issue voters this year: who is more likely to kill our enemies when necessary?

  • Scaramonga||

    I did not vote for Gore. I didn't vote for Bush either. I was too "sophisticated" to waste my time voting for the lesser of two evils and hadn't voted since Carter ran against Reagan (voted for Carter). Then we had 9/11 happen and that singular event clarified my thinking. I regsitered to vote (Republican) and whole-heartedly support President Bush. I am one of many "9/11 Republicans" that the Democrats are trying ot insist do not exist. Bush will win, and will win easily. Kerry really does make Dukakis look good.

  • ||

    I like Bush, which I admit might cloud my judgement concerning the future. But I really don't think Kerry ever had a chance. Part of it is his inability to connect with ordinary voters, that he comes across as too much the Boston Brahim that he is. But he has inherited a large anti-war following that he has to keep happy.

    Unfortunately, a lot of voters ain't going to back an anti-war candidate while we are at war. And we are, which a lot of folks recognize.

    The Abu Ghraib prison and abuse scandals are not going to stick and as long as they are in the news, it will only get worse for Democrats. Most Americans don't care how we get the information. Like I said above, there is a war on, and if dunking Khalid means possibly getting information that keeps Americans from getting killed, well, too bad for Khalid. We are facing an enemy that does not play by the Geneva convention, and there is a general consensus that we should not either.

    Most Americans want to win the war, and not have to worry about whether an airplane is going to hit a skycraper ever again. They will look at Kerry and ask themselves "is this the guy who is gonna keep me safe?" Most of them will say no, despite his combat and legislative experience, despite his diplomatic skills. He does not convey how he would, or really even that he thinks America is worth defending.

    [I would like to add that I don't think Kerry believes America is not worth defending. I am saying he has difficulty conveying this to the voting audience. And the ANSWER/ anti-war crowd behind him hurts him badly.]

    Bush comes across as a real guy, one of us kind of thing that Kerry cannot even fake. (Nor should) He is for protecting and defending America, and there is the tax issue as well which helps Bush and hurts Kerry. I think you are right, its going to be a blow out, a landslide.

  • ||

    C, I would only add that you should not ignore the disgusted-so-I'm-not-voting phenomenon. I think this group will be largest among Democrats.

  • ||

    C- perhaps you need to think of this in a different manner. What Bush needs is people who voted for Gore in a time of peace but would never vote for Kerry in a time of war. The biggest divide in this country is not over the culture wars, it is between people who think 911 was a declaration of war and people who think that 911 was pretty much an isolated incident. Few people who think that 911 was a declaration of war will vote for Kerry no matter how they personally feel about Bush.

  • ||

    There are a lot of people who will vote for Bush who didn't vote for him in 2000...they're called 9-11 Republicans.

    On the other hand the left wing propaganda machine has been racheted up to an historically unprecedented and absolutely insane pitch and will badly damage Bush this year. The degree to which the mainstream media, let alone the 527s and Hollywood spinmeisters, are willing to flat out lie to defeat Bush is truly frightening and I don't see how he can survive their onslaught. It's not that people will vote for Kerry, they will be voting against Bush. The wild card here is the internet and other factions of the alternative media. If enough people are bypassing the MSM to get their news Bush might get reelected.

  • Daniel Wiener||

    Nothing's ever a sure thing in politics, but Bush seems to be holding most of the high cards. These past couple of months have shown that no amount of bad news or media bias is going to collapse his core support. Bush is a known quantity, unlike Kerry who could easily suffer a collapse depending upon a variety of circumstances and flip-flops and faux pauxs.

    Beyond that, Bush is much more in control of events, and those which he doesn't control are working in his favor. The economy is obviously on a roll, with lots more good news due between now and November. Democratic hopes of capitalizing on a "jobless recovery" and "the worst economy since the Great Depression" are kaput. Bush actually seems to have an exit strategy in Iraq, as sovereignty is turned back over to the Iraq people, so that will likely diminish as an issue. As others have noted, the lack of a terrorist attack, or an unsuccessful terrorist attack prior to the election, will demonstrate that we're winning the War on Terrorism. A successful terrorist attack will demonstrate that the terrorists are still a major danger and must be vigorously counter-attacked and defeated. U.S. voters will move to support Bush in the wake of an attack, because voters will deliberately NOT want to be seen as emulating the Spanish appeasement.

    And if Bush is still in trouble when the Republican convention rolls around, he can easily replace Cheney ("my doctor has recommended that I not undergo the rigors of another campaign") with either Powell or Giuliani. Powell would strip off 10% to 20% of the black vote, which would devastate the Democrats since they take for granted 90% of the black vote and cannot survive any erosion. Giuliani would put both New York and New Jersey in play, and probably seal Florida for Bush.

    If Bush still needs help, Ariel Sharon will order an air raid on Iran's nuclear facilities. How's that for an "October Surprise"?

  • ||

    I also think Bush is a lock in November, but for different reasons. I don't believe the most damaging information about Kerry's anti-war activities in the early 70's has been revealed. When the pictures and the details emerge later in the campaign Americans will be repulsed.

  • ||

    ----
    First of all, there ain't nobody who voted against Bush last time who's looking at the first term thinking "I admit it, I was wrong, this guy's great!"
    ----

    There's a helluva lot of people like that... including me.

  • ||

    I am nother past Gore, future Bush voter.

  • ||

    first, I want to say that I am genuinely surprised at the number of people coming forward to say that they're switching their votes in favor of Bush. I had pegged the American voter as far more stubborn than is turning out. Whether you guys outnumber the switchers in the other direction remains to be seen, but moments after I had said you don't exist hordes of you came out of the woodwork.

    steve, do you think there really is a "disgusted-so-I'm-not-voting" dynamic on the left? I'd venture to say that it's dwarfed by the "disgusted-so-I'm-voting-like-hell" dynamic, but my record on prognosticating ain't so hot.

  • ||

    c, for the record I am yet another one who voted for Gore in 2000 but will vote for Bush in November. I like Scaramonga's phrase "9-11 Republicans" and I agree the Democrats are pretending we don't exist. FWIW I once worked for the Democratic party at the national level although not in policy or political areas. I have been truly horrified at their response to 9-11. I want to win the war first and then we can all return to arguing about Social Security and the environment, etc.

  • ||

    PuterBoi:

    The MSM will bury Kerry's misdeeds...including meeting with the enemy and calling for unconditional US surrender while he was still in Navy, which is an act of treason.

  • ruprecht||

    Mayor Ed Koch would be one who voted Gore and has gone out of his way to tell the world he'll be voting for George W. Bush next time around.

  • ||

    Bush is going to kill Kerry and it will become clear right after the conventions. The Democratic convention is going to be first up in Boston and its going to be hate fest 2004. Its going to be a platform for the entire get the US out of North America crowd. It will be four days of how bad the country is and how all of the world's problems are Bush and by extension our faults. This will be followed by the Republican convention that will four days of flag waving, patriotism and optimism. There is another rule of politics not mentioned by Mr. Cavanaugh, and that is that the most optimistic candidate always wins. Bill Clinton won because he made people feel like government could work again in 1992 and all Dole had to say in 1996 was "where's the outrage?". Reagan won because it was "morning in America" and all the Democrats had to offer was Carter and Mondale telling us that the world was about to end and all they could do about it was raise taxes. Unless and until Kerry and the Democrats come up with an optimistic message, they have no chance.

  • ||

    c. and others,

    I voted for Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000, but I will vote for Bush this time.

    To be fair, I think that the "9/11 Republican" phenomenon is more prevalent among those who read blogs than among the general population.

    Nonetheless, I think that Bush will win, not by a landslide, but decisively.

    Conventional wisdom will be shaken by this election. I think that the Democratic Party will reinvent itself as a result.

  • ||

    Amazing how many people have stepped up to the plate to declare c's assessment of crossover voters going for Bush wrong. I wonder if that is in any way representative of the general public's attitude.

    I also wonder if the polls have any veracity any more. Like millions of other Americans, our household now has caller ID. If we don't recognize the number, or if it won't show the number, we don't answer. How many other people are self selecting themselves out like that and, what political persuasion do they tend to be?

  • ||

    Voted for Nader in 2000. 9/11 was a wake-up call. My vote's going for Bush. Don't trust Kerry to finish the job.

  • ||

    What about the old iron political law that a presidential incumbent going into an election with less than 50% approval rating always loses?

    Its still to early to tell. There is plenty of time left for both Bush and Kerry to fuck up. In the meantime, Nader convinced me that he is an excellent conservative candidate.

    Ok, who am I kidding? Just testing who is awake here!

  • ||

    Bush will win in a landslide because - since Andrew Jackson defeated JQ Adams - the candiate who comes off as more "the man of the common people" ("anti-intellectual" according to Richard Hofstadter - see his book: Anti-Intellectualism in American Life))ALWAYS wins.

    Counterexamples off the top of my head:

    1948 Truman defeats Dewey
    1912 Wilson defeats T Roosevelt (and Taft)
    1900 McKinley defeats Bryan
    1896 McKinley defeate Bryan

  • 29||

    Two princes - heh:

    One, two princes kneel before you
    That what I said now
    Princes, princes who adore you
    Just go ahead now
    One has diamonds in his pockets
    That's some bread, now
    This one said he wants to buy you rockets
    Ain't in his head, now

    This one he got a princely racket
    That's what I said now
    Got some Big Seal upon his jacket
    Ain't in his head now
    You marry him, your father will condone you
    How 'bout that now
    You marry me, your father will disown you
    He'll eat his hat, now

    Marry him, marry me
    I'm the one that loved you baby can't you see?
    Ain't got no future or family tree
    But I know what a prince and lover ought to be
    I know what a prince and lover ought be

    Said if you want to call me baby
    Just go ahead now
    And if you like to tell me maybe
    Just go ahead now
    And if you wanted to buy me flowers
    Just go ahead now
    And if you like to talk for hours
    Just go ahead now

  • ||

    My husband, like one of your previous posts, is a 9-11 Republican. Last time, he voted for Nader, this time Bush. Two reasons: he kills our enemies and gives us back our money.

    He said, he'll happly go back to being a "Liberal" when the threat is over, and they stop raising our taxes.

    He's a sterotype of the expression "a Democrat is a Republican who's never been mugged." We were all mugged on September 11th.

  • ||

    My husband, like one of your previous posts, is a 9-11 Republican. Last time, he voted for Nader, this time Bush. Two reasons: he kills our enemies and gives us back our money.

    He said, he'll happly go back to being a "Liberal" when the threat is over, and they stop raising our taxes.

    He's a sterotype of the expression "a Democrat is a Republican who's never been mugged." We were all mugged on September 11th.

  • ||

    For me, the decision is easy to vote for Bush and for his prosecution of the WOT. While I may have a problem with some of Bush's domestic positions, I think that even if he screws them up, we can fix them later. I know that because we've self-corrected our course before--whether it's the economy or constitutional amendments (prohibition). There is no "fixing" another terrorist attack like that of 9-11. Or a larger scale attack. What it would cost to fix Iraq (and their impact on us) if we pull out too soon and let them slide into anarchy is far higher in blood and treasure than repealing a marriage amendment or delaying stem cell research til Bush is out of office. I'm a one issue voter. Every other issue falls off the scale.

  • ||

    I guess I'm the only guy at Hit & Run who voted LIBERTARIAN in 2000, but will be likely voting for Bush this year.

    Or the only guy who has said it in this thread, at least.

  • ||

    Bush's support is near 100 per cent among 'dynamist' warmongers. He is sure to win!

  • You know who||

    How much is PNAC paying you for the propaganda Tim? How much corporate $$$ does it cost for PR from Reason?

  • ||

    by the way, not every voter is stupid enough to believe that stacking naked Iraqis on top of each other has improved our security situation.

  • ||

    What makes you call Bush a "crook"? Since I live in Texas, I have observed Bush a long time. In my view, he has faults, but he is anything but a crook!

  • ||

    Powell was a four-star, not a five. But your point remains valid.

  • ||

    What makes you call Bush a "crook"? Since I live in Texas, I have observed Bush a long time. In my view, he has faults, but he is anything but a crook!

  • ||

    What makes you call Bush a "crook"? Since I live in Texas, I have observed Bush a long time. In my view, he has faults, but he is anything but a crook!

  • ||

    "First of all, there ain't nobody who voted against Bush last time who's looking at the first term thinking "I admit it, I was wrong, this guy's great!"

    Don't extrapolate for the whole country based on your opinions. I voted for Gore, hell I gave money to McCain to stop Bush, and I'm voting for him. Gee, what could have happened in the last 4 years that changed the situation and my mind? It's not that I'm more hawkish, it's that I'm glad to see someone do something about the pathologies of the middle east at long last, which have been allowed to run in full crazy mode for my whole life.

  • ||

    Cavanaugh -- can you please block "29" for posting "Spin Doctors" lyrics?

  • ||

    who said "crook?"

  • ||

    I'm another 9/11 Republican. Voted for Nader in 2000 [Gore had a lock on my state]. Bush all the way!

  • ||

    "do you think there really is a "disgusted-so-I'm-not-voting" dynamic on the left? I'd venture to say that it's dwarfed by the "disgusted-so-I'm-voting-like-hell" dynamic"

    C, I'm likely no better a prognosticator than you because my evidence is strictly observational from a non-random sample of my lefty friends.

    The "I'm-voting-like-hell" folks, IMHO, were voting anyway as they are also the Anyone But Bush folks. The larger of the two groups that I see are those Dems who don't like Bush but were backing: Dean or Lieberman or Clark or (even) Kucinich. They didn't and don't like Kerry. They find his message muddled. They believe he will lose whether they vote or not, and, yet, cannot bring themselves to vote for Bush and would be embarrassed to vote for Nader.

    So, unscientific as it may be, that is what I am hearing.

  • ||

    I'm another 9-11 Republican -- formerly libertarian. Sorry, guys -- 9/11 was a wake-up call, and many of you are still asleep.

    Lesser of two evils? Utopia's not an option.

  • ||

    Bush will win rather big. I know at least 2 people just in my immediate family who are traditional Democrats voting Bush in 2004.

    And, by the way, they might not return to the Democrats in 2008.

    The Democratic Party is in danger of selfdestructing after its irrational hate fest, and will need a major rethinking of policy after the election to survive as a viable party.

  • ||

    Quote: "I voted for Clinton and Gore but now see that Ariel Sharon has the right idea for how to stamp out the haters."

    Oh, yes, it's been working out so well for him.

    I guess we could build a fence around the continental U.S.

    For all the talk on this board about Gore voters switching to Bush, I've heard (on liberal boards) plenty of people claiming to be or to know ex-Republicans who are disgusted with Bush and ready to vote for anybody else.

    Since I think Bush's conduct of the war has been criminally inept, I will take a chance on any challenger, even Kerry. At least he's got his priorities right; police action (he's right about that, the military stuff is of secondary importance) and securing loose nukes as quickly as possible.

  • ||

    ***not every voter is stupid enough to believe that stacking naked Iraqis on top of each other has improved our security situation.***

    And not every voter is stupid enough to believe that stacking naked Iraqis on top of each other constitutes torture. Get a sense of context... this President will allow our military to hunt down and exterminate the animals that butchered Nick Berg. When the killing starts (and it did on 9-11) I want a President that takes off the gloves and flattens our enemies. I don't want him to turn around and call them war criminals...guess who's liekly to do which.

  • Bill Peschel||

    Count me in as another Gore voter for Bush. I'm a registered Democrat in Pennsylvania and have cast votes for John Anderson in 1980 and Barry Commoner as well. I hated Bush pre-9/11. He was the son of the president who blew it in Iraq, who failed his way to success, and who had the intellectual capabilities of a gourd.

    9/11 changed that.

    Yes, mistakes have been made, but that doesn't change the central fact: that Islamic terrorists are working to cremate this country. They tried and failed with WTC1 and succeeded with WTC2, and we managed to stop Richard Reid and that idiot who wanted to blow up LAX but was stopped at the Canadian border.

    Anyone want to bet they won't try again?

    Yes, terrorism probably will never be stopped, but we can lay down the law that state which support terrorism will hear from us, one way or another. Thus far, by going into Afghanistan and Iraq, we managed to reverse the destiny of two nations, got Libya to open the bag on their arsenal, cut funding to Arafat and his terror cronies (with the help of Israel's wall), and shone some light on Pakistan's involvement in the nuclear trade. In short, more than what's been done in the last 20 years, and there's one man who was responsible for this.

    If I could trust that the Democrats would continue on this course, I'd be happy to vote for them. But they won't, so I won't.

  • Bryan Price||

    I've been reading and rereading this today.

    This whole idea of "Bush is a lock." and the replies that I'm seeing indicate that this has become nothing but an echo chamber.

    My whole perspective on this? I don't think Bush is doing this country any favors. The war on Afghanistan was a right decision. The war on Iraq was a wrong decision. No links to Al-Queda there, no weapons of mass destruction. Pushing the war just because Saddam was a bad guy also means that we should be going after North Korea as well, and probably Iran, Cuba and Libya too.

    The issue that I have this administration is that they absolutely refuse to acknowledge any kind of mistakes on their part. If they don't acknowledge them, then they don't have to learn what went wrong, and keep making the same mistakes over and over again. This administration is like my two 19 year old step-sons. The two lie, even when it's to their advantage to tell the truth, just because they've said the wrong thing to start with, and they don't want to face the fact that they are wrong.

    Having been a state employee, I've seen what the short-sightedness of switching administrations, within the same party, and watched them relearn the lessons that the previous administration had to learn. I don't see how the feds do it any differently.

    And as far as being partisan, once either party gets elected, the behaviors become the same. Paybacks have to happen, in which case government gets expanded to pay back the people that got the elected party the money so that they could be elected. It's just a matter of who gets paid. The state that I worked in started out with a 14 billion dollar budget 6 years ago. It's now around 24 billion. They've had salary freezes, virtually no increase in number of state employees, with some actual decreases in some departments due to outsourcing to private concerns. Where in the hell is that extra 10 billion dollars going? Services to the constituents? I don't think so. It's a scandal in the making.

  • ||

    And speaking of things likely to put you off voting for Kerry... let alone you lunch.

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_el_pr/heinz_kerry_1&printer=1

  • fyodor||

    Tim,

    The more hawkish candidate always wins "when troops are in the field"? Hmm. How about Goldwater versus Johnson? They say Johnson clobbered Goldwater by making him seem like too wreckless a hawk. And...how about Bush I versus Clinton? Or does Somalia not count? I don't know if an election can ever come down to any one factor. Though I think the current or most recent trend of the economy is the biggest single one.

  • ||

    "he's a crook, a stumblebum, and a lazy, mirthless little prince, and any country that would re-elect him deserves every bad thing that will happen to it."

    Did the above quote refer to Kerry? I agree it should, but if it did, why the word "re-elect"? For the record, Bush is certainly not mirthless, and you would have difficulty supporting the statement that he is a lazy stumblebum (mangling words does not make a person a stumblebum and is irrelevant to the issue of presidential competence). Maybe he is a "prince", whatever that means, but he does not conduct himself as if he is "entitled" to be President, so the relevance of the "prince" notion escapes me.

  • ||

    keith - the last 5 star general was Omar Bradley. The State Department has had a lot of influence in post-war Iraq. Many of the mid and low level staffers in the CPA are from Foggy Bottom, and a bucnh of them really don't beleive in the mission. Bush might be right or he might be wrong, but State has decided to run its own foreign policy, and simply ignore the administration. This is a lot like what the Pentagon did during the Clinton years, and its wrong across the board. For better or worse, the President is in charge and its not up to a Dick Armitage to make things up.

  • ||

    My wife voted for Clinton, Clinton, and Gore, and this year she's absolutely voting for Bush. (And not just because of 9/11 - it took her less than 24 hours to regret her vote for Gore after his behavior during the last election...)

    On the other hand, I have two Republican friends who swear they're voting for Kerry. So I have no idea what this election will bring.

  • ||

    I�m puzzled. I�m a European so my view is bound to be different than the view of an American. But even so I find it unbelievable that around 50% of your countrymen, and most on this forum, would consider to re-elect W. Viewed from here his regime has been totally disastrous to the US. First he abandons the Kioto agreement, an agreement that without doubt in itself won�t save the environment but would have been a necessary first step. Then he effectively kills the International var crimes tribunal. Indicating that there is one standard for the US and one for the rest of us. Then comes 911, he goes out for Afghanistan ousting the Taliban, a regime that Reagan/Bush created. So far so good, I think the war in A was justified, it did harbour Al Qaida. Whether it was wise as far as the war on terrorism goes is another matter.
    Enters Iraq, a country that most probably nether had any significant connections with Al Qaida nor had any WMS's but nobody cares I guess. You want to Show Muscle. We need to have a Strong President. So we go to war, the elections are coming up.

    It's so outrageous.

    You justify voting for Bush with him being able to take care of security. I think it is beyond doubt that the US and the world is less secure because of GWB's policies. You van't kill terrorism with weapons alone.

    And I can't understand how Kerry's war protesting could be used against him. Isn't it proof of character that you can stand up after risking your life several times over for a cause and realize that the cause was unjust. You really want to believe in something you've risked your life for. It must have been a terribly difficult decision. It should be saluted.

    Please all, wise up.

  • ||

    "Bush is a lock."

    You should try Ambien. It helps you sleep better at night without lying to yourself.

    It also gets you way high. You'll dig it.

  • ||

    Add me to the list - I voted for Gore, barely, and haven't decided on this election yet but so far am leaning Bush.

    The Democratic Party is in danger of selfdestructing after its irrational hate fest, and will need a major rethinking of policy after the election to survive as a viable party.

    I have a feeling that if people like Gore are given prominent roles at the Dem convention this year, the convention may do for the Democratic party what the 1992 Republican convention did for them.

  • ||

    There has been a genuine shift in American politics since Sept 11 from left to right. The only time this was tested was in 2002, when Republicans won big.

    If you believe fictious LA Times polls that desperately poll 50% more Democrats than Republicans just to show a timid Kerry lead, then yes, Kerry might have a chance.

    But a post 9-11 America will never elect a completely inept clown like Kerry.

    Bush will win in a landslide.
    Maybe to the shock of the media establishment and its Eurotrash-Islamofacist-Appeasing allies, but not to the majority of posters on this board.

  • dave||

    "First of all, there ain't nobody who voted against Bush last time who's looking at the first term thinking "I admit it, I was wrong, this guy's great!"

    I'm another one. So there!

  • ||

    Bush will win in a landslide. Like many
    posters I've become a "9/11 Republican".

    And here at the Univsersity I've talked to
    at least one Acadmemic who has a "Kerry for
    President" bumper sticker on his door.

    But will actually be voting for President Bush!

    Even though he is tenured, he isn't going to
    risk his Academic "standing" with an outward
    sign of Republicanism.

    Talk about the chiling effect of
    political correctness ....

  • ||

    Nixon was the " Peace with Honor" Candidate. He was a hawk and did what he could to withdraw from Vietnam while saving face.

    As for Kerry, I find him despicable. In my opinion he is a money grabbing womanizer and at best a inept spindoctor.

  • ||

    Anders:

    Kerry's biggest mistake, in my opinion, is aligning himself with complaining Europeans like yourself. What plays in Cologne does not play in Columbus.

  • ||

    I�m puzzled. I�m a European so my view is bound to be different than the view of an American. But even so I find it unbelievable that around 50% of your countrymen, and most on this forum, would consider to re-elect W. Viewed from here his regime has been totally disastrous to the US. First he abandons the Kioto agreement, an agreement that without doubt in itself won�t save the environment but would have been a necessary first step.

    The US Senate voted down Kyoto 95-0, during Clinton's presidency. It will never pass here, with or without Bush in office. We don't like Kyoto. American people will not vote Bush out based on Kyoto.



    Then he effectively kills the International var crimes tribunal. Indicating that there is one standard for the US and one for the rest of us.

    The International War Crimes Tribunal isn't in the best interests of the US. See above. We don't like that one, either.



    Then comes 911, he goes out for Afghanistan ousting the Taliban, a regime that Reagan/Bush created. So far so good, I think the war in A was justified, it did harbour Al Qaida. Whether it was wise as far as the war on terrorism goes is another matter.
    Enters Iraq, a country that most probably nether had any significant connections with Al Qaida nor had any WMS's but nobody cares I guess. You want to Show Muscle. We need to have a Strong President. So we go to war, the elections are coming up.


    We went to war a year and a half before elections would be coming up. In a democracy elections are always coming up; that doesn't mean a president should sit on his hands and go to war. And how exactly does this criticism square with the "rush to war" criticism from the left? The only reason we waited until 2003 to go into Iraq was to go to the U.N. for support.


    It's so outrageous.

    You justify voting for Bush with him being able to take care of security. I think it is beyond doubt that the US and the world is less secure because of GWB's policies. You van't kill terrorism with weapons alone.


    So how do you kill terrorism, exactly?

    [snip]

  • ||

    at the risk of offending the crystal-ball crowd, i will say this: no one knows who will win. the outcome is essentially random at this point.

    i say this because, imho, elections with an incumbent are essentially a referendum on the incumbent. keep him or dump him? is the question everyone asks primarily.

    bush is polarizing if nothing else. 42% of the electorate is blind-pig head-over-heels-in-love with their christian everyman champion and will vote for dubya short of him growing horns and a pointy tail. another 42% is blind-pig incensed if-the-ballot-box-don't-work-the-handguns-will anyone-but-dubya, and will vote against him short of... well, whatever the secular equivalent of shining white light and a halo is.

    that leaves the middle 16% -- a crowd characterized by weak or vacillating political beliefs, general antipathy toward ideology, vague patriotism, highly susceptible to current events. much of this crowd -- which constitutes the whole election, essentially -- will not make a decision until two weeks or less before the election.

    whatever events transpire in september-october 2004 -- and how they reflect on dubya, particularly -- will decide the outcome, imo. if there are no significant events, count on a close one with typically low turnout.

  • ||

    I forecast a landslide for Bush. Why? Several reasons:



    dismissal of the media's atmospherics I recall the gap between atmospherics created by the media during the 80&84 elections (Reagan blowouts) and the 88 election (Bush the elder's big win) and what actually happened. In every one of these cases the media gave the preception of a "close race" right up to election day when we discovered that the race wasn't even close.

    Today the media is straining its collective lungs to blow Kerry to victory.





    The real campaign begins on Labor day. Just wait until the Bush Campaign shows Kerry's place of honor in Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum. This exhibit shows Kerry as a hero in their victory over the United States in the Vietnam War. Exactly who will want to give the keys to the guy contributed materially to ultimate communist victory in 1975? And this is just a starting point.



    Kerry is moving closer to Bush's position. The folks who are simply against being in Iraq (about 20% of the voters) all supported Dean until they decided that Kerry was just more electable. Now that Kerry is saying that "he will not pull out of Iraq" he will lose the support of the leftwing nutbar vote.



    Bush is preceived to be much more effective militarly. If both Kerry and Bush are going to stay in Iraq I figure the average vote will vote for the guy who gives better than he gets.




    Put me down for a Bush landslide in 04.

  • ||

    I forecast a landslide for Bush. Why? Several reasons:



    dismissal of the media's atmospherics I recall the gap between atmospherics created by the media during the 80&84 elections (Reagan blowouts) and the 88 election (Bush the elder's big win) and what actually happened. In every one of these cases the media gave the preception of a "close race" right up to election day when we discovered that the race wasn't even close.

    Today the media is straining its collective lungs to blow Kerry to victory.





    The real campaign begins on Labor day. Just wait until the Bush Campaign shows Kerry's place of honor in Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum. This exhibit shows Kerry as a hero in their victory over the United States in the Vietnam War. Exactly who will want to give the keys to the guy contributed materially to ultimate communist victory in 1975? And this is just a starting point.



    Kerry is moving closer to Bush's position. The folks who are simply against being in Iraq (about 20% of the voters) all supported Dean until they decided that Kerry was just more electable. Now that Kerry is saying that "he will not pull out of Iraq" he will lose the support of the leftwing nutbar vote.



    Bush is preceived to be much more effective militarly. If both Kerry and Bush are going to stay in Iraq I figure the average vote will vote for the guy who gives better than he gets.




    Put me down for a Bush landslide in 04.

  • ||

    I forecast a landslide for Bush. Why? Several reasons:



    dismissal of the media's atmospherics I recall the gap between atmospherics created by the media during the 80&84 elections (Reagan blowouts) and the 88 election (Bush the elder's big win) and what actually happened. In every one of these cases the media gave the perception of a "close race" right up to Election Day when we discovered that the race wasn't even close.

    Today the media is straining its collective lungs to blow Kerry to victory.





    The real campaign begins on Labor day. Just wait until the Bush Campaign shows Kerry's place of honor in Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum. This exhibit shows Kerry as a hero in their victory over the United States in the Vietnam War. Exactly who will want to give the keys to the guy contributed materially to ultimate communist victory in 1975? And this is just a starting point.



    Kerry is moving closer to Bush's position. The folks who are simply against being in Iraq (about 20% of the voters) all supported Dean until they decided that Kerry was just more electable. Now that Kerry is saying "he will not pull out of Iraq" he will lose the support of the leftwing nutbar vote.



    Bush is perceived to be much more effective militarily. If both Kerry and Bush are going to stay in Iraq I figure the average vote will vote for the guy who gives better than he gets.




    Put me down for a Bush landslide in 04. I don�t even feel like I�m sticking my neck out.

  • ||

    I'm voting Bush just to piss off the Eurotrash.

  • ||

    I'm voting Bush just to piss off the Eurotrash.

  • ||

    Anders:

    Kyoto, from the perspective of America, represented a bill for trillions of dollars that would result in, even according to the most outlandish assessments of supporters, NO measurable effect on climate. Before you get all upset at this administration, recall that no US Senator voted in favor or ratifying the thing.

    The International War Crimes tribunal places an extraordinary amount of faith in the neutrality of international bodies. The US largely views purely democratic institutions with suspicion. The UN is a joke. Why does anyone care what a dictator thinks about human rights? As the only projectable military force on earth, the US is unwilling to place our soldiers under any set of rules other than those set forth by our government of checks and balances. This is not a Bush theory. Like Kyoto, very few Americans are on board.

    On the other hand, many people agree with you about the war in Iraq. I am not one of them.

    "I think it is beyond doubt that the US and the world is less secure because of GWB's policies. You van't kill terrorism with weapons alone."

    It is not beyond doubt. Any large scale deterrent of terrorism rests on a credible threat of physical harm to terrorist leaders. American and European doves don't seem to have a realistic feel for what a credible threat is. Arresting people in our country after they blow up a building won't cut it. There is no negotiation without force.

  • sashae||

    The WTC was blown up -twice- before GWB did anything of consequence regarding foreign policy, Anders. Seems like we were fairly well disliked prior to GWB becoming President.

    As for the Afghans, we had a tough decision to make back in the 80s. Do we support the mujahideen against the Soviets before the Red Army decides that it wants to dip its toes in the Indian Ocean, or do we ignore it and allow Communist dominance over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and no counterbalance in the region?

    The defeat of the Soviets was worth any cost, and we weren't alone in that belief -- the Saudis (obvious self interest), Egyptians, Israelis (yeah, the Israelis), Chinese (main manufacturer of AK-47s for the muj), French, and Swiss were all involved in the campaign against the Red Army.

    The biggest problem is that the muj now believe that it was Allah that won the war against the Soviets, instead of billions of dollars of US and Saudi aid and equipment. The Islamic fanatics need to be taught otherwise, which Bush is more likely to do than Kerry.

    I am no huge fan of Bush (for whom I voted with fingers on nose in '00), but Kerry strikes me as a slimy, patrician, lifetime politician who changes opinions more often than his socks. I'm hoping that Bush picks Giuliani to replace Cheney at the convention, though he may be more in line for the CIA job. We'll have to see.

  • ||

    Enough with the Bush sniffing already!

    As someone who voted for Brown in 2000 and watched the election results as if it were a car wreak, I have a hard time with this premise.

    This is how I see it;

    1. The largest voter turnout in history will happen in November.

    2. All those who thought they were being clever voting for a "3rd party" will not.

    3. Besides this forum and the scattered right leaning sites, the wave seems to be in favor of Kerry.

    4. No one actually likes Kerry, they just like Bush less. This will drive more votes then anything else.

    I respect the majority of "usaual posters" here, but come on guys. We have never been more polarized in this country. More so now then in the "horror years of the Vietnam war". Voting for Bush means voting for Ashcroft. He has done more against our "fringe" partys ideals then anyone could ever imagine. If we have four more years of this, its not unplausable that there wont even be a 2008 election, much less any hope of putting forth libertarian thought into the political discourse.

  • sashae||

    The WTC was blown up -twice- before GWB did anything of consequence regarding foreign policy, Anders. Seems like we were fairly well disliked prior to GWB becoming President.

    As for the Afghans, we had a tough decision to make back in the 80s. Do we support the mujahideen against the Soviets before the Red Army decides that it wants to dip its toes in the Indian Ocean, or do we ignore it and allow Communist dominance over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and no counterbalance in the region?

    The defeat of the Soviets was worth any cost, and we weren't alone in that belief -- the Saudis (obvious self interest), Egyptians, Israelis (yeah, the Israelis), Chinese (main manufacturer of AK-47s for the muj), French, and Swiss were all involved in the campaign against the Red Army.

    The biggest problem is that the muj now believe that it was Allah that won the war against the Soviets, instead of billions of dollars of US and Saudi aid and equipment. The Islamic fanatics need to be taught otherwise, which Bush is more likely to do than Kerry.

    I am no huge fan of Bush (for whom I voted with fingers on nose in '00), but Kerry strikes me as a slimy, patrician, lifetime politician who changes opinions more often than his socks. I'm hoping that Bush picks Giuliani to replace Cheney at the convention, though he may be more in line for the CIA job. We'll have to see.

  • ||

    I add my name to the chorus of folks who disagree with "c"'s comment:

    "First of all, there ain't nobody who voted against Bush last time who's looking at the first term thinking "I admit it, I was wrong, this guy's great!""

    I am one. I voted Gore. I live in NYC and come from a family of Democrats. I'm not a Bush "superfan" the way some people on, but on the single most critical issue facing our generation at this moment, the War on Islamofascim, Bush "get's it" (or in any event comes way closer to getting it than Kerry).

    Also, Gore's speechifying lunacy over the last 18 months have truly made me believe in divine providence.

  • ||

    There is one way Bush can snatch the election from the jaws of victory: sell out on the "Assault Weapon Ban" renewal. My between-the -lines reading of NRA literature suggests that he may have already decided to do so. Big mistake.

  • ||

    Viewed from here his regime has been totally disastrous to the US.

    Yeah, well if we had your media it would look that way to us too!

    First he abandons the Kioto agreement, an agreement that without doubt in itself won�t save the environment but would have been a necessary first step.

    Needless to say, that's not how much of anybody here sees it (except the part about it being useless)-- they see it as meaningless paper which would have hurt the economies of relatively clean western countries while giving a free pass to countries like China which pollute like mad. Kyoto wasn't a solution to anything except one more stick to bash America and globalization with. A robust American industrial sector is far more likely to clean up under American laws than a depressed one is under international agreements. (That'll take a Democratic president, most likely, but still.)

    Then he effectively kills the International var crimes tribunal. Indicating that there is one standard for the US and one for the rest of us.

    Well, considering that Belgium (a leading criminal country in the 19th century) was in the process of trying to prosecute Israelis for something that had nothing to do with Belgium, do you really think American soldiers have nothing to fear from European countries launching political prosecutions when they have no other way of enforcing their foreign policy? We are a target for that sort of thing, why should we submit to it?

    Then comes 911, he goes out for Afghanistan ousting the Taliban, a regime that Reagan/Bush created. So far so good, I think the war in A was justified, it did harbour Al Qaida. Whether it was wise as far as the war on terrorism goes is another matter.

    Are you suggesting that it might have been wiser FOR the war on terrorism to leave an entire terrorist country alone right after it attacked us? To say, okay, ONCE is fine but do it again and you're REALLY in trouble? (Oh wait, we did do exactly that when it came to bombing the WTC.) Please explain this remarkable insight, as my dumb cowboy brain is too small to grasp it.

    more of the usual about Iraq, ending with... "I think it is beyond doubt that the US and the world is less secure because of GWB's policies."

    As someone who thinks the whole business in Iraq is actually going fairly well, considering the immense difficulty of establishing democracy in a country run under the most abject totalitarian conditions for 30 years, I think it all just demonstrates how petrified Europeans-- and many Americans, and the whole foreign policy establishment, etc.-- are of anything that disturbs the status quo. Me, I am sick of the lousy corrupt middle east, with its culture of death and its thieving moron leaders and its ululating wackos and its sexual dysfunction that finds orgiastic release in suicide bombing. For my whole life it's just been one problem after another, like the heroin addict in the family who's sunk to some new unsuspected low of human degradation every time you come home. What is it this time, sold the toilet? Raped the baby? Snorted Grandma's heart medicine while the old gal twitches on the floor? I don't know about you but I was plenty ready for a president who said enough was enough, that Arafat was a liar proven unworthy of further talking to, that 30 years of Saddam testing the bars of his cage was enough and it was time to give any one of the other 25 million people in Iraq a chance at running the place and see if they could possibly do worse.

    Like Reagan, Bush was the first one with the balls to say, no, this isn't something we should have to live with forever. And if we are responsible for it (though Europeans love to see WE created X when the reality is they're doing most of the dirty business there), then we are surely responsible for cleaning it up. Anyway, somebody's got to in a nuclear age, and the defenseless timid Euros sure aren't it, they can barely muster a regiment of traffic guards. Sorry if you don't like the way the world is, but you made it as much as we did.

  • ||

    Anders,

    You need to read something other than Euro news which is always biased against conservative American presidents (re: Ronald Reagan). Kyoto is a joke and not a necessary first step to anything. If you're serious about global warming, then include China and India next time (Putin signed on only because he knew it was dead). Clinton never brought it up for a vote despite having three years to do so because of that fact.

    The U.S. will never subordinate our Constitution and sovereignty to an international tribunal. If you wish to, so be it, but don't tell us its a double standard. As for Iraq, well, explain your reasoning to 25 million Iraqis.

  • ||

    Reading the rant of that misguided European (Anders), I am more convinced than ever that the re-election of Bush is extrememly important.

    "Kyoto would be the first step to save the environment"???? Talk about having your head buried in wacko sand...

  • ||

    Viewed from here his regime has been totally disastrous to the US.

    Yeah, well if we had your media it would look that way to us too!

    First he abandons the Kioto agreement, an agreement that without doubt in itself won�t save the environment but would have been a necessary first step.

    Needless to say, that's not how much of anybody here sees it (except the part about it being useless)-- they see it as meaningless paper which would have hurt the economies of relatively clean western countries while giving a free pass to countries like China which pollute like mad. Kyoto wasn't a solution to anything except one more stick to bash America and globalization with. A robust American industrial sector is far more likely to clean up under American laws than a depressed one is under international agreements. (That'll take a Democratic president, most likely, but still.)

    Then he effectively kills the International var crimes tribunal. Indicating that there is one standard for the US and one for the rest of us.

    Well, considering that Belgium (a leading criminal country in the 19th century) was in the process of trying to prosecute Israelis for something that had nothing to do with Belgium, do you really think American soldiers have nothing to fear from European countries launching political prosecutions when they have no other way of enforcing their foreign policy? We are a target for that sort of thing, why should we submit to it?

    Then comes 911, he goes out for Afghanistan ousting the Taliban, a regime that Reagan/Bush created. So far so good, I think the war in A was justified, it did harbour Al Qaida. Whether it was wise as far as the war on terrorism goes is another matter.

    Are you suggesting that it might have been wiser FOR the war on terrorism to leave an entire terrorist country alone right after it attacked us? To say, okay, ONCE is fine but do it again and you're REALLY in trouble? (Oh wait, we did do exactly that when it came to bombing the WTC.) Please explain this remarkable insight, as my dumb cowboy brain is too small to grasp it.

    more of the usual about Iraq, ending with... "I think it is beyond doubt that the US and the world is less secure because of GWB's policies."

    As someone who thinks the whole business in Iraq is actually going fairly well, considering the immense difficulty of establishing democracy in a country run under the most abject totalitarian conditions for 30 years, I think it all just demonstrates how petrified Europeans-- and many Americans, and the whole foreign policy establishment, etc.-- are of anything that disturbs the status quo. Me, I am sick of the lousy corrupt middle east, with its culture of death and its thieving moron leaders and its ululating wackos and its sexual dysfunction that finds orgiastic release in suicide bombing. For my whole life it's just been one problem after another, like the heroin addict in the family who's sunk to some new unsuspected low of human degradation every time you come home. What is it this time, sold the toilet? Raped the baby? Snorted Grandma's heart medicine while the old gal twitches on the floor? I don't know about you but I was plenty ready for a president who said enough was enough, that Arafat was a liar proven unworthy of further talking to, that 30 years of Saddam testing the bars of his cage was enough and it was time to give any one of the other 25 million people in Iraq a chance at running the place and see if they could possibly do worse.

    Like Reagan, Bush was the first one with the balls to say, no, this isn't something we should have to live with forever. And if we are responsible for it (though Europeans love to say WE created X when the reality is they're doing most of the dirty business there), then we are surely responsible for cleaning it up. Anyway, somebody's got to in a nuclear age, and the defenseless timid Euros sure aren't it, they can barely muster a regiment of traffic guards. Sorry if you don't like the way the world is, but you made it as much as we did.

  • ||

    1 - Wilson was the LEAST patrician of the three: Roosvelt and Taft - and Wilson spoke like a Gvoernor, he dod nopt OTRATE like a SENATOR.

    Bryan PERORATED. And orated of esoteric issues in a negative/pessimistic way, in a class-warfare way. The people always reject negativity and oration and select optimism and plain-talk.

    Even FDR - the ultimate patrician - SPOKE to the common man from a wheelchair. FDR did no ORATE.

    Truman spoke plainly too - much moreso than Dewey.

    So I stick to my premise - and Hofstadter's - the candidate who best comes off as the plainspeaking common man always wins.

    This is why guvs usually beat Senators: Senators are used to orating in the Senate; guv's talk to the public.

    Kerry PERORATES; Bush speaks plainly.
    The debates will drive this home.

    Bush wins in a landslide...

    BTW: I am a Gore dem voting Bush. It'll be my second GOP vote in 30 years. I am not alone.

  • ||

    Agreed. The popular vote will be within 5 or 6 points or so (California will keep the national tally somewhat close all by itself), but it will be an Electoral College landslide.

  • ||

    Kerry really does make Dukakis look good.

    Has there been more than one quality democrat in office or running for office since ... McGovern? Humphrey? Hell before I was born at any rate. Really, on whom have you lefties been able to pin your hopes? With the exception of Clinton (and only a slight one at that), the DNC donkey machine has spent the last 30 years churning out crap. Now they're churning out center-left crap. Good luck with that.

    Indicating that there is one standard for the US and one for the rest of us.

    There is. Your governments have one hand in our pockets while the other tries to cover our mouths. Your governments don't want our troops on our home soil, they want our troops deployed to protect them and their interests. Don't give us Euroshit about how America was going to be treated fairly under the terms of a war crimes tribunal, or how Kyoto was going to save the environment (as opposed to waste billions of dollars to lower the average temperature by 0.7C by 2050), or how Reagan/Bush "created" the Taliban, anymore than we "created" Hussein or Pinochet (learn some history - Hussein, Pinochet, and the Taliban were already popular entities in each their own countries before the U.S. did anything). We have acted as Europe has acted throughout its own history - surreptitiously and selfishly maneuvering the pawns that we could in order to bolster our position.

    Why would we vote for Bush? Because we only practically get to pick between two, and Bush is less likely to bend over and take it from the EU - which is exactly why the EU wants Kerry to win.

  • ||

    I am becoming convinced that this election will be a landslide. I haven't been able to decide who will win it. The polls are, as far as I can tell, worthless. The headlines are something like "Kerry sweeps ahead two points to take the lead as he gains momentum in key battleground states." Then at the bottom of the article in tiny letters on the chart it tells us that the margin of error is plus or minus three points. National polls are worthless because we do not have a direct democracy but a representative one. It's entirely possible that the popular/electoral divide is larger than before.

    I think Florida will be the tossup here. Remember, the Cubans in Miami were absolutely FIRED up about Elian Gonzales and turned out to vote against Clinton in huge numbers... I am convinced that if the Clinton administration had handled the Elian controversy better Gore would be president right now! On the other hand, Jeb has been building a machine over the last four years so it could go either way.

    It's really a question of whether people feel like going out and voting. If I were W, I would be sending letters to the base raising the security issue and intimating that Kerry is soft on terrorism. That would motivate your middle america GOP voter to stop watching TV and go out and vote, because it is our lives at stake. On the other hand, the left is motivated... by Bush, if not by Kerry. Kerry may not arouse much passion but Bush sure does. I'm not convinced that Republican voters have the same passion that they did in 2K when it was seen as the last chance to take a whack at Clinton through Gore. I know I would have crawled through broken glass to vote against the Clinton legacy and there were a lot of people like me. I see the same passion in the left this year, and not in the right.

  • Todd Vodka||

    Are you looking to deeply to prove your point? Here�s my simple analysis: Remember that stunt he pulled last time in Florida, with his brother at the helm of it all? Well this time he�s got Texas, California and Florida. Will he even bother to campaign?

  • voter||

    Just happened onto your site (I move around constantly) and saw all the "9/11 Republicans" -- so I could not resist.

    In 2000 I voted for Gore while my husband and son voted for Bush.

    This year, there will be three Bush voters in my house.

  • ||

    To answer the question c asked. Me. I voted libertarian last time. I know that may only acount for .001% of the electorate. But last election I knew Bush would win, and I decided to take a principaled stance. This time too much is at stake with troops fighting all over Asia. There is no way I am going to trust Kerry, who is depending on an anti-military base, to do the work needed to be done.

  • ||

    "I admit it, I was wrong, this guy's great!" I'm another one.

    Reading this thread was like turning on the lights and seeing a bunch of cockroaches on your kitchen floor. Where do you people come from? How many of you ARE there?

    "I voted for Gore last time because I thought he'd amass a huge debt, talk a lot of useless shit and maybe pull the country together LBJ style by Declaring War on something completely inscrutable like Poverty or something.

    "Boy did I have it backwards! Bush is my man!"

  • ||

    Wow, 99 comments and counting and the day is young.

    And a very large number of new posters, or at least previously infrequent posters. Many of them seem to be former Democrats saying they'll vote for W.

    Interesting. Hey, it's an open forum, but it's still interesting that this one topic brings out so many new posters who are so different from most posters on this forum. (Face it, few regular posters will say "I voted for Gore in 2000.")

  • ||

    Kerry is easy to forget, Josh. He has no tenable position, less charisma than Gore, and nothing that identifies him as the kind of person whom democratic America would willingly use to vote against Bush except in default. The Stupid Party has to win votes by whipping up a frothy excitement among its constituents, like there's some big opportunity for change in electing this particular jackass. Crickets are chirping amongst the lefty constituency. In this age it is very easy to rely on the implied, "Vote Republican, Because You Don't Want To Get Your Ass Blown Up" routine. That's why Bush is a lock. Kerry has no answer for the persistent notion - "meme" or not - that leftists are incapable of handling national security. Based on his comments surrounding the first big appropriations vote I personally see no reason to believe that Kerry will adopt anything but a passive, conciliatory stance to the nations of the world who want nothing less than to screw us over. As much as I loathe the man, we need his tendencies and proclivities in the White House for a time. Syria and Egypt need to tremble a bit more at what we *might* do at any minute.

    *Then* we toss some leftish fool back in there in 2008 to fix the mess.

  • ||

    Anders,

    When you understand why the US would NEVER pass the Kyoto Treaty or accept the �authority� of the International War Crimes Tribunal, you will be a little way toward understanding US citizens.

    When you understand why the US invaded Iraq, you will be a little way toward understanding the Bush strategy for fighting terrorism at the source rather than in NYC.

    When you understand that Kerry called his fellow soldiers war criminals and �negotiated� a US surrender to the Viet Cong, you will be a little way toward understanding why most US citizens would never trust Kerry with security of our country.

    When you show that you understand Americans, I�ll be more interested in your �wisdom�.

  • ||

    "I'm glad to see someone do something about the pathologies of the middle east at long last, which have been allowed to run in full crazy mode for my whole life."

    Yeah, I'm glad he is going out of his way to make them 100 times worse.

  • Scaramonga||

    More so now then in the "horror years of the Vietnam war"...

    What nonsense. During the Viet Nam war we had hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters in the streets, campus demonstrations which caused colleges to shut down, violent confrontations between anti-war protesters and police, e.g., Kent State, and a large number of young draft age men heading to Canada to avoid service.

    We had riots and major parts of large cities burning. We had the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. We had school bus bombings in protest against busing. Martial law had to be declared several times and we had US troops in the streets trying to maintain order.

    This country was on the verge of violent chaos during the darkest days, not even mentioning the Black Panthers, SDS and the Weathermen. Compared to all that, this is a playground fight with name calling and the making of ugly faces.

  • Mo||

    I voted for Gore, I hate Bush and I'm still not voting for Kerry. I don't feel Kerry will be any better than Bush, I don't think he'll surrender either. I'll vote, but I won't feel good afterwards.

    Anders,
    You really don't understand Americans. We don't care about Kyoto (for good reason, it's primarily crap), we're even more uneasy about the ICC after Iraq (besides, we actually prosecute our war criminals) and feel that attacking Iraq was right (I disagree, but I can see where they come from). Kerry's already said he's going to stay the course, but it's hard to put a finger on what course he'll take with the troops in Iraq. Bush is consistent and pretty easy to predict. People will pick the devil they know over the one that they don't know. Bush in a landslide.

    That guy who talks to dead people woulda mopped the floor with Georgie though.

  • Jim Valvis||

    Count me as another Gore supporter who is now a Bush guy. It's more than 9-11. It's the way Bush has grown into the job and has become what Clinton never was-- a President we can be proud of.

    Of course, it helps Bush that Kerry is so inept and clueless. If the Dems had nominated a guy like Lieberman or Zell Miller or even Evan Bayh, I'd have to give the issue some thought. But Kerry? Towel boy for Ted Kennedy? Forget about it.

    The truth is that Kerry is using surrogates-- Pelosi, Kennedy, Gore-- to state his and the Dems real message-- that we Americans are to blame for 9-11 and every other ill in the world. With a wink and a nod, Kerry is staking out the center, but his heart is with moveon.org. That will get Kerry a lot of votes in Europe, but few in Pennsylvania, and none in the south.

    This November election there will be an early night, a once again baffled elite media, and a bunch of happy Bush supporters.

  • ||

    Well, interesting, and plentiful responses....

    Sorry for keeping this slightly off topic but:

    I�m pretty sure that i read American media more than you read European, Asian, or whatever. So maybe I�m not that biased after all as far as having a global view goes..

    Global warming is a fact as long as you stick to serious scientific material. We need to cu down on co2 emissions. Even if it might hurt the economy Europe is doing it, China and Russia was prepared to do it. USA apparently isn't. Everybody should have the right to drive a SUV i guess.

    The war in Iraq didn�t make America more secure. To fight terrorism you should start with making life so bearable that killing yourself doesn't sound like a good idea anymore. Instead the US supports Sharon at all cost. But Kerry would probably not be any better at that.

  • ||

    Is there a problem in the world that can't be solved by redistributionist economic policy?

  • Daniel Wiener||

    I personally know of several strong libertarians who intend to vote for Bush this year. I'll dub them "9/11 Libertarians" -- people who believe we're at war with terrorists and must win that war.

    "9/11 Libertarians" are still libertarians. They are appalled by the huge growth in federal spending under Bush; by the signing of the Campaign Finance Reform Act; by the Medicare Prescription Drugs entitlement; by the Patriot Act; etc. But they think the Libertarian Party is taking a head-in-the-sand approach to terrorism, and they are terrified by the thought of President Kerry.

    After 9/11, the Libertarian Party experienced a precipitous drop in contributions and in membership. The membership trend was already downward before 9/11, but the terrorist attack highlighted the rift between the pacifistic/appeasement elements of the Party which were opposed to war under virtually all circumstances (and rationalized their position by blaming the US for the root causes of 9/11), and the self-defense elements of the Party which blamed the terrorists for initiating force and felt that retaliation was totally appropriate and necessary.

    "9/11 Libertarians" do not look upon terrorists as individual criminals who should be dealt with via law-enforcement mechanisms, but rather as trans-national organizations (e.g., Al Queda) which are being sheltered by various nation-states. Those terrorist organizations should be targeted and destroyed, and nation-states which shelter them are accomplices which deserve the same fate. Bush is the only one who seems intent on accomplishing that, so he's the one they'll vote for.

  • ||

    Anders,

    To give you a concept of where your confusion sets in: A lot of Americans like cowboys. So your references to Kyoto, the war crimes tribunal et al invokes a yawn from many and a conviction that most Euros are pussies. Maybe that helps explain why a lot of Americans don't like their Presidents to be scummy about their war resisting.

  • ||

    Anders,

    Re: Kyoto�� Europe is doing it�

    Perhaps you should read more European papers. France and Germany won�t meet the Kyoto targets. When the US makes treaties, we tend to take them seriously.

    �I�m pretty sure that i read American media more than you read European, Asian, or whatever. So maybe I�m not that biased after all as far as having a global view goes.�

    You may read American media, but your posts show you don�t understand America.

    �To fight terrorism you should start with making life so bearable that killing yourself doesn't sound like a good idea anymore.�

    Fine idea. So what are you doing to make that happen? Sending more money to Arafat? Contributing to the reconstruction of Iraq? Maybe you could take care of the Sudan?

  • drf||

    hi anders

    (hvor kommer Du fra? kan jeg anta'r fra Dit navn, at Du har skandinaviske r�dder?),

    i do read the european press (swedish, danish, norwegian, german, swiss-german, and austrian), and i would postulate that the fox news style here is pretty much par for the variety of newspapers and netradio streams i listen to. check out derstandard.at, berlingske.dk, or the good ol die Zeit or FAZ. or JP.dk. hell, der spiegel, too. you won't see a peep about the necessity of a bureaucratic superstate to bring about economic changes or the potential to privatize the impressively generous (ha) welfare systems. go to liberator.dk (they're also antiwar and anti bush) to see some of the Liberal thoughts from there.

    think about kyoto for a second - euroland gets a bye because the levels of C02 were from 1990 - the eastern european countries have had a total decline in CO2 since then due, perhaps, to the fall of the USSR et al. there's no cutting in europe. you can add. keep those ladas, skodas, trabis, fiats, etc. on the road. leadded gasoline for everyone!

    it isn't good environmental or economic policy to stick to something like kyoto, which was made by people who think "day after tomorrow" is potentially true. economic progress = $$$ to take care of the environment. how about a nice drink from the volga? deep breath in lagos? no? oh.

    okay - i agree with you that we're less safe because of iraq. i still don't get the threat. and how it's been handled, woah. way to win the minds of the iraqis and those in the middle east. but dealing with iraq in the interwar years was a disaster, too. no thanks largely to germany, france, and others. clinton did his part to screw up everything, too. what, with his BJs from interns and jacking off the europeans. and HRC's dog and pony show to copenhagen.

    the international tribune, yet another way where "internationalization = europeanization", would be a disaster for liberty-minded people.

    indicting sharon in a belgian court? now? was belgium involved? how about getting belgians involved in their congo and those massacres? oh, that would entail keeping one standard.

    the UN as a serious entity? butros-squared was a jackass of the highest order, the human rights commission shows what the un really is, and it sure is useless in peacekeeping missions when its troops are used as shields. nice.

    and i have spent lots of time in europe - most of my 20s - there are many things they need to tidy up in front of their own doors before they can go and criticize the us.

    and the comments you're getting here are a helluva lot nicer than the crap i got when i was living over there - i didn't even offer thoughts or opinions either, they were just ready to attack and expect me to "apologize" for whatever bullshit they didn't 1) understand or 2) approve of.

    cheers!
    drf

  • ||

    WHERE ARE YOU PEOPLE COMING FROM?

  • Kevin Carson||

    c,

    There's also a big "disgusted so I'm not voting" dynamic among Republicans. I've seen as many letters to the editor of my local paper from disgruntled Republicans as I've seen "9-11 Republicans" on this thread.

    My own gut feeling is that turnout will be decisive. The higher the turnout, the better Kerry's chances. And this time around, I think the people who want to get rid of Bush at any price will be more energized than the Republicans. A lot of disgruntled small-government types among the latter will probably sit this one out. If turnout is higher than expected, the "likely voter" polls probably understate Kerry's lead.

    Then, too, right-wing alternatives to Bush like the LP may have the same effect on Bush that Nader had on Gore in 2000. But Nader seems to be doing a lot more poorly than in 2000, precisely because of the past Nader voters who don't want to help reelect Bush.

    Of course, I could be wrong. And if it IS a lock for Bush, I hope this post doesn't come back to haunt me.

  • ||

    Finally, someone asks the proper question! Josh, the answer is NO, there is no problem that can't be solved by redistributionism. That is what we on the left have been trying to say for lo these many years! Just give me your money, and then I'll shut up! This is so simple, I cannot for the life of me understand why the fascist racist killer right can't "get" it!

  • ||

    Ha! Zell Miller for president!? Maybe Bush's enviornmental policies have screwed with our drinking water.

  • ||

    "I�m pretty sure that i read American media more than you read European, Asian, or whatever."
    Assumption. But even if you read American media....you still don't understand Americans. Therefor your input isn't worth the electrons it's whizzing around the universe on.

    "So maybe I�m not that biased after all as far as having a global view goes.."
    Having a global view has nothing to do with US electoral politics. In fact it's a detriment.

    "China and Russia was prepared to do it."
    HAH HAH HAH. What have you been smoking?

    "USA apparently isn't. Everybody should have the right to drive a SUV i guess."
    Yes, they should have that right if they choose.

    "To fight terrorism you should start with making life so bearable that killing yourself doesn't sound like a good idea anymore."
    Or alternately kill all the terrorists and those that support them.

    "Instead the US supports Sharon at all cost."
    Ah...the meat of the issue...it's always about the JEWS isn't it.

    I must not understand Europeans any better than they understand Americans... because I don't get how they could kill 6 million Jews and still think everything is all their fault.

    Europe: It's always there when it needs us.

  • ||

    Ander -

    Re-read the responses to your last post. The issue isn't whether Americans are concerned about CO2 - it's that Kyoto doesn't work! It's a huge expenditure for almost no return, that will leave us with no money to invest in more effective environmental measures. I don't know about Europeans, but Americans don't tend to throw good money after bad - in other words, Kyoto is not a "first step," it's a "last step" that would sour the electorate on large scale environmental initiatives for a long time to come. If I hated the environment I would want it to pass ... .


    Let's pretend for just a moment that the entire terrorism problem centers around "making life bearable," not making middle-east dictators afraid to sponsor terrorists or unable to give those terrorists nuclear weapons.

    Bush's U.S., since occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, has spearheaded democratic elections, built sewers and schools, and made moves to establish an objective rule of law in those two countries. Europe has done ... what? Think happy thoughts at them?

  • ||

    Voted for Bush in 2000. Dislike him alot more now than I did then, and I agree with "the little mirthless prince" tag.

    AND, I will vote for him again in 2004.

    Kerry is a d*ckhead, and the Dem's are going to get us killed.

  • ||

    All the new posters who switched votes seems kind of suspicious. Their writing styles are also very close. Don't scrape your knees on the astroturf.

  • ||

    Ha! Zell Miller for president!? Maybe Bush's enviornmental policies have screwed with our drinking water.

  • ||

    "c" is so wrong for so many reasons. I feel fairly certain that significant numbers of traditional democratic voters are going to vote for Bush. Some will do so enthusiastically and some will have to hold their noses, but they will do it. Not because they like Bush, but because they don't trust Kerry to fight terrorism. On the other hand, I can't imagine ANY traditional Republican voters going for Kerry. Even if the number of "9/11 Republicans" is fairly small, it should be enough to tip a lot of races in a 50/50 country.

    As for those who voted Nader last time around, some will stick with him and some will defect, but I think it's a mistake to think all the defectors will flock to Kerry. Let's be generous and say they go 65% Kerry, 35% Bush. But this has to be balanced against anti-war Dems defecting from Kerry to Nader. The conventional wisdom holds that Kerry needs to move to the center to win the battleground states, but when he does this he will lose support on his left. The urge to register an anti-war vote will be too great for some former Deaniacs once Kerry starts talking tough on Iraq. In the unlikely event that Kerry tries a left wing gambit, he will lose even more votes in the center than he finds on the left, so he's boxed in.

    Finally there's the terrorist attack wild card. If Al Qaeda manages a successful attack between now and November, it helps Bush because Americans will never vote for appeasment (unlike Spain). On the other hand, if there is no attack on US soil since 9/11 Bush will be able to take most of the credit.

    Any way you look at it, Bush wins and Kerry is screwed. By the way, I'm not some Bush cheerleader, that's just the way I see it. I am another "9/11 Republican" who worked on Gore's campaign in '88 and voted for Clinton twice. Bush is getting my (absentee) vote this time.

  • ||

    "I�m pretty sure that i read American media more than you read European, Asian, or whatever."
    Assumption. But even if you read American media....you still don't understand Americans. Therefor your input isn't worth the electrons it's whizzing around the universe on.

    "So maybe I�m not that biased after all as far as having a global view goes.."
    Having a global view has nothing to do with US electoral politics. In fact it's a detriment.

    "China and Russia was prepared to do it."
    HAH HAH HAH. What have you been smoking?

    "USA apparently isn't. Everybody should have the right to drive a SUV i guess."
    Yes, they should have that right if they choose.

    "To fight terrorism you should start with making life so bearable that killing yourself doesn't sound like a good idea anymore."
    Or alternately kill all the terrorists and those that support them.

    "Instead the US supports Sharon at all cost."
    Ah...the meat of the issue...it's always about the JEWS isn't it.

    I must not understand Europeans any better than they understand Americans... because I don't get how they could kill 6 million Jews and still think everything is all their fault.

    Europe: It's always there when it needs us.

  • Ray||

    Franky,

    The corrupt two party stuff always amuses me.

    I was going to ask you how it was corrupt but I don't have the time right now to give you that much rope.

    A corrupt system would be one where the number of parties was fixed; 2, 5, 10 whatever. Then that would bring candidates to the fore regardless of their overall popular support. The "Flaky-off-in-the-weeds" party would have their candidate by fiat.

    The reason third and fourth parties don't make a big enough difference is simply because they involve nuances that Joe Sixpack simply doesn't care about.

    Now if you want to force Joe to care about them, you can try but that doesn't sound much like democracy to me.

    Also, lower voter turnouts are good. That means fewer uninformed, irrational people voting as an emotional outlet.

    I actually believe that enfranchisement should be restricted to those that have not received any government assistance within the last 24 months, excepting school loans and FHA loans. A civics test would be nice but we'd never be able to get the powers that be to agree on a test worth giving.

  • Sonic Puke||

    Anders...

    You started out by saying...
    Well, you must have some ultra hush-hush sources. No WMD¨s haveBen [sic]n found yet.

    But when someone else says: Well you may read a lot of US media but you obviously didn't hear about the Sarin shell, the banned missile parts that are showing up all over the place from Jordan to Holland. It's only as hush-hush as CNN. As they say..Wheree there is smoke, there is fire.

    You reply:
    I´ve heard about them, and none of it indicates that he would have had a functional program in the last 5 yrs.

    So you knew all along that WMD's had been found eh? Just spreading a bit of disinformation?

    Raise the bar a bit when called on it?

    And BTW Saddam had ties to AQ... Including Al Zaquari...

    And we are at war with terrorism... Not just AQaidada..

    You seem to imply that because Saddam was openly sending money to Palestine to support terror this is somehow OK because it's not AQ?
    He supported terror... Period... People who claim he would NEEEEEVEEEEER support terror are so full of it...
    Once again when confronted you just raise the bar a bit higher...

    Now it's gotta be ties to AQ...

    And of course once these ties are proven you will simply raise the bar a bit higher and demand a direct tie to 9/11...

    Perhaps you are waiting for a signed affidavit from Saddam pledging eternal alliance to AQaidada?

    I bet if I came up with such anaffidavitit you'd just say something like... "Well this doesn't prove that he was aligned with AQ THIS YEAR"...

    Obviously you can find endless excuses for leaving Saddam in power, but no excuse would ever be enough to remove him...

    [spam]Again please visit my blog... Pllleeeeeaaaase... ;)[/spam]

  • ||

    When did Ken Layne become such a bitter prick? He's coming off my bookmarks.

  • ||

    sonic puke:
    The ties to AQ was one of the official reasons to go to war. You don�t start a war because somebody sends money to the family of a suicide bomber.

  • ||

    Hi Anders. Thanks for coming back here. Your willingness to do so shows the foolishness of those who've been calling you names. I have a few questions for you.

    First, assuming that you are right and third world misery is a major cause of terrorism, what would you have us do about it? The cause of most of that misery is, after all, unenlightened and often brutal government (along with equally brutal religious practices like female circumcision and the mutilation of petty criminals). How then can we improve the lives of the downtrodden without removing despots like Sadaam and theocrats like the Mullahs in Iran? I agree with you that islamofacism springs from cultural--and to some extent socio-economic--problems. I'd like to know how you plan to solve those problems.

    Secondly, why do you asume that the first intifada resulted from poverty? It looked to me like a tool to increase Arafat's power, with the added bonus of blowing up Jewish cafes and weddings. Surely you'll grant that there is a deep-seeded anti-semitism in the Arab world that has to be dealt with?

    Finally, I was puzzled by your claim that "[Bush] has also destabilized the whole international community, a big part of which had some real experience in fighting terrorism ( --> Europe ) thus making it even harder to reach results." What have we done, exactly, that is going to cost us European help in fighting terrorism? Has Europe decided not to help us prevent the slaughter of our people just because they don't like what we're doing in Iraq? If so, I would say it is not the United States that has abandoned it's allies, but rather the other way around.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

  • ||

    "Andres" is a troll. In any event, I don't see how signing Kyoto but failing to meet the targets puts the EU in a better light.

  • ||

    "There may also be ways of artificially cooling the environment that could compensate for global warming."

    Tell me you'r not serious, please....


    "Kyoto would have placed a disproportionate amount of the burden on the US, while giving a free pass to China and India."

    More burden on the most delveoped nations, yes. We can�t ask people in undeveloped countries not to develeop. But unless we do something we�ll be knee-deep in shit in 50-100 yrs. Something, if not proven, at least according top the vast majority of scientists, is probable. Being forced to cut down on co2 means puttting more research into ht.research, resulting in cleaner technologies, benefiting the countries doing with a technological advantage.

    "As for the notion that terrorism results from poverty"
    It's certainly not hte whole thrut, no. But fundamentalist islam gets much of its inspiration from what it sees in Palestine. Suicide bombings , in this magnitude, in itself is quite a new phenomenon that only escalated after the first Palestinian intifada.
    " Although I suspect some of them were doing it because Sadaam was paying them."
    Again, youre kidding? Al Qaida and Saddam had very different interests. Iraq was a pretty secular state i.e. the enemy of AQ. Now it might on the other hand turn into something totally different....

    "There were WMD's, in fact a few were found a few weeks ago and the UN has been recently turning up banned missle and WMD production materials from Iraq, worldwide recently..."

    Well, you must have some ultra hush-hush sources. No WMD�s have ben found yet.
    The teaching of this whole disaster is that, if you are a dictator with aggressive tendencies you should try to get Nukes as fast as possible. Because when you can prove that you have them you�ll be left alone. Just lokok at North Korea. saddam�s biggest mistake was being bullish without having the goods. And W knew it.

    But to go slightlu back towards the topic:
    I can�t figure out anything that W has done that has benefited thew country. The budget is a disaster. You�ll pay for his tax- cuts for ages. The environment sucks. So does his foreign policy.

    Is stubborness that big an asset that it's all it takes to be the pres of the US?

  • ||

    "There may also be ways of artificially cooling the environment that could compensate for global warming."

    Tell me you'r not serious, please....


    "Kyoto would have placed a disproportionate amount of the burden on the US, while giving a free pass to China and India."

    More burden on the most delveoped nations, yes. We can't ask people in undeveloped countries not to develeop. But unless we do something we'll be knee-deep in shit in 50-100 yrs. Something that, if not proven, at least according to the vast majority of scientists, is probable. Being forced to cut down on co2 means puttting more efforts into ht.research, resulting in cleaner technologies, benefiting the countries doing it with a technological advantage.

    "As for the notion that terrorism results from poverty"

    It's certainly not the whole thruth, no. But fundamentalist islam gets much of its inspiration from what it sees in Palestine. Suicide bombings , in this magnitude, in itself is quite a new phenomenon that only escalated after the first Palestinian intifada.

    " Although I suspect some of them were doing it because Sadaam was paying them."

    Again, youre kidding? Al Qaida and Saddam had very different interests. Iraq was a pretty secular state i.e. the enemy of AQ. Now it might on the other hand turn into something totally different....

    "There were WMD's, in fact a few were found a few weeks ago and the UN has been recently turning up banned missle and WMD production materials from Iraq, worldwide recently..."

    Well, you must have some ultra hush-hush sources. No WMD�s have ben found yet.
    The teaching of this whole disaster is that, if you are a dictator with aggressive tendencies you should try to get Nukes as fast as possible. Because when you can prove that you have them you�ll be left alone. Just look at North Korea. Saddam�s biggest mistake was being bullish without having the goods. And W knew it.

    But to go slightly back towards the topic:
    I can�t figure out anything that W has done that has benefited the country. The budget is a disaster. You�ll pay for his tax- cuts for ages. The environment sucks. So does his foreign policy.

    Is stubborness that big an asset that it's all it takes to be the pres of the US?

  • ||

    I don't believe the line that if there is another terrorist attack, it will cement the victory for Bush. Why would a nation vote for someone who claimed to be keeping them safe, when he completely did not keep them safe. Another attack would prove that Bush is NOT the anti-terror president, and he would not have a prayer in the November.

    Other than that, I hope Tim is wrong, but I woefully suspect that he is right.

  • ||

    I don't believe the line that if there is another terrorist attack, it will cement the victory for Bush. Why would a nation vote for someone who claimed to be keeping them safe, when he completely did not keep them safe. Another attack would prove that Bush is NOT the anti-terror president, and he would not have a prayer in the November.

    Other than that, I hope Tim is wrong, but I woefully suspect that he is right.

  • Sonic Puke||

    Ander:
    The ties to AQ was one of the official reasons to go to war. You don�t start a war because somebody sends money to the family of a suicide bomber.
    Correction... YOU don't want to hold terrorist supporters accountable...

    Immediatly after 9/11 Pres Bush made it clear that HE WOULD though...

    We are at war with terrorist and the states that sponsor terror... Pres Bush made this crystal clear... That you forgot or don't agree has no bearing...

    And you are changing the subject again... And again raising the bar...

    You claimed that Iraq was a secular state as if this proves he would NEVER support islamic terror... He did though...

    And the Palestinian tie is only the one he BRAGGED about... There are additional ties to AQ in fact...

    You guys always try to take each argument as if it and it alone is or is not the argument for removing Saddam... The fact that he funded Palestinian terror (which fuels the entire jihadi movement) is just ONE OF MANY REASONS...

    You can't just claim that this one thing isn't enough, because it is NOT, but it is not the only reason or alone as you imply... All the reasons stacked together are the reason, and the were all explained BEFORE we went to Iraq...

  • ||

    I voted for Gore, was angry with Bush about the election, calmed down and saw reason. 911 turned me into a news junkie and a Republican. I guess that makes me a 911 Republican.

    After 911 I thanked God that Bush won and Gore lost. Now I am even more thankful and even more embarassed about voting for Gore.

  • ||

    Oh yeah...thank God Bush was elected. I mean, Gore probably wouldn't have even found the guy responsible for 9-11 yet. Oh wait....

  • ||

    No, poverty isn't the only reason for terrorism. But the miserable state of Palestine is on source of terrorism, and I think the US has many of the keys needed to solve that dilemma if it wanted.

    And when you, as GWB did, can't take dissent from a friend, Europe, without on an official level mocking it ( Rumsfeld, Freedom Fries, Bush --> Chirac) then you not only show stupidity but also ignorance and unfitness to handle your job.

    I think there is reason to criticize the handling of Iraq+co, the war in itself was clearly agains international law, ask any scholar outside the GWB sphere. Guantanamo is against the Geneva treaty however Rumsfeld et al tries to twist it. And the recent indications that torture was sanctioned officially puts american soldiers in danger - i wouldn't want to be caught by al-sadr's militia in their clothes.

    But I've enjoyed exchanging views with you. I probably never will understand them, but even so, I've enjoyed it.

    I think I'll return to wathing Euro-pussy-foootball, Portugal-Russia, before going to bed, it's 23.30 here.

    But this troll might be back tomorrow!

  • Attila Girl||

    J--

    The estimate I heard of the Florida panhandle votes in 2000 was in the tens of thousands. If these people had shown up (instead of believing the news outlets that claimed FL was going to Gore), there wouldn't have been a recount controversy, a disputed election, or any of that.

    I strongly suspect that turnout will be high in FL this fall, because everyone there will be utterly convinced that their vote does, indeed, count.

    (Hitting "post" ten times, due to peer-group pressure.)

  • ||

    "But the miserable state of Palestine is on source of terrorism, and I think the US has many of the keys needed to solve that dilemma if it wanted."

    There's no solution to the miserable state of Palestine until the Palestinians give up on their fantasy of destroying Israel.

    Aside, that is, from vastatio.

  • ||

    Wow, this thread is pretty revealing. It confirms some of my suspicions about who is going to vote for whom and why.

    1. Terrorism is probably going to be the decicive issue. Mackey: "Do you really think Islamist terrorism is this huge, looming crisis for the United States? How many people died on Sept. 11? OK, now think: How many people live in this country? Get an effing grip!" Answer: Yes, it is a looming crisis. The question is not the percentage of the population killed. The terrorists killed as many as they could given their available resources, and would kill millions without warning if they had the means. The number of Democrats who think terrorism is a non-issue is a big part of why Kerry will lose.

    2. Kerry is not only bad for the country but bad for the Democratic party as well. Ray said "Dean wouldn't have won either but it would have excited the Dems too much for the mainstream needs of a national party. It would have taken a decade to divorce themselves from the far Left image that Dean would have stamped upon the party. " I disagree. The strategy of nominating a supposedly electable, moderate canadidate will be discredited, causing the party to swing left after after a landslide Kerry defeat. Dean would have presented the electorate with a clear choice and his loss would have forced Democrats to come to terms with their party's flaws, but denial will continue post Kerry.

    P.S. I posted a multiple times yesterday because each of my attempts timed out (probably due to the Instalanche) and I thought they had not been received. As for the idea that one guy is posting all of the 9/11 Republican messages, why? This isn't some lame internet poll. A lot of us keep our mouths shut in polite company because we don't want to lose friends, but there are more of us than the Bush haters imagine. We will probably see the same suprised reaction on election day, but I won't be surprised.

  • drf||

    hej anders--

    bummer about russia. (can't stand romantic-language soccer). even though i do disagree with some of your POVs (kyoto, how to read differences in Euro-press, etc), come on back for some more rollicking debate :)

    jeg ville gerne h�be p�, at Du forts�tter med at underholde Dig her p� bordet - dem, der enten er eller har v�ret for krigen har brug for et lidt bredere synspunkt og burde ha� en �get forstand for andre kultur. (Du ved vidst, hvad jeg mener) :).

    endvidere anbefaler jeg kraftigt siden "liberator.dk", hvor Du kan finde et europ�isk synspunkt af liberalisme! timbro.se er osse en go' en!

    Men kom forbi en anden gang!

    Mvh,
    drf

  • ||

    Nick,

    Why?

    Because on Sept 12th no one in America would have bet a nickel that there would be no further major attacks on America for 2 1/2 years.

    That is a victory. Enough Americans could see it that way to give Bush the election.

  • ||

    If terrorism is a decisive issue, the Bush should lose in a landslide. He has by all measures failed miserably, only strenghtening the local support for terrorists making it dramatically easier for them to enroll new members. He has also destabilized the whole international community, a big part of which had some real experience in fighting terrorism ( --> Europe ) thus making it even harder to reach results. Not to mention opening up a whole new market for terrosists ( Iraq)

  • ||

    So, Anders, you DO sleep over there. I thought from you're earlier post you lived in LA LA land.

    As for your "most scientists" observation--Bunk. The Union of Concerned Scientists has been out there promoting global warming. But very few are climatolgists and they're the only ones that matter. Aside from Bjorn Lomborg (who was vilified by the Danes), climatologists in London have also cast doubt on it--not to mention many here in the States. Not saying they're right, just saying you don't know. And doing something when you don't know if there's a problem can be just as damaging as the supposed problem.

    Once again, Kyoto is a joke. Get over it and if you really believe in global warming, find a solution that matters instead of using a worthless treaty to hammer a country you don't like but is at least honest enough to call it like it is.

    As to your last point, you're very tiresome. Yes we run deficits and have for most of the past 40 years. And in that context, the current deficit is average as a percentage of GDP. And we have an economy that whatever second-rate country you come from can only envy and never achieve because they're too busy sucking the wages from working people so that ingrates with the emotional IQs of 12 year-olds can stay home and post bile on web sites.....

  • ||

    Anders says on June 16, 2004 02:40 PM :
    "The ties to AQ was one of the official reasons to go to war. You don�t start a war because somebody sends money to the family of a suicide bomber."

    Well Anders 9/11 has made Americans crazy. So I'd advise you to avoid sending money to suicide bombers. And if you know any one who is contemplating such a move please caution them against it.

    It will be safer for all concerned.

  • ||

    Hey, I'm post 250!

    Does anyone know the record for posts on a topic?

  • ||

    "Well Anders 9/11 has made Americans crazy. So I'd advise you to avoid sending money to suicide bombers. And if you know any one who is contemplating such a move please caution them against it."


    No one seems to remember how fast the IRA came to the table after 9/11. They knew they didn't want to be labeled as international terrorists. Chalk that one right up there with Libya.

  • ||

    �But the miserable state of Palestine is on source of terrorism, and I think the US has many of the keys needed to solve that dilemma if it wanted.�

    So you mean Europe ISN�T using the Palestine issue in a proxy war against the US? With totalitarian Arab governments using the Palestine issue to deflect internal anger and resentment against Israel and the US? It really is the evil Jews mistreating the poor Arabs? Hmmm, why is there no resentment against Jordan for its massacre of Palestinians?


    �And when you, as GWB did, can't take dissent from a friend, Europe, without on an official level mocking it ( Rumsfeld, Freedom Fries, Bush --> Chirac) then you not only show stupidity but also ignorance and unfitness to handle your job.�

    Friends don�t stab friends in the back. (France in the UN.) France is an enemy of the US and Germany is at best an unfriendly neutral. People inside France reported large numbers of French celebrating or showing satisfaction at 911. Polls showed a large fraction of the French wanted Saddam to win and a majority wanted the US to fail or be badly bloodied. Anyone following the major French news media is well aware of the strong anti-American attitude. Complaining about Rumsfeld�s honest characterization of our French and German �allies� while ignoring the loud denunciations of the US by Schroeder and Chirac is foolish at best. (There are French and Germans who have supported and continue to support the US. Much of the information I have on those countries came from true allies living in those countries.)


    �the war in itself was clearly agains international law�

    Perhaps it�s clear to a European who never intended for UN resolutions to be enforced.

    Who do you think enforces �international law�? What policeman stopped Soviet tanks from rolling into West Germany? What policeman will stop China from invading Taiwan?

    When N. Korea blackmails its neighbors with threats of nuclear destruction what will Europe do? When Iran has its long-range missiles and its bomb and dictates European policy under threat of nuclear destruction, what European policeman will enforce �international law�?

    Do you believe Belgium creates and enforces �international law�? Or a group of European states under the umbrella of the ICC?


    �Guantanamo is against the Geneva treaty�

    Why do I believe you have no idea what the Geneva treaty states and why there is a Geneva Treaty?


    �And the recent indications that torture was sanctioned officially puts american soldiers in danger�

    Coercion of terrorists to extract information is damned uncomfortable, but is not torture. Some US soldiers undergo similar treatment as part of their training. As for American soldiers, Arab terrorists don�t seem to need justification for murder and torture. Excuse me for not believing your expression of false sympathy for American soldiers as I�ve seen too much of the European media to buy that shit.

  • ||

    I was a 9/10 Libertarian.

    I am now a 9/11 Republican.

  • ||

    Kyoto - More burden on the most delveoped nations, yes. We can�t ask people in undeveloped countries not to develeop.

    Well that makes a lot of sense: If you had 3 fires burning on the perimeter of your house and resources to put out or slow down only some but not all until the fire department arrives... would you pick the one that's smallest? You may put it out but the other larger ones will still burn your house down.

    Being forced to cut down on co2 means puttting more research into ht.research, resulting in cleaner technologies, benefiting the countries with a technological advantage.

    Unless you manage to destroy their economy at the same time.

    It's certainly not the whole thruth, no.

    Then it's not the truth period.

    But fundamentalist islam gets much of its inspiration from what it sees in Palestine.

    Yeah, that and the Koran where there are over 150 verses advocating death, destruction, and martyrdom.

    Again, youre kidding? Al Qaida and Saddam had very different interests. Iraq was a pretty secular state i.e. the enemy of AQ.

    Known fact: Saddam was paying $ to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

    Well, you must have some ultra hush-hush sources. No WMD�s have ben found yet.

    Well you may read a lot of US media but you obviously didn't hear about the Sarin shell, the banned missile parts that are showing up all over the place from Jordan to Holland. It's only as hush-hush as CNN. As they say...where there is smoke, there is fire.

    The teaching of this whole disaster is that, if you are a dictator with aggressive tendencies you should try to get Nukes as fast as possible.

    Yeah that NEVER occurred to them before did it?

    Because when you can prove that you have them you�ll be left alone. Just lokok at North Korea.

    Who said that N. Korea is no longer part of the axis of evil? They simply require different means: see Missile defense shield.

    I can�t figure out anything that W has done that has benefited thew country.

    Hence proving once again you are European.

    You�ll pay for his tax- cuts for ages.

    We'll pay? Who the Fuck does that money belong to? We won't pay for ages... that's my god-damn money that I worked for. That statement proves right there why europe is fast going down the shitter. Don't call us when you realize that in order to keep your welfare state running you need to have a billion militant muslim laborers....

    The environment sucks.

    The air in NYC is better than in Paris... and the subways don't smell of piss. I live where the water is clean and the skyies are blue. Maybe your environment sucks but ours is just fine.

    So does his foreign policy.

    Especially if your Saddam Hussein.

    Is stubborness that big an asset that it's all it takes to be the pres of the US?

    No brains help to...if you guys develop any of that in Europe give us a call.

  • ||

    Hello Anders. Your response to my post deserves a reply:

    Your assumption, which is widely held here in Europe, is that fighting terrorism with force only creates more terrorism. You may be right up to a point, but that is only part of the picture. Fighting back probably does draw new recruits into terrorist organizations, but doing nothing (or active appeaseing them) also encourages terrorists because they now see you as an easy target. Fighting back at least has the virtue of reducing their numbers directly through attrition.

    As I (and I believe many others) see it, the war on terror is kind of like invasive surgury. It may carry substantial risks in the short run while significantly increasing your lifespan in the longer term. People often assume that Americans are easily distracted and have no staying power for this kind of project, but I think they are mistaken. On decisive issues like the Cold War and the War on Terror, we tend to take the long view and follow through. If there is one lesson to be learned from the 911 commission testimony, it's that the Bush doctrine of pre-emption has more or less been accepted by both parties and will be a fixture of American policy for the foreseeable future.

    I suggest you read the following to get over your belief that Islamic terrorism is merely cause by "hopelessness": http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris_print.html

    Regards.

  • ||

    So Anders was up all night thinking about this. And he says Bush is stubborn??

    Re global warming. You're ready to diss someone's idea about how to counteract the problem, but readily embrace it as fact with no real science to back it up (and no, they don't know what's causing it--it could--and most likely is--a natural occurence).

    WMDs have been found, including long range missiles just last week in Jordan that were secreted out of Iraq. Plus a Sarin artillery shell. Not reported in Europe?? No surprise there. Plus pre-war links with Al-Qaeda are being reported on a regular basis.

    Budget is not a disaster. As a percentage of GDP, deficit is about average. Up in absolute numbers? Sure, but the economy is much larger. Plus, we're in a war. Secondly, Bush inherited a recession that was exacerbated by the bursting of the tech bubble (and yes, it was akin to the Dutch and tulips in the 1600s) and 9/11 and yet we've come out of those problems in a short couple of years with an economy that's growing much better than Europe's (and you can thank us and George Bush's tax cuts for whatever growth you have).

    You've got to get a grip, son. Step back and think about what people have been writing with an open mind.....

  • ||

    "Well that makes a lot of sense: If you had 3 fires burning on the perimeter of your house and resources to put out or slow down only some but not all until the fire department arrives... would you pick the one that's smallest? You may put it out but the other larger ones will still burn your house down."

    Chris , you ARE the biggest fire. Pollution /capita in US is way above anything else anywhere in the world, Europe included. Because the developing countries will increase their industrialization level eventually, and thus pollute more, it's ever more important for those already developed to do something now.

    "Unless you manage to destroy their economy at the same time."

    Nothing indicates that that would happen. But if global warming isn't stopped, very probably, ALL economies will be destroyed. That's just not a choice

    "Then it's not the truth period."

    Your world sure is black+ white, but wait....oh yes.... "you're either with us or against us"... ouch, there we have it...


    "Yeah, that and the Koran where there are over 150 verses advocating death, destruction, and martyrdom."

    The Bible is quite a lot bloodier...

    "Known fact: Saddam was paying $ to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers."

    Yes, and I was talking about AQ


    "Well you may read a lot of US media but you obviously didn't hear about the Sarin shell, the banned missile parts that are showing up all over the place from Jordan to Holland."

    I�ve heard about them, and none of it indicates that he would have had a functional program in the last 5 yrs.

    "Hence proving once again you are European."

    Please, give me one, just one!


    "We'll pay? Who the Fuck does that money belong to? We won't pay for ages... that's my god-damn money that I worked for. "

    Ok Chris, when you keep runnung a 3+ % deficit for a couple of years even you will start paying. You'll see.

    "The air in NYC is better than in Paris... and the subways don't smell of piss. I live where the water is clean and the skyies are blue. Maybe your environment sucks but ours is just fine."

    It's about more than the smell in you subway. But I suppose you know that. Or hope so.

  • ||

    "So Anders was up all night thinking about this. And he says Bush is stubborn??"

    gasman: the world is round remember, time differences, sous familiar?

    "with no real science to back it up (and no, they don't know what's causing it--it could--and most likely is--a natural occurence)."

    Most scientists agree on the causes and whar it will lead too. A few don�t. And no, you can't be 100% sure. Buit I don't think you can take the risk either.

    "Budget is not a disaster. As a percentage of GDP, deficit is about average. "

    Average deficit, what is that?

    "You've got to get a grip, son. Step back and think about what people have been writing with an open mind....."

    I'll try, and am enjoying it. All you right-wing lunatics out there ;-)

  • ||

    .... should've spell-checked....

  • ||

    "Whoever said, "if we had a media like yours we'd think like that too!" didn't realise just how right s/he is. If you had a questioning media willing to ask difficult questions and rules strictly prohibiting biased news networks like Fox News, you probably would think different.You'd be much better informed."


    Too bad those rules would be incredibly unconstitutional.

  • ||

    The "troops in the field" factor is true only because Truman and Johnson, each facing almost certain defeat, chose not to run for re-election. And Lincoln, who was resigned to defeat in 1864, was saved only by Sherman's fortuitous capture of Atlanta.

    Even Churchill was turned out of office before the end of World War II, while British troops were still in bitter combat in the Far East.

  • ||

    If you look how recent presidential candidates did, not as a percentage of votes cast, but as percentage of eligable voters, some interesting patterns appear.

    Democrat turnout has been, since 1976, pretty stable. Republican turnout has varied widely.

    1980: Reagan 26.6% Carter 21.5%
    1984: Reagan 31.2% Mondale 21.5%
    1988: Bush 26.7% Dukakis 22.8%
    1992: Bush 20.6% Clinton 23.7% Perot 10.4%
    1996: Dole 19.9% Clinton 24.1% Perot 4.1%
    2000: Bush 24.1% Gore 24.3% Nader 2.9%

    Gore took a larger share of eligable voters than any Democratic Presidential candidate since Johnson.

    This would suggest that he may have tapped out the pool, so to speak.

    Bush, OTOH, didn't come close to achieving the sort of turnout that Reagan managed, though he did much better than Dole.

    For all of the talk about "broken glass Republicans", it appears that a sizable portion of potential Republican voters are fickle.

    But the question is whether Bush can win by a landslide. The answer is yes. The potential voters are there - if he can attract them.

  • ||

    Attila Girl: "The estimate I heard of the Florida panhandle votes in 2000 was in the tens of thousands. If these people had shown up (instead of believing the news outlets that claimed FL was going to Gore), there wouldn't have been a recount controversy, a disputed election, or any of that."

    Attila Girl, I'm the one who posted about the panhandle in responding to J's post. I played a bit with some back of the envelope numbers, and this is what I discovered:

    There are 11 panhandle counties located in the central time zone. In 2000, Bush won these counties 237,000 - 112,000, more than 2:1. In the largest of these counties (Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Bay - accounting for over 80% of the votes) voter turnout was just over 67%. For the rest of the state, it was just over 70%. Making the assumption that the early Gore call cost that 3% difference in turnout, then that means another 17,000 or so votes would have been cast in the panhandle, and thus at the 2:1 Bush:Gore ratio, Bush would have netted an additional 4-6,000 votes.

    As I said though, this is just back-of-the-envelope messing around. If someone has found that these counties historically have lower turnouts than the rest of the state does, or has discovered something else through much more thorough research than with the 15 minutes I spent, I've got no beef with that. I'm not trying to make a Bush case here, I'm just playing with some numbers.

  • ||

    Some comments to previous posters:

    "Maybe a squeaker one way or the other, maybe a Kerry blowout."

    You can pretty much dismiss any serious consideration of anyone who is predicting a Kerry blowout. The GOP has an absolute lock on far too many Mountains, Plains, and Southern states for any Dem, let alone Kerry, to make it past 375 electoral votes.

    "Conventional wisdom will be shaken by this election. I think that the Democratic Party will
    reinvent itself as a result."

    Certainly the Democratic Party needs to reinvent itself - to reconstruct an actual grass roots, instead of the astro-turf it's been buying with those multi-million-dollar "soft money" contributions.

    But the Dems have been on a slow death-spiral for nearly 30 years - and they haven't wised up, yet.

    "There is one way Bush can snatch the election from the jaws of victory: sell out on the "Assault
    Weapon Ban" renewal. My between-the -lines reading of NRA literature suggests that he may have already decided to do so. Big mistake."

    Yep.

    As I said above, there are a lot of potential GOP voters who decide to sit out. And the gun-rights crowd may make up as much as half of them.

    Lee Atwater told Bush 41 that he could ignore the gunnies. "After all, where can they go?"

    They stayed home. And Bush lost.

    I was doing political advocacy for gun issues in 2000 - trying to get a shall-issue carry law in Minnesota. I spent a lot of time at the gun shows and shops. And while I never met a gun owner who said he'd vote for Gore, roughly half of those I talked to didn't really trust Bush.

    Now remember - this is the same George W. Bush who campaigned on signing a shall-issue carry law in Texas, and then signed the bill into law when it was passed.

    But a lot of gun owners had their doubts - not because of what Dubya had done, but because of what Bush 41 had done.

    Many didn't trust him.

    If he signs an AWB renewal, none of them will.

  • ||

    Scientists have also measured global warming on Mars. I would suggest that you check out http://www.techcentralstation.com/climatechange.html


    re: national debt. Caused by overspending and insufficient revenue. Your solution: increase taxes. Mine, reduce spending.

    Actually, revenue is going up with the improvement in the economy. More people paying taxes.

    According to the numbers provided by the US government, the rich pay most of the taxes. If there is a tax burden to be paid, it will be paid mostly by the rich.

  • ||

    A bit late in the day, but I might as well toss my 2 cents in.

    I registered independent at age 18 in 1984, voted for Mondale, then Dukakis.
    Not because I liked either one.
    Just because Reagan and Bush Sr. seemed like nasty old fucks who wanted to destroy sex-drugs&rock'n'roll.

    Didn't bother to vote in the 90's.
    (Too busy w/the sex-drugs&rock'n'roll.)

    2000: registered Libertarian - Harry B. supporter. Laughed at the idea of voting for W
    because his dad was far more competent than W could ever hope to be, and I voted against his dad.
    2004: still registered Libertarian, but I'm votin
    for W.

    Why? 9/11.
    If you don't get it, it's because you don't want to. I can't help you with that.
    And no, the missing-WMD/Abu Ghrabu scandal-du-jour doesn't change anything.
    Cheers!
    :-)

  • ||

    I just don't see how any person of libertarian persuasion could vote for Bush (obviously they wouldn't vote for Kerry either). As far as I can see Bush has sold the entire Republican philosophy out to the religious right who's beliefs are the antithesis of libertarian thinking.
    I think there's need to be a serious movement of people refusing to have anything to deal with these jokers Kerry or Bush - come November, I won't vote. Hoepfully when we get down to 30% voting in elections the corrupt two party system will see that they have to appeal to more than just federal employees and unions on one side and the relgious right on the other.

  • sonic puke||

    Bryan: The war on Iraq was a wrong decision. No links to Al-Queda there, no weapons of mass destruction. Pushing the war just because Saddam was a bad guy also means that we should be going after North Korea as well, and probably Iran, Cuba and Libya too.

    There were WMD's, in fact a few were found a few weeks ago and the UN has been recently turning up banned missle and WMD production materials from Iraq, worldwide recently...

    There absolutely was an Al Qeada/Iraq/Saddam connection... For one (among many) Zarqaui (Did I mispell his name? Good. I hope it also an insult in Muslim culture to do so) was in Iraq before we liberated it... There are other numerous connections to terrorism in general and Al Qeada in specific...

    Just because the Democratic talking points say that we were misled and these things aren't true doesn't make it so...

    Why doesn't the media report this to you? Figure that out for yourself...

    PS Visit my blog... Particularly if you find me an idiot... I love dissent... Stop by and tell me WHY I'm an idiot...

  • Ray||

    Bush is a lock regardless of anyone's poltical leanings; Kerry is just "the most electable" they could find.

    Dean wouldn't have won either but it would have excited the Dems too much for the mainstream needs of a national party. It would have taken a decade to divorce themselves from the far Left image that Dean would have stamped upon the party.

    So now Bush is a lock.

    And even if Kerry had an ounce of charisma and a decent voting record:

    WIth the Oil for Food scandal, sloooowwwly coming out, WMDs are indeed turning up as well as far too much WMD paraphernalia to be simply left over from the 80s, too many al Queda guys turning up in Iraq and being shown to have been there before the war and so on and so on.

    America wants to win this war in a much bigger way than Tom Brokaw is letting on and they're simply not going to vote for someone with no charisma and such a lousy voting record.

  • ||

    Ben, you said the following, which was echoed less coherently elsewhere in this thread:
    The Abu Ghraib prison and abuse scandals are not going to stick and as long as they are in the news, it will only get worse for Democrats. Most Americans don't care how we get the information. Like I said above, there is a war on, and if dunking Khalid means possibly getting information that keeps Americans from getting killed, well, too bad for Khalid. We are facing an enemy that does not play by the Geneva convention, and there is a general consensus that we should not either.

    I am afraid of one thing: Today, Khalid is the threat, being dunked for intel.
    Tomorrow, will I be considered the "threat"?

    In addition to this, another blog discussed the conditions in South-Central L.A., where gangbangers kill bystanders at a rate as high as terrorists kill bystanders in Israel. Where I live, I also probably have as much a chance of being shot or otherwise slaughtered by gangbangers as I would in L.A. In fact, my chances of being killed in a terrorst attack are infinitesimal compared to my being shot on my own street. If Bush is so resolute about security, why isn't anything being done about the gangs? Are they not creating enough terror to be terrorists? Maybe Bush just thinks that the gangs won't get WMD (ahem, Padilla, cough, cough).

    The "war on terror" is just as effective as the "war on drugs."

    Our government is pathetic.

  • ||

    �I am afraid of one thing: Today, Khalid is the threat, being dunked for intel.
    Tomorrow, will I be considered the "threat"?�

    If you were caught under the same circumstances as Khalid and were high enough in the terrorist organization to have knowledge of another 911 or worse, I hope you would be dunked. (I wish our government had �mind� drugs so that you would have to give up the information that could save thousands of lives without your being coerced with fear, discomfort, or disorientation.)


    �In fact, my chances of being killed in a terrorst attack are infinitesimal compared to my being shot on my own street.�

    How do you know your chances of being killed by terrorists? 911 showed that terrorists were willing and able to kill thousands of American citizens. With a little more �luck� they would have killed tens of thousands. Do you have any doubt that with access to a nuke, chemical weapon, or biological weapon, the terrorists would use them to cause maximum casualties? Do you really believe that �only� a few thousand Americans will die in the WoT? If the terrorists gain access to nukes I expect millions to die. That is what Osama promised the US.

    �If Bush is so resolute about security, why isn't anything being done about the gangs?�

    Bush is working on the international front. Why aren�t you working to solve the local problem? Will you report suspicious behavior? Will you support police observation and questioning of gang bangers?

    �Our government is pathetic.�

    You are pathetic. You complain and want to tie the hands of the people trying to protect you while you don�t even try to understand what they are doing. The US is at war with a murderous, ruthless enemy and people are going to die, privacy will be invaded, and rights will be abused. Wake up. There are people dedicated to killing you and your family and our government is trying to stop them.

  • ||

    Since this has now slid off the front page, I guess we can wrap it up here.
    In closing, let me just echo that point about us Americans being crazy....
    Who's the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons on enemy cities?
    Who's the nation that successfully used slavery and genocide to colonize and conquer the continent of North America?
    Who's the nation that's ready, willing and able to turn Mecca into a radioctive roach motel?
    That's right, biyatch.
    Y'all wanna talk some shit like WE'RE the bad guys?
    Trust us...we CAN BE the fucking bad guys.
    That's why you should get down on your fucking knees and promise to be good and beg us to play nice.
    Peace!
    :-)

  • ||

    Man, when DID Ken Layne become such a prick???

  • ||

    Like father, like son...he's out in one.

    pretty simple. Bush lies, and who dies?

    Unfortunately, it doesn't look like busy Americans are yet thinking about their children's children's futures, before their next truck or SUV purchase. This is a fatal flaw that is allowing Bush to continue to lie to the world and perpetuate crimes against humanity.

    yet, the tide is turning, and people are waking up...like father, like son, he's out in one.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement