Bush = Child

Does anyone ever get the feeling that arguing with Bush (in person) would be like arguing with a child? He's asked whether it matters that Iraq had WMD and ties to Al Qaida (the motives for war) and he repeats, "Saddam was a bad man. A very very very bad man, " like Baboo on Seinfeld.

There's a reason why I haven't devoted much time to WMD or arguments over war motives on this blog - it's tiresome. It's like arguing with a child. It seems so clear cut to me...

We went to war because Iraq was a threat/connected to Al Qaida.

The postwar evidence shows conclusive proof that neither of these was true. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that the intelligence was hyped. Although Bush may not have "lied" as some claim, one can point to several statements he made that can clearly be pointed to as exaggerations or distortions.

If the President came out and said, "We went to war with Iraq because he had WMD. We now know that he does not. I'm going to get to the bottom of this," then that would be satisfactory.

Instead, he babbles:
"Saddam was a threat" "He tried to kill my Daddy" and "We have found the WMD".

He's a child - he clearly either needs his chew toy or a nap.

Why have his polls being dropping so quickly over the last year? Probably because most of American has realized that even Al Sharpton has a quicker wit than our President. On the same stage as Wesley Clark, John Kerry, or John Edwards, President Bush would look very amateur.

I haven't devoted enough time to Bush bashing lately, but rest assured, I still believe he's an illiterate spoiled frat boy.

John Kerry's 10-1 odds

Right now the odds of John Kerry not getting the nomination are 10-1. He has more money, the lead in most of the polls, and plenty of momentum.

Will his lack of electability hurt him? I doubt it - it took about 8 months for most Democrats to realize that Dean wasn't electable - right now Kerry is actually running on his own electability (ha ha).

Howard Dean - whose sole purpose in this race is to be the instrument of Kerry's destruction - is running out of money. Who's going to beat Kerry? John Edwards? Bah.

Unlike Howard Dean, Kerry will at least put up a fight against Bush - but I don't like our chances. How many Deaniacs will simply sit at home next November (especially after Kerry takes a sharp turn to the right in the coming months)?

This election is looking more and more like 2000 every day...a liberal vs a conservative, each pandering their way towards the center as November approaches...

Don't be surprised if Kerry calls a press conference tomorrow and claims responsibility for the invention of ketchup.

I LOVE religious fundamentalists!

They provide me with near daily amusement with their ridiculous behavior.

Georgia will be a worldwide punch line for a few months, just as Kansas was a couple of years ago.

The President won't understand what all of the commotion is about - he doesn't believe in evolution. Smart guy...

Kerry's personality

While I loath(!!!) personality focus stories, let's face it - swing voters often vote based on personality. Here's a Will Saletan piece on Kerry's awkwardness...

Get ready American - it's time to meet Al Gore part 2. He's the latest robotic contraption that the DNC will hoist upon the American public, and his name is John Kerry.

Wild accusations over at Kos

What, Kerry's running a dirty campaign? No way - not Kerry - he's never had a tendency to be nasty...

And it's official...with Howard Dean nearly out of money, it's time for me to go into Stop-Kerry mode.

How long will it be until I bail on Clark and jump about the Edwards bandwagon? Not too long...

Clark the lobbyist

As the Washington Post reported today (and many of us already knew, thanks to the Kerry campaign's relentless anti-Clark campaign in New Hampshire) Wesley Clark was a lobbyist after he retired. He even lobbied the Bush Administration.

I was going to write a scathing post about this - but then I thought about it and realized:

WHO CARES??? This man spent 30 years of his life serving his country and time after time passed up lucrative offer after lucrative offer in the private sector because he wanted to continue doing what he loved - protecting the United States of America...

If lobbying is a crime, then outlaw it. If it's morally reprehensible, then he who hasn't sinned can cast the first stone. Don't tell me John Kerry hasn't sold his soul to a few lobbyists in his time.

Some have charged Clark with using his high ranking government post to profit after retirement...If he was a lobbyist for a defense contractor (the path that many retired generals take), that would be somewhat questionable. But he wasn't. He lobbied on behalf of a security company. God forbid this man try to make a few bucks after he served his country for 30 years.

Just a warning...

I've got mono, and I'm on heavy pain killers/steroids - so if my posts are semi-incoherent over the next few days...well, there you go. Who knows, maybe it'll improve my writing...

1. Things to watch out for: an overabundance of "!!!" or capitalization....
2. Sympathy posts directed towards Howard Dean
3. The face slam (that's when I pass out on the keyboard while writing a post...should this happen, please call 911) It'll look something like this:
awjfapjwfojapsadsjogdgjopg jowaeut

Now for the question that begs to be asked: Where did I contract this bothersome virus?

Probably all of those public door knobs I licked...

Tearing Kerry apart

Mickey Kaus continues to tear John Kerry apart...

I'm starting to think that a Clark/Edwards or Edwards/Clark candidacy would be unstoppable. Not just electable and not just viable - UNSTOPPABLE. There are tons of Republicans out there who would vote for Clark or Edwards. I'm not talking about independents or swing voters - I'm talking about Republicans.

So far we've identified one potential suicide bomber - and he's Howard Dean. Could Lieberman be the second bomber? Will he try to take out Kerry (as Kaus suggested today).

Ok, so I'm starting to sound like Bill Saffire with the conspiracy theories - but it's all very fascinating to speculate about.

Jordan's on a roll

Here's some more Jordan Berman insight:

Imagine this Bill Saffire column: Gore backed Dean, knowing he couldn't win, so that he could replace Trippi with his own guy, use dean to bring down John Kerry, and pave the way for Clinton trojan horse Wes Clark to get the nomination and put hillary on the ticket (which he wouldn't do in a million years, but safire [thinks so]) Gore and Clinton reunited, nefariously controlling the Democratic Party~
I'd be surprised if he wasn't writing it right now.

As about 3% of your probably know, William Saffire has been writing columns for a while insinuating that Bill Clinton is pulling the strings behind the scenes and controlling every politician in the race in order to create favorable conditions for Hillary in 2008. These are the sort of wild accusations that anti-semites used to throw at the Jews...

What the &%!@???

Dean fired Joe Trippi today...

"3 weeks ago, Joe Trippi was God," says fellow blogger Jordan...How did this come about? Joe Trippi was supposed to be the messiah of internet campaigning...

The only thing I can think of is this:
Trippi ran Jerry Brown's campaign in 1992...and Brown stayed in the race until the convention. Last summer and this fall, Dean said several times, "I'm staying in this race until the convention." Maybe Dean and Trippi were at odds with that strategy...maybe Dean feels like Trippi is leading his campaign towards some far off long term goal when he really needs WINS WINS WINS, NOW NOW NOW. Just a thought...I'm probably way off...

Hey government: Please tell me what's appropriate to watch/hear!

The FCC is strengthening it's regulations with relation to "offensive" speech. Thus continues the re-puritanization of American that began under Reagan...

Do any of these so-called Libertarian Republicans have anything to say about this? William Kristol? I'm looking directly at you...

The government SHOULD NOT tell us what's moral. They SHOULD NOT tell us what marriage can or cannot be. It's not their business...

A couple of items worth reading

Here are a couple of Kausfiles posts worth reading:

It was fun, in the early reports, to hear reporters, following the pre-vote story line (and obvious press preference) in trying to subtly portray the N.H. results as an encouraging showing for the talented young John Edwards and a disastrous night for the hapless Wesley Clark, even though both of them got more or less exactly the same number of votes. ... The script was later adjust to accommodate the reality that the numbers were not cooperating....12:58 A.M.
It's true. The media already had their story, and it was that Edwards was surging and Clark was done. They stuck with it even though Clark edged out Edwards for 3rd place. It's sickening.

Let the Turkey Shoot Begin! Reporters dread the idea of spending the next six months covering Kerry (the expression "Shoot me now" was heard when his picture came on the screen). The only way out--the only way to make the race interesting--is to present voters with a ... fuller picture of the New Hampshire winner. ... CeCi Connolly, our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you! Doesn't Kerry remind you of ... Al Gore? I think he does! ... And why do I feel the Democrats are due for the worst case of Buyer's Remorse in the modern history of the country! ... P.S.: Entry forms are still available for the Kerry Withdrawal Contest. ... 12:51 A.M.
Start Here's media outlook predicts that John Kerry will actually morph into Al Gore (in the eyes of the media) within 2 to 3 days. They simply don't like this guy - and with good reason. What has he ever done except awkwardly stumbled through awkward speeches...

Joe Lieberman sucks. But why?

There is a general sense amongst liberals that Joe Liberman sucks. We hate him. But why do we hate him? The reasons are worth exploring.

Is he a moderate? No, not at all. Sure, he explored school vouchers at one time and supported the war - but so did ultra-liberal Dick Gephardt. His voting record is just as liberal as John Kerry's. Plain and simple - he's a liberal.

It's his attitude that stinks. He complains about Hollywood violence. I LOVE Hollywood violence, and so do most people. He rants about integrity and morality and other nonsense. So is it true? Does Joe Lieberman have integrity or morality?

Well, he rants about God 24/7, but that hardly gives one morality. It's one's actions that account for that.

And Lieberman's actions are repulsive. He's a complete sellout to big business. His record of pandering to business and is second to very few in the Senate, Democrat OR Republican. He's a crooked politician. He's a Democrat who sells out his values to huge corporations - and for that, some people call him a moderate or a Clinton Democrat. He's nothing. We have moderates in this race - their names are John Edwards and to a lesser extent, Wesley Clark. But Joe Lieberman is in a category of his own...

A Dean suicide bomb?

Here's what Noam Scheiber over at TNR thinks about Dean's upcoming role in the race:

I'm guessing no amount of spin is going to save Dean after his double-digit drubbing in New Hampshire. His numbers were already headed in the wrong direction in several of the February 3 states he once led, and this result is hardly going to reverse that trend.
But Dean still can do his duty as a loyal member of the Democratic Party and as a patriotic citizen of this country: Take out John Kerry. As I wrote yesterday, Kerry is a guy who a) couldn't take the one punch that was thrown at him last year, and b) hasn't taken a serious punch since recovering the front-runner mantle in Iowa. If Kerry goes on to win the nomination, those two thing would seem to foreshadow a disastrous general election outcome for the Democrats. But if Dean doesn't spend his remaining days on the campaign trial trying to save us from that grim eventuality, I'm not sure who can.

Dean's got plenty of money. He'll probably finish 3rd or worse in most of the Feb. 3rd states, effectively ending his candidacy. Why not take Kerry out with him?

I'm starting to wonder - is John Kerry that much more electable than Howard Dean? Surely he's a bit more, with the national security credentials. But what are those worth? Has Vietnam experience ever played a major role in any campaign? Ever? Not really. Draft dodging didn't hurt Clinton much...

So where does that leave Kerry? As a senator with no accomplishments - except for a long "presidential" face and some big eyebrows...

Please...

I'm watching a Clark speech and it's amusing how he's positioned minorities behind him on the podium...

It's also amusing how Larry King still uses the word "Messrs" do describe a group of men...

Joe Lieberman claimed a tie for 3rd with Edwards and Clark...ha ha ha...

John Kerry

Ok - so it's time to go into full John Kerry bashing mode...

What has this guy ever done? Voted against the first Gulf War (???), voted FOR this war...his voting record is a bit more liberal than Teddy Kennedy's...

His speeches are more boring than Al Gore's (post Convention when he started yelling).

He panders like it's his job...

What has he ever accomplished in the Senate? Can you name anything? Can any of his supporters name anything?

John Edwards/Wesley Clark can beat Bush. Any combination of those two can beat Bush...

3rd place baby!

As arbitrary and insignificant as 3rd place is - it means the media won't ask Clark to get out of the race! And Clark has pulled into 3rd place with 62% reporting!

Of course, like I said in the last post, I doubt this will help Clark much - Kerry seems to have the veterans locked up. Sometimes, even the candidate with the dream resume just doesn't sell for whatever reason. (great example - John Glenn)

Other times, the most talented candidate just doesn't sell (I'm talking about John Edwards here)

Is John Kerry the frontrunner now? I suppose so. Who will this race come down to?

Right now I think it will come down to either Edwards vs Kerry or Dean vs Kerry. Clark's kind of out in the cold - unless he can pull off some surprising wins on the 3rd of Feb...

Time to face the music

Let's face it - Clark self-destructed as a candidate over the last week with bizarre statement after bizarre statement. Just as Clark's entrance into the race seemed to negate the reasoning behind a Kerry candidacy, Kerry's resurgence turned and negated the reasoning behind a Clark candidacy (in many voters' minds).

The most interesting thing about this race is that people who voted strategically - that is, people who voted for the most electable candidate, voted mostly for Kerry and Dean.

Personally, I think it's Clark and Edwards...

Clark's down by less than 200 votes right now - but if he doesn't climb up and beat John Edwards - by at least one vote - the media will let him have it and effectively end his run...

My GOD THE INSANITY!!!

I just thought of something...if the polls in New Hampshire are true, and 30% are voting for Dean, what does that say about the so-called "Deaniacs"?

They're insane!!! After a week of media drubbing, they still like this guy??? They still think he's electable??? My god!

The greater implications are this: Many of Howard Dean's supporters are SO CRAZY that they won't even bother to show up and vote for the eventual Democratic nominee (not Dean). Somewhere Nader is standing with his arms wide open - will Deaniacs seek the comfort of his brand of BS-idealism? I'm starting to wonder if they will...

This never was about beating George Bush...this was about Dean worship. The guy touches a nerve with some people - they idealize him. They'll follow him off a cliff, if necessary.

More on the South

Here's a tidbit from a conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan column at TNR:

I'm so tired of the entire political world having to worry about the way they appear to Southerners. It's gotten ridiculous. The minute anyone asks whether a drawling Southerner like John Edwards can catch on in the North, he's dismissed as an anti-Southern bigot. So why should the Deans have to apologize for being Yankees? It's a diverse country. Let the regional differences hang out. Stop trying to force them all into homogeneous, inoffensive boxes.

He's right - it's sickening that candidates have to throw in abundant references to God and Guns to get elected - and they can't even criticize the Confederate flag (I'm talking about the stars and bars - the one that represents the Southern fight for segregation). So now, if I run for office (especially in the South), I have to play these maniacal games so some simpletons don't think I'm an elitist (which I am...)? Here's the perfect candidate for the south:

1. Not too confident - jovial. Don't want to appear too educated or intelligent. That might turn off some voters who think you've had too many years of book learnin'. Randomly insert folksy phrases into sentences.

2. Three words: Jesus, Jesus, and Jesus. Mention him every 2 minutes at least. If asked in a debate, insert his name as your favorite philosopher, cook, dentist, real estate agent, flight attendant, or urologist. Denounce evolution, or at least avoid mention of it. If the subject comes up, say "I don't know what those fancy pants northeastern elitists think, but I once heard a story about a human foot print inside a dinosaur footprint." You're for prayer in schools. Cover up your subtle anti-semitism with strong support of Israel.

3. Guns - Make sure you are seen shooting them. Kill animals - but not quail or geese - that's too civilized and northeastern. Shoot only deer, possum, and the occasional squirrel.

4. If a controversial question comes up, just say it should be left to the states.

5. Never question the wisdom of Darryl Worley - let him help craft all of your foreign policy positions.

6. If you have a southern accent, force a stronger one. If you don't, make sure you always say, "Me and Billy Bob" and "I'm doing good." "Aint" is another good word to insert, along with the occasional "Hell".

There you have it. If you follow those 6 steps, you just might be a viable candidate in the South.

Kay report

The Bush administration can't hide from this report (turned in by one of their hawkish Republican buddies...).

It say that the weapons weren't there. It blames the CIA. The White House will probably blame the CIA, but word is that they can't fire George Tenet because he knows too much...so they're caught in a bind, and hoping that the media won't pick up on this...

Of course Tony Blair should also share the blame for this...

Stats

I'm checked my stats today - and I'm up to about 400 hits this month (I made a math error when i added them up last time).

Anyway, this program called B-Stat keeps track of my stats. It's interesting because it allows me to see where people were linked to my blog. Most of the time it's blank - they're probably getting the link from my AIM profile. But quite often there are some bizarre links. For example, my blog has come up high on some weird google searches:

Someone searched for: "deaf person tell about politics about job or business" and my post about Paul O'Neill came up.

Another person searched for "Kerry votes against 87 billion for troops" and linked to my blog.

Yet another person searched for "Dennis Kuccinich" on the Spanish version of Google. Apparently I spelled it wrong at some point...it's linked to an article where I compared the neocon's strategy in Iraq to Dennis Kucinich's.

My site turned up #19 on both "Political Action Committees, McCain-Feingold" and ""blair hull" atlantic".

"Max Cleeland compared Osama" and "Why did Cleeland lose" turned up.

The funniest thing was that I was somehow linked to on this blog...I can't find the link on the page or anywhere in the archives...but i'm sure it's there somewhere.

The list goes on and on. I find this endlessly interesting...with absolutely no effort whatsoever my site is beamed to people interested in information on weird subjects...whether they got what they wanted is questionable...

The John Kerry is electable myth

I've never thought that. Joe Conason seems to think so, but it seems like rubbish to me.

The list of possible "unbiased media" themes:

1. Dukakis' Lt. Gov.
Meaning: John Kerry = Michael Dukakis.
2. Waffler
Look at the war vote, look at his changing AA positions.
3. Elitist
Well he's from the Northeast, he must be an elitist!
4. Aloof
Same thing, but a different word.
5. Stiff
Al Gore Part II
6. Mass. Liberal
Heard that one before.

So there you have it. Enough ammunition to propell Bush to a victory.

"Wait," you say, "Isn't Bush from his own region as well? Doesn't it hurt Bush that he's a "Texas Conservative" as much as it hurts Kerry that he's a "Massachusettes Liberal"?

Sure - if the Republicans ran a candidate from New York or somewhere liberal, they'd win in a landslide. But it doesn't really work the same way in reverse. The swing states are in the "culturally conservative" midwest. These people aren't turned off by a southern accent as much as they are by "northeastern elitism" (which is an imaginary construct created by the Republican Party and supported by the media).

What Clark must do

He must beat John Edwards. Even if only by a few votes, he MUST finish in 3rd place.

Why? Not for any real reason except that the media will call for his beheading if he does not.

All of the polls I've seen in New Hampshire are very SOLID. That is, each candidate's support is solidly behind them. There are few undecideds. Iowa was very fluid - that's why it was botched by the media and the polls. New Hampshire isn't. It looks like the weather won't be a factor either, since the storm will probably hold off until later.

New Hampshire work

What did I do in New Hampshire? What does one do when they enter a foreign state and join a political campaign?

1. Arrive at a campaign office and meet the staff.
2. Canvass - This involves walking from door to door and giving out literature/DVDs. If the voter is home, you talk to them and politely try to convince them that Clark was the best. You ask if they want a yard sign or if they want to volunteer.
3. Phone bank - There were many different types of phone calls that I made. Some were made to voters who had expressed interest in Clark in the past. Others were cold calls inviting registered Democrats/Independents to come to Clark events. The scripts they gave us were obnoxious, so often I made my own script up.
4. Visibility - Make signs, then go out to a strategic location (a busy intersection usually) and hold them up. Wave and cheer to passing cars (who often honk their horns in support).
5. Rallies - Go to a rally and make noise. Maybe get a autograph or a handshake (I got both). Maybe get slammed up against Mary Steenburgen and talk to her for a bit. Shake Ted Danson's hand semi-enthusiastically. Often rallies are accompanied/preceded by visibility on a nearby street corner.
6. Data entry - Never did this, but plenty of people did.

Possibilities

I'm going to go through some results and their possible implications:

My favorite:

1. Clark
2. Dean
3. Kerry
4. Edwards

This won't happen in a million years, but I hope it does. Dean becomes the "comeback kid". Clark wins and gets the mo'. Kerry loses the mo' and the "front runner" status.

1. Dean
2. Kerry
3. Clark
4. Edwards

This result would REALLY confuse the media. And it's actually highly likely to occur. Dean's been coming back in the polls over the last few days. The way I see it, both Dean and Kerry are highly unelectable - so they're competing for the same semi-rational Bush hating voters who don't really comprehend the difficulty of defeating an incumbent President. Of course, there is plenty of overlap in this race. Edwards/Clark share Southern supporters. Kerry/Clark share veterans. Clark/Dean share the "anti-war" people. Clark's message over the last few days on the stump has basically been, "I'm a Democrat, and I can win." To prove he's a Democrat, he 1. panders a bunch, and 2. yells "That's what OUR Democratic Party believes" a bunch. That strategy seems designed to counter negative attacks that other candidates are throwing at him - namely that he's a Republican.

The most likely outcome (and my new prediction):
1. Kerry
2. Dean
3. Edwards
4. Clark

Implications: Kerry remains the front-runner. No clear "Anti-Kerry" emerges from the pack. The media, unsatisfied with this situation and not satiated by Lieberman's withdrawal, call for Clark to withdraw. Dean continues on with his war chest for a couple of months against Kerry and we have a battle between two unelectable foes. Edwards plays a perimeter role but cannot eke out enough votes to take over the race.

"Iffy advance work"

Talking Points Memo noticed some "iffy advance work" before the Clark event in Derry, NH Friday. I was part of that advance work (putting up signs, waving them at the street corner, decorating) and I have to say I agree...it wasn't organized. It was chaotic. I'm not sure how organized the other campaigns are, but Clark's campaign doesn't seem to have it. Here's TPM's graf:

I haven't had a chance to write about it yet. But I was struck by the iffy advance work for the Clark event that I went to on Friday, and what I've heard about a few others. (The rally on Sunday was much, much better.) For all the money Clark's raised and the polished Internet presence, this is still a campaign that was cobbled together quickly and then had significant internal shake-ups in its first couple months. I don't want to judge on limited evidence -- which mine very much is. But it's just left me wondering whether it might be a sign of a broader problem.
(The media swarmed around this Friday rally. Al Hunt, Paul Begala, Robert Novak, Judy Woodruff, Mickey Kaus, and Josh Marshall were among the big names)

I overheard a conversation between two Clark senior staffers on Saturday. They were talking about the distance between Clark and his campaign. The campaign and the General himself are two autonomous entities - each operating without the consent of the other. I'm sure this is common amongst many campaigns, but Clark's campaign seems to stretch this to a new level. The problem is that Clark, a political neophyte, didn't have a network of political connections/friends/associates whom he can trust to run the campaign. So, late in the game, he hired pretty much anyone who would work for him.

And that's the biggest difference between Clark and Kerry/Edwards/Dean. The latter have a network of trusted aids who they've worked with for (in some cases) decades. They can delegate to these aids and have a good idea what's going on underneath them at the grassroots level. Clark has no idea what's going on in his campaign, and if he knew, he might not be pleased.

More predictions

Here are my updated predictions:

Kerry - 35
Edwards 25
Clark 19
Dean 18