Reason.com
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
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 or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|9.21.04 @ 4:29PM|#
And this time Kerry really means it, so don't worry about him changing his mind in a couple weeks because the problem is more "nuanced" than he earlier thought.
|9.21.04 @ 4:41PM|#
"As important, it would be far more difficult for Kerry, as the vague "anti-war" candidate, to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq and elsewhere, lest he be seen as weak on terror and military might in general."
There is plenty of actual terrorist-fighting to do. Regions of Afghanistan are under Al Qaeda control, for example. Kerry has been hitting Bush for shifting troops away from the real fight against terrorist for months. Redeploying units to fight, you know, the people who attacked us would hardly be seen as a surrender.
|9.21.04 @ 5:49PM|#
I think this NYU speech was a really bad move on Kerry's part, for two reasons:
(1) It gives further ammunition to his opponents to label him as an indecisive flip-flopper.
(2) All polls, even Rasmussen, have the general public backing Bush over Kerry on Iraq by wide margins.
I thought for sure Kerry couldn't lose in July. I've had to come to grips with the fact that I doubt he's going to win now.
Kerry could have lambasted Bush on so many economic issues. Instead he picked a fight he can't win.
Mike McCurry and Jamie Rubin should never work in a political campaign again. This was bad advice.
|9.21.04 @ 6:07PM|#
The Dems could run Mickey Mouse against this guy and I'd vote for him. There is something seriously wrong with America if Bush can fuck up as bad as he has and keep his job.
L.F. Brown|9.21.04 @ 6:10PM|#
Did he really say "Truth to power"? Isn't Kerry embarrassing enough?
|9.21.04 @ 6:38PM|#
Gadfly,
A CBS News Poll from May 20-23, 2004 found that, regarding Bush's public religious overtures: 51% like it and 36% are bothered by it.
I think that says it all about the state of America.
|9.21.04 @ 6:44PM|#
The Dems could run Mickey Mouse against this guy
You mean they aren't?
|9.21.04 @ 6:56PM|#
If the Bush Administration wants to bug out, if that's the case,...
If that's the case, then everyone in the Bush Administration: Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz and all the rest should be proud of themselves. It may have cost us thousands of American casualties and the lives of hundreds of American soldiers; it may have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians and alienated our allies, but in spite of those obstacles, it will have all paid off in the end. The Bush Administration will, finally, have turned Iraq into a terrorist paradise...Congratulations!
Hey, it's not a lie if you make it true.
I've been chanting all the reasons that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq for months now, but I was as surprised as anyone to find out that there wasn't any WMD and that there wasn't any collaboration with Al Qaeda. I didn't think that Colin Powell would soil himself with bogus pictures of mobile laboratories, but even after that display, I will be genuinely surprised if the Bush Administration turns tail and runs now that we all know that terrorists are openly operating in Iraq after all.
I mean...the audacity!
...and if the Administration is planning to bug out, it's way ahead of the curve. In the minds of voters, the ink hasn't yet dried on the reasons we were given for the invasion. We were preventing terrorism, right? Now that we know that terrorists are, in fact, operating there, now we're gonna leave?
Huh?
I've heard the rumblings in the Republican Party too, but there's plenty to rumble about without calling for a full withdrawal. Even if there are elected Republicans who want to call for a full pull out, I'll be surpised to see any of them do so publicly.
...even after the election.
P.S. Yeah, I know...Shultz's First Law: Jesus was right; people are sheep. But it still surprises me!
The Lonewacko Blog|9.22.04 @ 12:32AM|#
Exactly how, for instance, will any U.S. president get troops from other countries to suit up and jump into a situation that Kerry himself says is a "mess"?
I haven't been following the news out of Iraq as closely as before, but didn't we reserve the best contracts for ourselves? Maybe Kerry would change that.
simply listing "exactly what we're currently doing... And that in the end may be all it amounts to
Same disclaimer above. However:
our friends at the U.N. say it will take them six months to set up elections, and they've only got 25% of the people they need in place and they I guess don't want to send in any more until there's security. So, I guess Bush bolloxed that one up.
And, we've only trained a very small number of policemen and other security personnel. Correct my numbers: we want 90,000 but we've only started training 5,000. No one has graduated from the 4-month program yet. Once again, Kerry apparently says he would have gotten better numbers.
I think back to right after the Shock and Awe when I was wondering about things like: why were people allowed to loot the Mukhabbarat files, why were people allowed to loot the museum, and why was Iraqi TV still on the air.
Any such complaints were pooh-poohed by bloggers who get much more traffic. There was apparently some grand plan and, in any case, any reports of museums being looted was just Fiskian propaganda. I'm still waiting for the grand plan.
|9.22.04 @ 4:11AM|#
kmw...buddy,
lay off the poll kool-aid. it just makes you look like a file in a data folder. don't you have an opinion or thought that isn't informed by pseudo-scientific number crunchers?
|9.22.04 @ 9:20AM|#
The Dems could run Mickey Mouse against this guy
You mean they aren't?
No, they're running Goofy.
|9.22.04 @ 9:45AM|#
kmw,
"(1) It gives further ammunition to his opponents to label him as an indecisive flip-flopper." Because the Bushies are working so hard to make this charge stick, it is important for Kerry to state his position clearly and forcefully, in order to refute the charge.
"(2) All polls, even Rasmussen, have the general public backing Bush over Kerry on Iraq by wide margins." Which is why it is important for Kerry to build up his own credentials and damage Bush's reputation on the issue. Also, while that is the case now, Kerry had actually caught Bush this on the issue this summer, or nearly so. Bush's wide lead is not predestined, but is a consequence of the campaign's dynamics. Kerry can catch him. As opposed to domestic policy, in which Bush has no chance of catching Kerry, so Kerry doesn't have to spend much effort winning that debate.
Finally, if Kerry sticks to health care and jobs, the public will recognize that he's avoiding the most important issue in the election. Even if he loses the argument, he's better off than if he ducks it.
|9.22.04 @ 11:27AM|#
BTW, has anyone noticed that Bush has absolutely nothing to say about the merits of Kerry's positions? He either blatantly lies about them, "He wants to cut and run," "He thinks the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power," or changes the subject.
Oh, and calls them "desperate."
"Holy shit! Karl, who can we get on the cable shows to use the word desperate?"
|9.22.04 @ 11:48AM|#
Andrew,
I am a file in a data folder. :P
|9.23.04 @ 2:33PM|#
Neither Mickey nor Goofy seem right for our two duopoly candidates. The way both of them have "failed up" they most remind me of Gladstone Gander.
Kevin