Hunting The Muse

Colour Washington blue. Gore won by just under 6% with another 5-6% (I can't recall) going Nader.
High local unemployment, lots of angry anti-war people and loads of suddenly politically active Deaniacs make this a pretty solid blue state. Look for the margin here to be over ten percent, with Patty Murray holding her Senate seat and Democratic pickups in the 5th and 8th Congressional districts.

Yeah, if I were making a projection map, it would look a bit different. I'm sure WA and OR would go for Kerry. MN and WI too.

There's also been some more polls coming out that show Kerry ahead in MO and OH.

I agree...

Washington and Oregon are definitely SOLID BLUE STATES, I don't see them being toss ups. Kerry can spend light money there and will carry them.

Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, although these will be tougher for Kerry, the economy and jobs situation may help him grab one or two of these.

And regarding Ohio and West Virginia...when it's all said and done, I'd be surprised if Bush can take these two again. Bush's exporting manufacturing jobs had him nervous the last time he went into supposed republican teritory of Ohio, i.e., tons of protests in the republican half of Ohio. I think Kerry, as long as he doesn't make any big mistakes, will win by a signficant amount. I'm not saying it will be a blow out, but I think once people see Kerry for who he is...he's fought against big money special interests and had as his focus education and people who aren't upper-tier, once this is communicated, I think independents will even see him as a likable candidate, a good person to take over Bush's throne...lol

I think it's clear that by election day we are going to see a 1984 style blowout with Kerry in the Mondale position. Bush landslide very likely, especially when the entire nation knows Kerry's voting record and reputation in Massachusetts

WHy is it Bush that is exporting manufactoring jobs overseas? Both trade pacts in question were signed by a democrat and Kerry said in December that no one could do anything about outsourcing. get real.

bush will win a landslide....he will only lose 8 or 10 states.....kerry will be looking like dukakis or mondale by november.

bush at least 350 electoral votes if not more

Color Oregon and Washington Blue...
More and more, several various polls consider Wisconsin and Minnesota to be Blue, along with Ohio (a bush state) being blue too.

Check one of my other blog entries... for now, Oregon is actually red. Bush leads.

I would agree that Washington and Oregon will swing for Kerry as they usually do. Usually those states have a rather strong Democratic turnout in the Portland and Sea-Tac metro areas which overpowers the suburban and rural Republican vote. However, I would not forget the fact that Oregon was won by a relatively slim margin, and security issues are now at the forefront of many voters minds when they enter the voting booth. Based on this I could see Bush pulling it out assisted by the strength of his grass roots effort.

As for the post about Kerry fighting big money- I just can't buy it. He's a Democrat, so he can claim to stand up for the little guy, and his war record gives him a certain appeal. Nevertheless, fighting big money is hard to do when you have the abundant wealth that he and his wife enjoy. I feel that issue makes him more vulnerable, and I would drop that issue if I were in his place.

Nov, 2004 will be my first presdential election vote. Am registered as a democrat and I can't wait to vote. In my observation I think Kerry will win pensylvani, all he needs high turn out in pitsburg and philadelphia.

It will come down to 3 states: PA,FL,OH
Whoever wins 2 of 3 wins the election.

I don't think i or even some of my friends can vote democrat this time, i don't think i can trust kerry to protect us against islamic extreamest.

mg, we're in more danger from terrorism (and islamic extremists) *because* of Bush's policies. Kerry's policies would make us safer.

I don't like the phrase "islamic extremist". The problem is that they're terrorists and extremist. The problem isn't that they're islamic. It's like calling someone a "jewish criminal"; ultimately racist because the adjective implies causality.

Those who say we are safe because of the bushman, think again we are safe because we are lacky. The world is a dangerous place because of the bushman's policy of pre-emptive srike. The more we kill people in Irag the more we are hated. We had a regime change in Irag and I think we need a regime change in our beloved country U.S.A. Together we can safe our country and the world by electing John Kerry for President of the United State of American.

I don't really buy into the more enemies we kill in iraq, the more hated we are in the world. We did n't respond much in the 90's, yet 9/11 still happened,hatred. i don't believe that pleasing our enemies makes us more safe.
I don't feel more safe with kerry, due to the fact he was for the early 90's military base closures, cuts in intelligence and many weapons systems. none of that makes us safer.
lastly president clinton, rep and dems including kerry and daschel were for regime change in iraq clinton used to tell us during the 90's how important it was before something horrable would happen, i beleved him and the dems.now the dems are against so i can't blame bush for something i and many dems were for.
Just looking for a reason to support kerry.

May be someone will buy this. Before president Clinton we had president Bush senior as president, during his term he carried out the Gulf war and made connection with oil reach Saudi family. Remember Saudis are our friends verbally, they tells us they are fighting terror but in really they preach hate. sixteen of the nineteen hijarkers are from Saudi and none from Irag. Remember their is no connection between 911 and Sadam. I wish I was advising the president, you know what I could tell him, "tear down your cabinet".

I think in the 90's we put a lot of effort into stopping terrorist attacks, and we stopped a lot of them. I don't think anyone is saying that the terrorists wouldn't have tried to attack us if Gore was elected. But, our prevention policy might have *prevented* 9/11. I don't think the problem with Bush is that he responded to the attacks. It's the way he responded that is bad, and that's the case that Kerry is making. As for the cuts, Kerry was for *smaller* cuts than what the republicans were going for - remember it was a different time then. None of the dems were against regime change, they were just against a full-bore invasion because they knew that it would make things worse, as it did. I think there's a huge difference between kerry and bush, and that kerry's policies will be vastly superior to bush's.

I think presidential contest for 2004 is over. With Edward on the ticket, I smell victory. So long mr Bushman enjoy your retirement.

I don't see how anyone can say Kerry's policies are superior to president bush's policies, the main difference is president bush has policies and a plan, kerry has neither. Every speech is a carbon copy of the last, "were going to do things better were going to do things smarter" how about a real plan with some concrete details . nobody ever said their was a connection between 9/11 and sadam, but al queda and sadam, the 911 comission show that this is true.Two weeks ago polish soldures found many cyclosarin warheads in iraq, i guess since WMD's are found, Bush was right to go to iraq, the 90's policies were lame we arrested a few after the first wtc boming, then we bombed an asprin factory in sudan after somali and fired a missile or two at an abandoned training camp after the u.s.s. cole, the topper is three times clinton was offered up bin laden by the sudan goverment and refused, but i guess if i want to be a democrat i must ignore all that and be content with third grade arguments. i'm done here.

Mr Mg are you from another planet, the Bushman's own weapon inspector decared "no evidence of WMD in Irag. Their is no Aspirin facory in Somalia, the Aspirin factory that was bombed by the Clinton administration was in Sudan. Even a grade studan will understand the difference between Somalia and Sudan. I wonder why most of the Bush supporters are either ignorant or just idiots. Remember all smart people vote democrat.

How can any of you even trust that Kerry will actually employ the policies he claims? He voted for the war, stands against it, voted for the Patriot Act, stands against it, voted for NCLB stands against it, voted for tax hikes 350 times as Senator. To trust Kerry is just plain ignorant.

Hey Pete, I'll go ahead and assume you're on the level, even though most of the people who say what you repeated are deliberately being disingenuous.

Kerry voting for the war - what Kerry voted for was the ability to go to war, not to actually send the troops in. That distinction is easy to make fun of, but it's important to realize that basically what he was voting for was *brinksmanship*. It's a strategy that worked in the cold war, when we built up billions of dollars worth of nuclear weapons, to scare the hell out of the Soviet leadership, even though we had no intention of using it. Kerry and others who voted for the war were trying to build credibility to threaten Hussein and make him fold, and the vote was consistent with that. It also explains why he voted against the Levin amendment, because it took away the brinksmanship card. Bush is the one who went ahead and invaded when he didn't have to, anyway. I think that we can fairly criticize the Dem senators for trusting Bush to behave responsibly when many of us felt it was obvious even before the Iraq vote that he wouldn't. But, it wasn't the same as "voting for the war".

Criticizing him for voting for the Patriot Act is a fair criticism. However, that vote passed 99-1. There are a lot of people and communities that are against the full Patriot Act right now, and we should expect our leadership to respond to that. Kerry has, along with many other senators, Democrat and Republican alike. Bush, on the other hand, is demanding the Act be made permanent.

I am not an expert on NCLB, but the general criticism is that there is a lot about the act that would be good if it were funded. The choice to not fund it is separate from the Act itself. From what I understand, Bush passed the Act and then chose not to fund it, which is what is putting all the strain on the states. This is most of how people argue against it. I've more often heard of the need to revise it rather than dump it entirely. That's not a flip-flop.

And the tax hike stat is complete lunacy. A large number of those votes are votes to keep the tax rates the same, not raise them. Others are votes for bills that had a combinations of cuts and hikes. Kerry would definitely vote for a bill that would cut taxes for everyone below 200k/year, and hike them for people above 200k/year, and the GOP would count that as a tax hike, when for everyone I know (and probably you), it would be a tax cut.

Hope that helps.
tunesmith

the bushman lied about the war in Irag, who is a plip-floper. Mr bush changed his position of going it a lone by seeking help from the U.N. and other countries, certainly mr bush is a flip-floper. Mr bush a lowed some existing stem cell lines that were available to be used for research and a gain later, he abolished stem cell research, now who is a flip-floper. I can go on again, and again.

Thanks
nss

President Bush has done a tremendous job working to make America and the world a safer place. He has eliminated brutal regimes in Iraq and Afgahnistan and has been the world leader in the fight on terrorism. At home taxes are lower for all Americans and our economy is in a strong recovery. Mr. Bush brought what we needed into Washington 4 years ago. He was a Washington outsider as opposed to Kerry who has been here way to long and is scared to talk about his 20 year Senate record. Mr. Bush had no problem telling us what his record was as Governor of Texas. Kerry's problem is he is way to far left to win once his voting record is fully unveiled.

I believe that after the President gives his acceptance speech at the convention a solid majority of Americans will realize that George W. Bush is a man of integrity and one who will fight for what he believes in rather than do whatever the Gallup Poll says is popular. Mark my word George W. Bush will be reelected in a Ronald Reagan style victory as we enjoyed in 80 and 84. I look forward to another for years with Bush leading our great nation.

With respect, I must strongly agree on nearly every point. Documented fact contradict the popular image of President Bush and his policies. The Taliban are moving back into Afghanistan, crossing the Pak-Afghani border practically at will, free to harass what troops we have there with impunity. After committing atrocities in the same places Saddam Hussein committed some of his, we now have to prove we’re better than the brutal regime we took down. Tax cuts are benefitting only a fraction of the American people. Calling anyone in the Bush family, many of whom have been politically active since World War II, a Washington outsider makes no sense.

Bush doesn’t talk about how he as Governor made Texas the most polluted state in the union, how he screwed the Tigua Indians, or the questionable handling of his blind trust during his term. SEC documents also provide a different answer on the question of his integrity. As for polls, how do you explain the poll he read that told him not to admit to a mistake?

And if Kerry is afraid of his voting record, he shouldn’t have to put it online: http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/issues/legislation.html

Or you can look here if you’re extra concerned about impartiality: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

What keeps me wondering is where all these misconceptions come from and why so many accept them as gospel. Do people believe whatever they’re told if the speaker’s voice is twangy enough?

Or you can look here if you’re extra concerned about impartiality: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

Yeah THAT is the link I would check out. And look at DEFENSE, anything important that I looked at he choose NOT TO VOTE...what a leader. I checked out the first link to which is a kerry sponsored site, so of course it won't have any negative voting records there. Go to the second link and take a journey through Kerry's voting record. Or better yet click on the Interest Group Rating link to see who he supports and doesn't support. I know that NCOA is an Army Interest Group, and they gave him a 0 for 2003. So what does that say? You take your own journey, see if he supports the same ideals as you do!

The GOP is a dinosaur breathing its last breath of asteroid ash....It will be extinct (at least on the presidential level) beginning in 2004 or 2008....It's so, so simple....."It's the demographics, stupid!!!"....Growth in non-white immigrant numbers (esp. Hispanic) will doom the GOP to the ash-heap....

An amazing article from VDare.com:

http://www.vdare.com/pb/swept_away.htm

Originally written in 1997 (in "The National Review"), it pretty much establishes that beginning in 2004 or 2008, the GOP will never have a chance of winning the White House again, given its present course/policies, the immigration influx, and demographic trends.

From it, TABLE 1 from 1997 which predicted that the GOP (i.e. Bush) would get 50.7% of the popular vote (or less):

http://www.vdare.com/pb/swept_away_table1.htm

He actually got 48.53% and even adding in Buchanan's 0.4%, that's only about 49%. Actual 2000 results by ethnic group here (note: Hispanics include Cubans):

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/election2000/eae2000-all.html

And yet another excellent article refuting the GOP Kool-Aid drinkers' pipe-dream that Mexicans can be lured to vote Republicans:

http://www.vdare.com/awall/mexicans.htm

Note: I am definitely neither liberal or a Dem, but I can read....if you are a Republican or Bush supporter...abandon them quick and vote for Peroutka of the Constitution Party:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Jeff, the Interest Ratings Page on Project Vote Smart shows the ratings that special interest groups give to congresscritters. There's even a disclaimer on the page: "Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups are biased. They do not represent a non-partisan stance."

As for the NCOA's Interest Rating, Jeff cited their rating for 2003 only. In 2001 and 2002, they gave him a 100 percent rating. How should we interpret that? Were there any bills in the Senate that had anything to do with the welfare of non-commissioned officers? Were they punishing him because he didn't support the flag-burning amendment? You know what Mark Twain said about statistics. These numbers in particular can mean anything.

Kerry's 19 year voting record is more than enough to scare me away, and I can't think of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 when Bush launched our war on terror. On another note, the president doesn't run or even control the economy, I hate to break it to you. The economy runs itself and the most a president can do is try their best to aid it--which Bush has done and it is indeed working despite what some people would have you think. And when I think about all the turmoil (both in terms of terrorism and economy) in other--much more liberal and much more socialist (is there even a difference anymore?)--countries around the world, particularly in Europe, I am only reaffirmed moreso that President Bush and the Republican party are clearly the better choice for America.

Pat, would you at least try to make an honest argument rather than repeating talking points? People here are a little too smart for that stuff. First, the anthrax attacks were terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Second, the presence or lack of terrorist attacks are not the sole report card on which to grade our president's terrorism policy. Another would be, has our foreign policy inhibited or increased the demand for terrorist behavior worldwide? Third, if the economy works under its own power, you can't take a slightly increasing economy and the president's economic policy and conclude that the policy aided the economy. Who's to say the economy wouldn't be performing better with a differently structured tax cut? Who's to say it wouldn't be performing better with no tax cut? Deficts are a huge drag on our economy - a real economist (the ones who actually know how monetary policy works) could more easily make the case that Bush's style of tax cuts have actually hindered the economic recovery. And, more terrorist turmoil around the world being evidence that Bush is a good president? I thought Bush was supposed to be GOOD for combatting terrorism. Finally, liberal doesn't mean socialist. Look up the two terms; you'll find they are very different.

Hiya!

Is there anyway to make a more current map? I can't figure it out . .

tunesmith, the terrorism around the world is a perfect example of why bush is an effective anti-terrorism president, because though terrorism still exists, it is now occuring where those whom are weak on fighting it are--like france and russia and not america--and our policies have inhibited the terrorists clearly, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are finally taking steps to crack down on terrorists in their borders, and Libya's wmd program is dismantled. And of course Iraq is being purged of the terrorists within its borders, whom have little to no chance of hitting us here at home now and you can thank President Bush for that. The jobs report is out, our economy is indeed growing despite the many setbacks we have been dealt that are in no remote way President Bush's fault, such as the inherited recession and 9/11 obviously. I'm not saying any of this to convince you because I believe, and this is a rash, personal and probably not quite warranted claim but nonetheless I believe, that you are one-dimensional, will only see things your way and are completely dominated by your bias towards Kerry. Now of course you won't admit it and of course you're not the only one, many liberals and conservatives alike are exactly the same but I was originally on your side, originally being democratic, but still open-minded, and as I began to look closer and closer at things it became indisputably clear to me that something is wrong with today's democratic leaders and that President Bush is no doubt America's best choice. So for anyone just believe what they hear, be it from me, tunesmith or anyone, just take a closer look for yourself and I know more of you than not will find that I am right, whether it is posted or not.

"believe" should read "believing" in my last sentence

That's pretty rich - disagree with me, and then point out our disagreement as evidence that I am one-dimensional. Why wouldn't you be? Another classic logic flaw; you're accepting your side as truth without proving it, and then criticizing my supposed inability to accept "truth". Don't confuse allegation with fact.

If you're going to accuse me of being ruled by my bias towards Kerry, then you need to prove that my bias towards Kerry has caused my opinions, rather than the opposite: that my opinions have resulted in me preferring Kerry.

You've got one particular thinking pattern here, that Bush's policies, by definition, have had no negative effect. For example: the recession being solely an inherited phenomenon, not anything that was exacerbated by Bush. Or, terrorism being a spontaneously occuring phenomenon, rather than something driven by the demand and appetite of terrorists reacting to a cause. This tautological belief in Bush is what needs to be challenged, not my supposed blind faith in Kerry.

Terrorism and death by terrorist attacks are increasing, not decreasing. Overseas respect and belief in America is decreasing, not increasing. We can argue correlation versus causation on those two points, but I honestly do believe that our foreign policy is, while not the sole cause, a large contributing factor towards the increased demand for terrorist attacks. It's the fault of our administration's attitudes - that the effort to lead inclusively is seen as the same as asking for a permission slip, that seeking to understand our enemy is the same as making excuses for them, and that seeking to engage in diplomacy is the same as collaborating with them and inferior to smashing them. It's simplistic, black-or-white, idiotic, and self-defeating. And it's putting us in more danger. If your one metric in determining that Bush is better is that there have been no major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, even though there are more terrorists, more hatred of America, and more opportunity for them to gather dangerous weapons to attack us with, then I fear that if your views prevail, you'll be proven wrong by an event far worse than 9/11.

I thought "and this is a rash, personal and probably not quite warranted claim but nonetheless I believe" made it clear that I was making an allegation and not stating provable fact, my anger at your ignorance will now force me to use a personal attack. You are just a moron.

The more hatred around the world is because of irresponsible governments brainwashing their people and blaming the US as the reason for all evil and everything wrong in the world. And the more bush fights this the more those who seek to brainwash their population against us are going to do just that. The last thing terrorists want is a free open society and democracy where the heart of terrorism is, because no longer will people be encouraged to blow innocent people up and no longer will the US be painted as the "Great Devil." The last thing the terrorists want is freedom in the places where they plan and train and that is just what Bush is giving them. You are not the only one who wanted a less aggressive war on terror and opposed president bush's "rush to war" as you might call it. Vladimir Putin and Jaques Chirac are on your side as well. And now their coming under attack from terrorists, not because they fought terrorism to the fullest exent like the US and bush...but becaues they DIDN'T. Your ideas are already in practice in many countries around the world. And those whom practice them are much worse off than we are under Bush.

my second to last sentence should say "And now their COUNTRIES are coming under attack..."

you can blame the "sctructure" of the tax cuts or what have you tunesmith...but remember that its Congress that ultimately has the say in these things, not the President. They have to plan out the budget and pass the tax-cuts. But I'm sure you already knew that. And if Bush hasn't inhibited terrorism over the last 4 years, its at least not any worse than during Cliton's term. Let's not forget about the USS Cole and the suicide bomber in the US Marines barracks. And Clinton did nothing but send 2 bombs on a few $5 tents and say that he had paid them back. That is what Kerry's new "softer" war on terror will ultimately add up to. and it will only pave the way for another, and possibly more catastrophic 9/11. At least Bush is actively pursuing terrorism and trying to actively destroy it before the next attack, instead of waiting for the next attack to take innocent American lives to retaliate. Open your eyes, and you'll find that at least on the issue of security, Bush is the obvious choice due to Kerry's history of voting to weaken the military and the country.

"Allegation/fact" referred to your entire point of view, not your opinion of my pro-Kerry bias. And, your anger forcing you to make a personal attack? What kind of schizophrenia is that?

I'm not advocating a weaker effort against terrorism, far from it. I don't know why people think Kerry advocates that either when he's firmly on record for the opposite. The whole point is that Iraq was a distraction from our actions against terrorists, and robbed resources from it. Compare Bush's actions to what was recommended from Hart/Rudman's commission. If I wanted weaker efforts against terrorism, I'd be disagreeing with Hart, but I don't. Do you?

I can understand people responding well to the administration's rhetoric. Being tough on terrorism, hooray for that. Promoting democracy worldwide, that's mostly good too (except for the bit about some of those populations probably just electing an America-hating strongman). But Bush's words are extremely divorced from his actions. Being tough on terror while deferring to Pakistan and withdrawing resources from Afghanistan, to fight Iraq? Invading Iraq for selling weapons they didn't have to terrorists they didn't know? These actions have weakened America's image and safety, not strengthened it.

Bush realizes we cant just keep killing the terrorists that are produced, we must stop them from being produced, and the troubled middle east is a cesspool for terrorism and will remain that way so long as the middle east remains the way it does. Correcting the backward and hateful ways of the middle east govts are the key to stopping terrorism and the first and best place to start is probably the worst govt in the middle east, the most evil and cruel, Iraq. Iraq being the most notorious and cruel govt in the middle east was a key supporting pillar in the cesspool middle east that breeds terror. Knocking out that pillar of support is the best and the first place one needs to start if one ever hopes to annihilate terrorism. I know you refuse to acknowledge that but I hope the readers and voters out there will not be so foolhardy as you, tunesmith.

"I don't know why people think Kerry advocates that either when he's firmly on record for the opposite." Well Tunesmith, let me enlighten you! Over the last, 20 some-odd years, Kerry has voted to weaken the military almost every chance he gets. He votes against missile defense. He votes for closing military bases. He votes FOR the war in Iraq but AGAINST funding it (flip flop). He changes his mind every rally to try to garner votes from the crowd he's speaking to. President Bush said it best the other day "I'm glad that John Kerry has finally said the war in Iraq was a good idea. But keep in mind that he has over 60 days to change his mind again." The man is "firmly on the record" for nothing. He changes his opinions on EVERYTHING almost daily. The only thing i have to go on is his voting record in the Senate. And based on that, it is obvious that he is not going to bolster the American military, but rather sap its resources. It's just using sound logic. If it looks like a rat, and smells like a rat, chances are its a rat. He has spoken through his actions, since his words contradict each other once a week. Democratic foreign policy doesn't have a good record since Kennedy died. And without a solid foreign policy, there may not be an America left to be able to care about the economy and health care. I hope you can sleep at night after voting for a Democrat in this time of turmoil.

In the end our posts here will do little, Bush has got this election in the bag and its only a matter of time before he is re-elected, much to the dismay of many ill-informed democratic voters.

Neither sound logic nor solid facts. Those are GOP talking points. If cruel and evil regimes in the Middle East are the problem, we should be putting pressure on Pakistan, Syria, and the Sudanese.

It's happening in Russia because of the failure of the Soviet system. The crime gangs saw the writing on the wall and basically divided the country up between themselves. The Chechnya situation, criminal control of the banks, nuke smuggling--it all started with that.

The only reason people care about Iraq is because they do what they're told. People who really care about terrorism don't memorize talking points. They research the problem.

If Democrats are no good with foreign policy, explain the high points in Middle East peace talks. Explain how those talks went to hell under Republican leadership.

The GOP's Kerry-flip-flop routine is just nonsense. Those are distortions of his record, conveniently ignoring the pork barrel riders that got tacked onto bills and other political manueverings behind the scenes. Kerry voted against pork, not the military. If you smell a rat, you're smelling the Republicans who twist parliamentary procedures in both houses to suit their purposes, then later blame Democrats for their legalistic manuevering. You're smelling unethical conduct in your damn party.

Half-truths, slogans, and propaganda are the junk food of democracy. For a health democracy, we need facts instead. That's why discussions here or anywhere else matter. We need to raise questions and examine facts. Don't waste time spouting party lines. I don't care which party it is.

Case in point: If Bush wins another term, he would have won it on a platform of vitriol and distortions. No one can justify it or defend it. And yet plenty of people will settle for it. If you vote him in on those terms, you have nothing to be proud of.

You can't enlighten me. The best you can do is insult people. And you've impressed no one.

"The crime gangs saw the writing on the wall and basically divided the country up between themselves. The Chechnya situation, criminal control of the banks, nuke smuggling--it all started with that." No one gives a shit what their reasons are, the simple fact is they can plan and execute terrorism successfully and at the expense of innocent lives, something much harder to pull off here because of the current administration's actions.
"The GOP's Kerry-flip-flop routine is just nonsense. Those are distortions of his record, conveniently ignoring the pork barrel riders that got tacked onto bills and other political manueverings behind the scenes." Well there's a hypocritical use of a party line if I've ever seen one.
"Half-truths, slogans, and propaganda are the junk food of democracy. For a health democracy, we need facts instead." Well I see the GOP awash in facts about both candidates, and facts that matter mind you...such as documented political careers of both Bush and Kerry. From Kerry I seem to hear everything but facts. Sure vietnam is a fact but it has nothing to do with this campaign, well it does now but it shouldn't is my point. Kerry broke tradition and campaigned during the opponent's convention because he is a desperate man of a desperate party with no honor. He responded asap and still fed his vietnam service down our throats. Kerry was certainly attacked and bashed like he claims by the GOP convention, but unlike he claims it did not attack his service in vietnam nor his patriotism, but rather all the decisions he's made since then in the last 19 years of his senate career. Bush even said that Kerry's service was more valorous than his own because Kerry went and fought while Bush stayed stateside. Yet Kerry relentlessly attacks their patriotism and service, saying he won't have his patriotism questioned by those who didn't serve when they could have. He's not even talking the "facts" or the issues that really matter anymore. It makes sense when he's bitching about how bad everything is but when he falls back onto the whole vietnam thing he's just committing political suicide like you liberals will soon come to realize.

Pat, your 5:59 entry did a lot more to show your prejudices than I would have been able to expose by myself. Those Arabs all look and act alike over there in the middle east, don't they? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Hussein, Osama, what's the difference? They're all a bunch of terrorists, right? Bush might not believe that himself, but allowing his supporters to believe that suits his purposes, because it means more votes for him. "You cannot distinguish between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in the war on terror." Implying that Iraq was some sort of middle east terrorism linchpin or "supporting pillar" is laughable and not a little bit racist. If you were to rank the middle east countries in their influence and sponsorship behind terrorist efforts, they'd rank way down on the list, behind Pakistan and Saudi Arabia definitely.

tunesmith, you guys refuse to acknowledge the truth and like medina you refuse to be enlightened. No matter what anyone says or what evidence is brought to the table neither side will concede to the other so I give up, you liberals are impossible. Luckily the democratic party is losing power quickly all over America, and liberals are finding themselves more and more alienated from the rest of America so you guys just keep thinking whatever you want, and so will I.

That's an awfully convenient way of excluding yourself from a discourse. If I don't agree with your point of view, it's because you refuse to discuss it in a mature manner. Re-examine your conduct and your conclusions, then by all means try again...if you can.

"If I don't agree with your point of view, it's because you refuse to discuss it in a mature manner." wow, there's a scapegoat if i ever saw it. pat HAS argued this in a "mature manner"...u just don't bend. we have both flown evidence in your face and u just blow it off and fight back with fuzzy logic. in the democratic party 1+2 has always equalled 5. the logic just isn't there. the great idea to steal into the pockets of american citizens and redistribute it. what right does the government have to do that? its not what america was founded on. yet democrats pulled that one out of their ass with their fuzzy logic. if u can't hack it then go to germany or canada or some other welfare state, but don't cry cuz ur stuck in america. and on the issue of security and terror, believe what you want, because liberals are just too damn stuck on party ideals to realize that we live in a different world now and that we must take action to protect america. even if iraq wasn't a threat, we didn't know it before the war. and u sit there and call bush a liar. hell, he was being briefed by the cia and nsa every day on that...i'd take their word over some liberal punk who is against bush and for nothing. i will vote for bush simply because i dont wanna watch the chrysler building blow up next year. with kerry in office he'll follow the same democratic foreign policy that clinton used that ultimately led up to the 9/11 tragedies being allowed to happen nearly unimpeded. the economy is growing, but all you can point to is total job loss since bush took office. well, there was an inherited recession, and plus, there was that whole 9/11 thing that raped the economy. no matter who the president would have been, the economy would have gone to hell. but yet bush is blamed. and now that the economy is recovering and growing every month, all the liberals can do is be pessimistic about it. pessimism has never won an election. and now that multiple polls have bush with a double digit lead over flip-flop kerry, you better get used to 4 more years ;)

Terrorism happens...and Bush and Kerry have 2 different approaches. Kerry said, "Any terrorist attack with be met with a swift and sudden response." Bush says he wont wait for a "next time" he'll do everything he can to ensure there is no "next time." That if for NO other reason is why Bush is the better candidate. Even on the economy Bush is better, but its much easier to blame him for shit than it is to look and see what really caused it, and thus you have liberals.

In September 2001, Kerry Said We Should Not Raise Taxes In An Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)

Kerry Voted 4 Times Against Health/Medical Savings Accounts. (S.1028, CQ Vote #72: Adopted 52-46: R 5-46; D 47-0, 4/18/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S.1344, CQ Vote #210: Passed 53-47: R 52-2; D 0-45; I 1-0, 7/15/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R.1, CQ Vote #457: Motion Agreed To 70-29: R 47-3; D 22-26; I 1-0, 11/24/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R.1, CQ Vote #458: Motion Agreed To 61-39: R 49-2; D 11-37; I 1-0, 11/24/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Voted Against Tax Credits For Small Businesses To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Twice Voted Against Allowing Self-Employed Individuals To Fully Deduct Cost Of Their Health Insurance On Their Federal Taxes. (S. 1344, CQ Vote #202: Adopted 53-47: R 52-2; D 0-45; I 1-0, 7/13/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S.1344, CQ Vote #210: Passed 53-47: R 52-2; D 0-45; I 1-0, 7/15/99, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Twice Voted Against Bill Providing $10 Billion Funding For State Medicaid Programs. (H.R.2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/23/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R.2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Opposed Or Voted To Block Medical Liability Reform At Least Ten Times. (H.R. 956, CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 39-61: R 10-44; D 29-17; I 0-0, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #140: Motion Agreed To 65-35: R 24-30; D 41-5, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #141: Motion Agreed To 56-44: R 13-41; D 43-3, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #144: Passed 53-47: R 48-6; D 5-41, 5/2/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 46-53: R 44-10; D 2-43; I 0-0, 5/4/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #152: Motion Rejected 47-52: R 45-9; D 2-43; I 0-0, 5/4/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #160: Motion Agreed To 54-44:: R 46-7; D 8-37, 5/10/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 956, CQ Vote #161: Passed 61-37: R 46-7; D 15-30, 5/10/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1052, CQ Vote #212: Motion Agreed To 52-46: R 2-45; D 49-1; I 1-0, 6/29/01, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 812, CQ Vote #197: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 6-42; D 50-0; I 1-0, 7/30/02, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry’s Health Care Plan Could Cost As Much As $895 Billion Over 10 Years And Still Would Not Cover All Currently Uninsured Individuals. (Kenneth E. Thorpe, “An Overview And Analysis Of The Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Health Care Reform Proposals,” 9/7/03; “Health Insurance Coverage In The United States: 2002,” U.S. Census Bureau, 9/03)

In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)

May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends.

Kerry Voted Against Exempting Small Businesses And Family Farms From Clinton Income Tax Increase

In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. “Kerry said [the Concord Coalition’s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers’ efforts to cut the deficit. ‘It doesn’t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,’ Kerry said.” (Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)

In 2001, Kerry Voted Against Amendment Providing $70 Billion For Tax Credits For Small Business To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 1993, Kerry Voted To Kill Bipartisan Welfare Work Requirement. In 1993, Kerry and Kennedy voted against a welfare-to-work requirement that was supported by many Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):

obviously this is a guy who just wants the government to have all the money and run everything itself, no free markets or anything at all capitalist, this sounds alot like what i like to call "socialism", which doesn't work in real life.

I deleted the last few comments because they were devoid of political content - let's try to stay on topic.

Pat, no one here is advocating socialism, don't be ridiculous. Capitalism works great when it's an actual meritocracy and free of things like corporate welfare and corporate subsidies. When it starts to break is when aristocracy starts to take over and prevent equal starting lines.

I don't even really see the point of your other recent comments. That other guy started ranting against the government putting its hand in American pockets; that's just weird. No point in arguing with the folks that are in the realm of the 20% of wingnuts in this country. As for all of Kerry's votes, I'll leave it to the Kerry campaign to see how effectively they explain them all. A good deal of these Nay votes are on Republican-titled bills, and I know enough about "Leave No Child Behind" and "Clean Air" acts to know that the results of Republican bills are usually the opposite of what it pretends to be. Kerry was a prosecutor and has a history of being able to see the truth behind obfuscation. I trust that Kerry saw the truth behind those bills and made the right vote in most cases. I say, take a look at the results when Kerry's vote was on the winning side. You'll find record economic expansion. Take a look when Kerry's vote was on the losing side - you'll find record deficits, unjust wars, wasted money, and recession. The GOP doesn't have any credibility of honesty, especially not in the last twelve years, so most of that crap in your headlines is just more misrepresentation, just the same as your ridiculous beliefs about what liberals believe and do. Senate votes are chess moves in a long chess game - it's stupid to focus on one vote or one move without looking at the story behind it.

And christ, "enlightened'? Are you descending from the heavens to shine benevolent light on us, Pat? Do you float and flutter among the clouds, deigning to impart your pixie-like wisdom onto us? Give us a good reason why we should even take you seriously.

Well then, Kerry seems to see the truth behind EVERY bill without a tax hike in it

my last comment about the government was "weird"? its the truth. the government, especially when liberals are in office, tax the hell out of the citizens so that they can redistribute it to the poor. i dont bust my ass off to pay for some other man's children. and i dont expect anyone to pay for my misfortune. its just not what america was founded on. social darwinism is what this country was founded on, and if you can't hack it, why is it the government's job to bail you out? why is it MY job to bail you out? "Kerry was a prosecutor and has a history of being able to see the truth behind obfuscation." That's quite a statement. He can see the truth SOOOO much that he still can't ever make up his mind on the issues. If the truth is so blatantly clear to him, why does he flip flop ALL the time. and you can't say that he doesn't flip flop on the issues, because its documented all over. and personally, the economy is overrated when security is our prime goal. kerry will ultimately weaken our position in iraq and throughout the world. he is not fit to be a commander in chief with his policies. the number one duty of a commander in chief is to protect his men...and all kerry has ever done is vote to not fund them and to cut them whenever he can. some leader. "you'll find record deficits, unjust wars, wasted money, and recession." mind you that the economy was booming in the late 80s under reagan, but i would dare to assume that mr. kerry voted against reagan and FOR some stupid ass deficit spending program that the liberals always propose to prime the economy. keep in mind that under the first bush the economy was great until the last year of his term. and keep in mind that under the second bush, he inherited a recession that only got worse due to TERRORIST ATTACK...and not through any direct policy of his own, unless you would incite that he is behind the terrorist attack (and i wouldn't put it past you to propose such a thing). and you can't claim anything about "wasted money" until you look at liberal social welfare programs. then you can complain about wasted money and deficit spending. "so most of that crap in your headlines is just more misrepresentation." *gasp* well my friend, last time i checked people were complaining about the LIBERAL media. we're pulling these headlines straight from CNN and NBC. its not "your" headlines, its now "our" headlines. so don't be so naive as to think that i'm pulling these facts off of georgewbush.com. i've ranted enough for now. get ready for 4 more years folks ;)

Here's what cracks me up about the folks complaining about progressive taxation. Chances are, they are getting a deal. T-Way, you can complain all you want about social darwinism and putting your money in someone else's pocket, but I'd bet that you are getting more money put into your pocket than you're giving away. With all the services you likely either use or support - roads, communications, military - would you *really* prefer to pay your fair share? Take even the most minimal amount of services we need from our government, in dollar figures, and divide it by the number of people that pay taxes. You think that's *less* than what you pay now? If you think so, you're probably crazy, unless you're some sort of multi-millionaire. Or maybe you want a flat tax in terms of percentages? Even there, you'd probably be getting more than you're giving. This anti-tax bullshit is so stupid it's pathetic. All it really is is the logic of someone who wants a handout but doesn't want to do their part. Face the facts: you're getting a deal. And if Kerry "raises taxes" or "removes Bush's tax cut" on the folks making over 200k/year, you'll be getting an even better deal.

By the way, this is absolutely hilarious:

"keep in mind that under the first bush the economy was great until the last year of his term. and keep in mind that under the second bush, he inherited a recession [...]"

You don't see the inconsistency there?

i'm not complaining about minimal taxes for roads, military, etc. the government doesn't send me a check for its road construction. but if i pump out 20 kids and i am living in poverty, you better believe that liberal social welfare programs are gonna write me a check for some money straight from the pockets of our tax payers. its obvious we need to pay taxes to fund education and to keep our troops abroad well armed and supplied. its not so obvious that i'm paying for some guy to live because he is too lazy to get a job. and the economy under w is very much so on the rise at the moment. and since kerry has such a record of ALWAYS voting for the right economy, then why did he vote against reagan. and i was going to be nice and not mention jimmy carter. why didn't john kerry's vote miraculously save the economy under carter? oh that's right, because the democratic economic plan pretty much sucked right about then. and lets face it, john kerry's economic tax plan is nowhere near even resemblant to clinton's. and even if it were, his foreign policy is so weak that the economy would crash again through a terrorist attack in a matter of time. and you know, when you "inherit" a recession, alot of times it just might have something to do with the person in office beforehand. just maybe.

That business about liberals and welfare, the class warfare riff, is just another neocon talking point. If the right-wing really cared, they wouldn’t be reciting talking points or lauding last week’s job report numbers. Bush has put more people on “liberal social welfare programs” than anyone in America history. Also the recession started March 2001, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research which is led by an informal advisor to President Bush. How can Clinton be responsible if just a few months of Bush’s policies set it off?

(Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply, btw. While some of us get to spend a three-day weekend distorting issues and gadding about on pixie clouds, the rest of us had to work through it. Nice job nailing the facts down in the meantime, Curt!)

Well friend, would you like to tell me what Mr. Bush's economic policies were during his first 2 months in office? He pushed to have tax cuts. But that's not inherintly bad for the economy. That brings more money back to the taxpayers to put back into the economy. But still, tax cuts successes or failures cannot be judged in a matter of a month, but rather over the course of years. They are not overnight economy primers. Tax cuts are designed to provide stability over a longer period of time. And here, as the election is coming around, the economy is rebounding quite nicely. If anything, the recession that Bush encountered as he entered office was because Bush reduced alot of government spending (as is a republican theme...i.e. cut taxes cut spending). Hence the economy wasn't being artificially primed by massive government spending (as is a liberal theme...i.e. "pump priming" and such introduced back in the roosevelt era). But that's based on broad assumptions of general fiscal policy and i don't know for a fact that Bush even cut government spending in his first month or two in office. "That business about liberals and welfare, the class warfare riff, is just another neocon talking point." Way to try to pass off the issue without actually debating facts. Try coming at me something real next time. "Bush has put more people on “liberal social welfare programs” than anyone in America history." First of all, Hoover was President during the Great Depression...which was far worse than anything during Bush's presidency. So let's stay with quoting facts. And you seem to say that as if September 11 never happened. Because of course the terrorist attacks had nothing to do with the economy busting...(sense the sarcasm). You rush to blame Bush as if he is at the heart of everything that is wrong with America without looking at the blatantly obvious. "How can Clinton be responsible if just a few months of Bush’s policies set it off?
" Well I think I've inherintly answered that question in the fact that in 2 months in office Bush's economic policies aren't really in full swing yet, let alone passed by Congress and put in effect. Hence the last person to have passed an economic policy would have been...Bill Clinton. G'nite folks

I've seen all the taxation that kerry's voted for, I haven't seen any tax reductions that kerry has but I haven't looked. I'd like to ask one of you kerry supporters to show me some, not because I don't believe there is any but because I have the facts to support my belief (that he "has never seen a tax increase he didn't like" as the saying goes) and I would like to see your guys' reasons for not believing that.

I wonder who is guilty of the "classic logic flaw," the republicans who look at the FACTS, the on-the-record flip flops and say "gee...this guy is a flip flopper" or the democrats who look at the republicans and say "They're saying our guy is a flip flopper, so we're going to say he's not." One side has evidence for their belief, the other holds an opposing belief simply because it is an opposing belief.

Pump priming in the Clinton era? We already had a budget deficit at the time. Spending money we didn’t have would’ve made it worse. How do you explain the deficit’s transformation into a budget surplus?

If you want to discuss the painfully obvious, how about this: We had a major economic expansion under Clinton for eight years straight. It wouldn’t just stop on its own. Something must’ve happened--in March, not September--to change its course. (And don’t say it was Donnie Darko. ;) )

“Try coming at me something real next time.” Whoa, talk about projection. Okay, I’ll go over it more slowly this time. I called it a talking point because it’s a soundbyte that doesn’t have any facts behind it. Right-wing economists have been pushing that story about welfare moochers, but they wrote up spreadsheets and charts that supported their views while throwing out any facts that contradicted them.

Worker’s comp scams or crime, blue- or white-collar, make a bigger impact on the economy than welfare checks do. But the rich prefer to blame the unemployed, the people they just fired, to absolve themselves of the profits they made from corporate graft. I’ve talked to people on welfare, and all of them said they’d rather work. I’ve talked to the well-to-do’s and they insisted that people don’t want to earn an honest living, so they must be mooching off the state. Reality doesn’t mesh with the rhetoric. Call it a left-wing talking point if it’ll make you feel better. But it’s a talking point with a hundred faces and a lot of crushed dignity. You’re blaming the victims. Go after the perps. That’s what we’re doing.

“First of all, Hoover was President during the Great Depression...which was far worse than anything during Bush's presidency. So let's stay with quoting facts.”

You’re right: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40F15FC35590C718EDDAB0894DC404482

“And you seem to say that as if September 11 never happened. Because of course the terrorist attacks had nothing to do with the economy busting...(sense the sarcasm).”

And you seem to be putting words in my mouth while using 9/11 to smear me at the same time. Classy. (Now sense my sarcasm.) Have a look at this: http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0902/ijge/gj02.htm

There was plenty of damage that day. Emotional, economic, and physical. We lost a lot of good people for no good reason. Using their memory for the sake of a few debate points...wow, that’s a real low.

What’s your problem, neocon guys? You’re rude. You play dirty, using stacked evidence and personal attacks, overlooking hard information. You came in here defensive from the start as if criticizing Bush or supporting Kerry is a slight against you. You even twist people’s words. You seem to do that a lot, deciding what people say instead of listening or reading or whatever. What’s up with that? If you invent the dialogue, don’t act as if someone else did it. Take some responsibility for your actions. Sheesh.

You didn't like Donnie Darko?

You criticize me for putting words in your mouth! you've just gone and done the same for me as well. I know full well the government ran a surplus during the Clinton administration, but that still doesn't mean that government spending into the economy is high. and if you noticed, i even said that i was highly generalizing based on general party economic trends. i didn't say clinton ran the economy into the ground or anything. i couldn't read your nytimes article cuz i'm not a subscriber, sorry. the other one seems to be a private source so its probably highly biased one way or the other, and even still, it only says that the economy quickly got back on track after the attacks...but it fails to recognize the damage to the economy that the sept. 12 hiatus on business caused. and it mentions the businesses that surged, but stock values plummeted shortly after 9/11, so many small businesses flopped and the airlines...well we know all about the airlines problems. "The end result was a quick reversal of economic fortunes. From one month to the next, Americans stopped and reflected, became resolved about fighting back, and then returned to work as the most productive citizens in the world. Osama bin Laden missed his mark. " and even your sources seem to think that the economy is most definitely in the right direction. and its blatantly obvious that over the last 6 months with all the new jobs that have been created that the economy is definitely growing and doing well. and john kerry seems to think its headed in the wrong direction. well if the wrong direction is new jobs then i dread to see what kerry's got up his sleeve. "Using their memory for the sake of a few debate points...wow, that’s a real low." what the hell sort of comment is that? that's a jab to the belt. i never brought up their memories...all i said is that the terrorist attacks hit the economy...which it did. i didn't mention the great billy the fireman or any of the accountants that died in the buildings or anything to prove my point. don't skew the points to try to glorify yourself. "Worker’s comp scams or crime, blue- or white-collar, make a bigger impact on the economy than welfare checks do. But the rich prefer to blame the unemployed, the people they just fired, to absolve themselves of the profits they made from corporate graft." you are definitely right. business crimes do affect the economy more. but the question is, can you make a real policy about that? not really, because crimes happen, and you can't always stop criminals. but you CAN stop welfare checks. and therein lies the difference between the two. i'm not debating your point that workplace crimes are higher impact, i'm merely saying that welfare is easier solved. "I’ve talked to people on welfare, and all of them said they’d rather work. I’ve talked to the well-to-do’s and they insisted that people don’t want to earn an honest living, so they must be mooching off the state. Reality doesn’t mesh with the rhetoric." glad you cleared that up for me. because we all consider you an expert on such issues and your in depth interviews always leave me breathless. and i hope you kerry fans enjoy this little video. watch it and then tell me he doesn't flip flop on the iraq issue. http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

“You didn't like Donnie Darko?”

Sorry for the confusion, Pat. I loved it! In fact I’ve watched both versions in a couple of times each. It’s been mislabeled a horror flick, but dark fantasy is a better fit. I can’t recommend this movie enough. I mentioned Donnie Darko only because I have DD on the brain, and I wanted to refer to a supernatural force powerful enough to derail a healthy economy on the fly. (For the record, I don’t think Donnie would do that. Frank might, though.)

While I’m on the subject: T-Way, don’t be absurd. I’m not sure if you’re projecting or if your reading comprehension was off that day. Where did I put words in your mouth? The most tacit implication one could lift from my comments were that you had, at best, forgotten about the late lamented budget surplus. If I were accuse you of anything on that point, it would be generalizing too much. I mean, you do it a lot.

Argh, sorry about the NYT article. It was free when I last saw it. This article is about as good: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A54318-2003Jun30¬Found=true

In case that link goes bad too, here’s the gist of it: Bush and company claimed they had inherited a recession from Clinton. When the NBER issued that contradicted that claim, even Bush’s supporters—even the ones convinced the economy is going in the right direction—conceded the point. It’s not a fact. It’s propaganda. A talking point.

“...what the hell sort of comment is that? that's a jab to the belt. i never brought up their memories...” Oh, come on. 9/11 is loaded with emotion. Talk of it raises painful memories. Did you think it wouldn’t? On top of that, you were using it as a weapon in a snide remark against me. If my response was a jab to the belt, you earned it with a low blow of your own. Learn to play fair or deal with it.

“[...] you can't always stop criminals. but you CAN stop welfare checks.” That was a joke, right? We can’t stop all crime at once, so let’s focus on a different problem? Gosh, I dunno how to fix this sucking chest wound, so I’m gonna start on a tracheotomy? That’s ridiculous! That’s not a solution. It’s a bait-and-switch. I thought we were on the verge of consensus there.

If that’s your grasp of logic, no wonder you fall for shallow nonsense like this “Kerry on Iraq” video. What neocons call flip-flops, everyone else calls editing. If someone leaves out a bunch of information and retains one item that misepresents the whole, that’s dishonest. Taking quotes out of context to invent political ammo is unethical, and that’s what they’re doing. The links that follow provide incontestable proof that the Kerry flip-flop storyline is just that:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408170005

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408200002

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408110009

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407200009

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407060009

well at least we agree on one thing

Hey, I like donnie darko too!

awww, big happy family

Kewl, so we've affirmed our commitment to Sparkle Motion at least. That's something.

i dont know about sparkle motion, but i do know about gretchen ross

That was the little dance team Donnie's sister was in, the one the super-uptight gym teacher was coaching, wasn't it? One of my favorite lines in the movie was hers: "Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!"

I definitely remember Gretchen Ross too. Jena Malone was fantastic.

i meant that i reaffirm my commitment to gretchen ross moreso than sparkle motion, and to donnie's older sister too even though she voted for dukakis

Ah, Maggie Gyllenhall. Yum. Secretary probably wasn't your type of movie... it's a bit... not conservative... but yum.

LOL Can't argue with your priorities there, folks! Jena Malone's pretty...well, pretty. Actually Maggie Gyllenhaal looks kinda like one of my older sisters. Hey, Curt, I think we just establish political discussions on the porch don't work. "And I'm telling you that John Kerry guy is a soulless blood-sucking...hey, catch out the babe." ;D

LOL Can't argue with your priorities there, folks! Jena Malone's pretty...well, pretty. Actually Maggie Gyllenhaal looks kinda like one of my older sisters. Hey, Curt, I think we just establish political discussions on the porch don't work. "And I'm telling you that John Kerry guy is a soulless blood-sucking...hey, catch out the babe." ;D

everybody likes donnie darko w00t!

and about your 9-11 causing painful memories...well if it does, that's tough, because ever since it happened, it can't be denied that it affects policies and every day activies. we live in a different world today because of it, and to not acknowledge it or to learn from it is just ignorant.

maggie gyllenhaal? real life brother and sister?

AFAIK, they're brother and sister. I think writer/director Richard Kelly saw her on tape and mentally noted her for casting before he made the connection. So there's some actual sibling rivalry coming out of their performances. Kewl, huh?

T-Way, you keep misinterpreting what people say. Mentioning 9/11 isn't the problem. It was the way you brought it up. It was a snide, sloppy ad hominem attack. You weren't simply pointing out the economic damage. There were some digs in there. When I get on your case, I'm calling you on inaccurate data and a lack of discipline. Maybe it's fun to tell someone off, get all flushed and feel righteous. But that's a chemical reaction, not a civil discussion. I'm not doing this to "glorify" myself or harass people. I want to untie the misinformation knots in our republic and give people a fighting chance at making an informed decision at the polls. That won't happen without the civility to show people it's safe to speak your mind along with some basic standards of intellectual honesty.

so we're all in agreement then...Bush '04

Tell ya what. Lock him in a room with Harlan Ellison, John Dean, and a banquet table loaded with banana cream pies. If they're all still alive after an hour, he's in.

When is the map going to be updated? It looks like it hasn't been touched since March?

This was just an entry on my weblog. To see the current count, visit http://electoral-vote.com/

Well Political pot-lickin' goes on.

It is obvious to see that there are those who can't see Kerry changing positions (one week to the next) with the speeches and quotes right in front of their eyes. It is obvious to see that it was a terrible mistake to run on his Vietnam War record. The truth came out. As Michelle Malkin says: Bwa-ha-ha!. Next came the counter attack which is going to get worse, cost Dan Rather his job and CBS prestige and viewership(I stopped watching it while the lemmings were highly focused on Walter in the late 60s and have not watched CBS since--including the farce 60 minutes).

George Bush may not be the ideal President but he has approached being attacked on our soil in the appropriate manner--Take the game to the enemy.

In my judgement, not fast enough(6 months late) extensive enough(Iran, UAE, Saudia Arabia, Indonesia, Sudan and elsewise terrororist hangouts with sponsors). Sweden can't even control it's own streets due to the Isamist gangs for Christs Sake!).

Someone who says that doing what we are doing increases terrorism is a fool talking into a well--dug all the way to appeasement before WWII by the UK and it goes on. Joe Kennedy was wrong then and the hide-your-head-in-the-sand stuff isn't going to wash. Terrorist acts around the world are down, not up(except in Iraq). Overall the radical muslims, and let there be no misunderstanding--they are muslim, are in trouble--time to put on the full court press, get the foot on the neck and kill the bastards. That is the only way to rid the world of this scum. They will not stop of their own accord.

Radical islam should be view as a mysterious state which is compromising various states in a new quasi International state of terrorism. They won't pay attention to the UN(who cares--Get us out now 1964 is echoing around the country); they won't stop attacking innocent civilians. They will gladly sacrifice their own children to their aims.

Like Cheney or not, he told it straight: The only way to stop these people is to kill them--all of them.

Forget Kerry. He is a two bit counterfeit liar. None of the Vets of my era support him and he didn't go to Cambodia. He ain't no hero and can't even decide how to act as anything other than the Jr Senator from the Communist state of Mass. He can't win Bill's state of AR. He is not going to Carry Daschle's SD(hell, I think they are finally going to boot Tom, oh my!)

Main will follow NH and so will VT(the latter are upset with the influx of New Yorkers). Iowa has a tradition of strong democratic party leanings but they are democrats who work and don't cry for handouts. Iowa will go to Bush because Democrats like Harry Truman don't exist in public.

Florida couldn't do it even recounting Gore votes 3 times and they had people who couldn't use the computerized voting machines in the midterms. Florida goes to Bush.

WA CA HA IL NY CT RI MD MA are going to go to Kerry. I am not even giving him MI which is one of the few states like Oregon which are still up in the air nor NJ--I think NJ reacts again and goes to Bush. WV PA and OH are all going to go to Bush. This election will be a terrible blow to the Social populist pluralist Progressive-socialist wing of the DNC.

And you are losing to George W Bush. Sheesh.

My conservative estimate is that Bush takes a minimum of 300 Electoral votes. The real toss up states are WA OR MI NJ and VT. It is my opinion that Bush will take all but Washington among those with NJ being my most far-out(how is that for sixties recall) prediction. Bush between 335 and 377 to Kerry's 150 or a bit more.

Thank God for the ELectoral College as well.

David Bell

Another sterling example of neocon rhetoric: Who needs facts, logic, or manners when you’ve got a superiority complex and more distortions than a black hole?

The truth about Kerry’s military record has been out for some time. The misinformation is pretty new though. The swift boat vet nonsense was just that. It’s a shame they insist on holding a grudge after all these years just because Kerry reported what other soldiers had told him. (Strange how neocons leave that part out, isn’t it?)

Re CBS...much of the news media is buying the neocon forgery storyline, but first you need to be completely misinformed about the evidence to do that. And of course there’s nothing as charming as a sore winner. Melodramatic evil laughs suit neocons well, don’t you think?

Take the game to the enemy, sure. But Bush took forever to get his game on. Then he took off for Iraq before the job was done. Good plan.

How is Bush supposed to take Florida when he didn’t even file his ballot papers in time? You don’t suppose his brother Jeb could pull a few strings and do an end-run around due process? In the meantime, sure, leave the Diebolt machines there. Let’s take voter fraud into the digital age.

Bush won Florida? Uh huh. Of course he did, dear. http://www.legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html

Neocons cite a bill or an issue that he’s changed position on, then ignore the reasons why. Someone else tags a pork-barrel rider onto a bill or rewrites it entirely, and then it’s Kerry’s fault? These people need to look at the way pro-Bush Republicans have been bending parliamentary rules and railroading legislation through the House as well as the Senate. And look at Bush’s circumventions of congressional war powers.

And if Kerry’s a flip-flopper, what does that make Bush? First he calls himself a war president. Recently he insisted he wanted to be a peace president. At the start he said we can win the war on terror. Recently he said it couldn’t be done. He opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Later he’s all for it. Same with the 9/11 Commission. He couldn’t make up his mind why we were going into Iraq either. Was it about WMD’s, al Qaeda, advancing democracy into the Middle East, in search of a good falafel, what? You want flip-flops? Bush is your man!

International terrorism is down, is it? By how much? You’ll have to make up a number. Intelligence agencies around the world and here at home not only disagree with that premise, they say the opposite.

The only people talking about appeasement use it as a smear tactic on the rest of America. We want al Qaeda broken and humiliated in the eyes of the world, facing justice in chains. We don’t want them taking potshots at our soldiers in Afghanistan, free to come and go as they please. People who really give a damn about terrorism are mad about that. They’re not crowing about Iraq or hawking the president’s wares.

If anyone has shoved their heads in the sand, it’s the neocons. Even as intelligence reports paint bleak pictures of our future in Iraq, they cheer and say we’re doing great. When they hear about pictures of bodybags and torture done on our watch, they ban the pictures or go into denial. Liberals, populists, Democrats, what have you—we’re the ones fighting for our troops. If soldiers need to upgrade their hardware or get more body armor, we’re the ones donating the money. Everyone else is too busy patting themselves on the backs for being such loud, divisive, and sadistic pseudo-patriots.

Yeah, that's pretty stunning. First, embracing Malkin. That's just rich. Now, I do think that Kerry badly misplayed the Swift Boat attack. He could have hit back half as hard when it first came out, and swatted out it like a fly. But instead hitting it harder later served to verify it as a legitimate threat. I'm also not sure what is up with Rather and am not sure why it's appearing that CBS will cave. No one has proven that the memos are forgeries, they've just pointed out that they haven't been proven genuine. Plus, the content has been proven accurate. electoral-vote.com has Bush up 331-207 right now.

As for invading all the other countries, at least we have a wingnut here that is smart enough to know what Bush is really selling him. Most Bush supporters have no idea, and will be shocked when they find out, the same way we have so many shocked former Bush supporters now, shocked that the man they voted for would screw things up for America so badly by how he handled Iraq.

The rest of the comment is just garbage, though. I may be wrong, but I think terrorism worldwide is actually up *without* Iraq, because the Iraq activity isn't counted as terrorism. I'll let Joe look that one up. And to imply that the only other way Iraq could be handled is appeasement is hilarious. Who would we have been trying to appease? Saddam? Boy, he really had us under his thumb there for a while, didn't he! Or did you mean that not attacking Iraq would have been appeasing Osama? This is funny!

I don't know what the next couple of paragraphs are trying to say - no one is arguing against the truth that Terrorists Are Bad. I'm getting a bit of Muslims Are Bad from you though...

I like the Electoral College. I wish the EV apportionment was a little more sane - I wish the House of Reps was bigger, for one thing. I'm not sure what Kerry's victory path is right now. I know he's got to bounce back from where he is right now. I think that in a week (9/26) we'll see a big shift towards Kerry than from where we are right now (9/19). I'm betting Kerry is up above 250 in a week.

Second term confirmed. Kerry is such an embarassment. Fortunately for our country, he will be forgotten in 6 weeks.

I wrote off President Bush's second term eatly in 2004. Not that Bush was not deserving a second term, because the American public is fickle. The war in Iraq was supported by most Americans (including DEMS) from the end of the Gulf War until Bush finally did it. Kerry voted to go in! Kerry had the same info Bush had! Well, at least he had access to it. He did not show up to a lot of NATIONAL SECURITY meetings. America could have went into a DEEP recession since the stock market crash at the end of Clinton's term (2000) and the tragedy of 9/11. However, Bush is slowly pulling us forward. Not fast enough for some of course. They probably are not economic majors!
Now I do not write off a Bush second term! Why? Because the DEMS nominated the biggest mistake in history. Bush could have been easy to defeat beause th American fickle public. It's a shame that the DEMS could not have nominated a more mainstream centrist. OH WELL! I guess it will be a history lesson.

It's pretty much cinched at this point - unless the GOP does something really stupid...which is unlikely since Kerry's campaign is doing enough stupid stuff for everyone. At this point it seems all that is necessary is to sit back, have a beer, and watch Kerry wrap up his self-destruction. No effort required!

The DNC will surely learn a lesson in this campaign. You're right - the Democrats could have fairly easily ousted Bush with the right candidate. They failed miserably - and do you really want a party in power that makes such poor decisions? The humiliation from Gore should have been remembered, but I guess some people touch the burner more than once.

Everyone take their elephant or donkey hat off - his party affiliation aside, do you really think Kerry could have made a good president? Embarassing!

remember that iraqi information minister, secondterm? just keep talking. :)

Yesterday I noted that Kerry was at 207 and predicted he'd be above 250 by the end of the week. the very next day he's at 239. stay tuned...

Yes I do recall the lad. If you'll remember, Bush captured him and he's now in prison. Let's see now, if Kerry was president, that whole murderous regime would still be killin em' cheap and stackin' em' deep!

I'm tuned in, but you're obviously on the wrong channel. I didn't see 250. Kerry won't see it either, including election day.

Stay tuned....but don't waste much time.

You first. Your tasteless remarks about our honored dead are not only a waste of our time, but insulting to our troops. (Here's another example of the neocon mindset, folks. They claim to care about the troops, insisting they'll defend against any dissent and support them to any end. But they'll treat them with more disrespect and insensitivity than anyone...except terrorists, of course.)

If you're concerned about wasting time, read up on polling: http://zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=9474

Hey genius, read again. Certainly your only defense is not to take someone's words out of context to base an indictment. That's a commonly-used tactic by those with no substantive argument behind their position.

I was speaking factually about the Iraqi people, not our troops. If Kerry was in office, Saddam would still be torturing/maming/mutilating/murdering his own people. Our troops are still finding mass graves.

If your boy had it his way, our soldiers wouldn't have planes to fly or bullets to shoot. And while we're on the subject of disrespect, your candidate couldn't have done a better job of snubbing his brothers-in-arms upon his return from combat. Uttlery Shameful.

Do try to formulate something worth stating. I welcome a rational discussion. Otherwise, your words have the opposite effect of that which you desire - irrelevance.

Okay, let me take a step back. You were saying Saddam Hussein's regime, the Baath Party, would be killing Iraqis? Then you're right; I misunderstood completely. I can only plead low sleep and no coffee in my defense. Ugh, I blew it there.

Saddam is a monster. I couldn't agree more. He did tons of twisted things. In many ways his sons were worse. Unfortunately they weren't the only ones to contribute to the mass graves. Have a look: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/09/12_graves.html

I can't agree with the rest of your points though. The GOP talking point that Kerry votes against weapons, for example, has been thoroughly discredited. A few links for you: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=209

You say Kerry snubbed his fellow soldiers. That, I don't understand. Do you mean veterans' benefits? Unlike Bush, he hasn't cut funding for medical benefits for veterans. In fact he's advocating a Military Family Bill of Rights including a guarantee of full health care for our military.

Or do you mean his 1971 testimony before the Senate? These articles dispel a lot of the myths revolving around that too: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408050001

Thanks, I accept your apology. We all foul every once in a while.

I read through your links. The problem is, I could plaster this note with an equal number of reports that make the opposite claims. You can always find some reference to support an argument. We could go back and forth for a year with No offense, but I can't give much credence to a website called democraticunderground.com. That would be similar to me citing swiftboatveteransfortruth.com or similar, which you would promptly dismiss.

I'd like to hear your reasons for supporting Kerry. Hopefully it's not because "he's not Bush."

Please excuse the poor grammar and cut-off sentences in my above post. I accidentally hit Post instead of Preview.

I admit I don't like Bush, but it's certainly not simply because of his party or his mere presence. And the same goes for Kerry. It's his track record, not his party, that won me over.

Now I'm going to add some more links. A game of dueling links solves nothing, I agree. But I want to give folks a chance to check out sources and gauge their authenticity for themselves. We're better served as citizens when we can compare notes, analyze data, and discuss issues instead of simply picking the fights like ants in a jar. I'm sure a few of these will be considered partisan puff pieces, but hardly all. My intention is to provide a broad, honest picture of Kerry as a presidential candidate.

I'm leaving his campaign site out entirely. It's an easy URL to figure out anyway (duhhhh....) But if half of my points here ring true for you, I encourage you to punch it up.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040315&s=corn

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061803.shtml

I'm not sure how to talk about this guy without sounding like an ad. Bear with me. So far Kerry is the only viable candidate who's saying anything about the budget deficit. He's called for the old pay-as-you-go discipline, budget caps, and tighter standards for subsidizing big business projects.

(Heck, I recently caught some flack for supporting him from some guy in Texas complaining about Kerry's stance on the International Space Station. Daniel Goldin mismanaged it during his reign at NASA and yet, to hear it from this other guy, Kerry should've pumped tax money into it anyway. Can someone explain what that has to do with the price of Gobstoppers? Anyway....)

We need energy independence and Kerry is addressing that. If we wait long enough, oil dependency and Middle East ties to terrorist groups will hamstring us. We need clean power that we own. Bush has talked about it, but very little as come of it. Kerry already has a plan.

Everyone knows Kerry has called for universal health care. Opponents call it socialism, wishful thinking, whatever. It's also a call for lower medical costs, less bureaucracy, and an end to overpriced prescription drugs.

Also, Kerry is more well versed in terrorism and transnational crime than he's gotten credit for. His work in tracing the diversion of drug money to the Nicaraguan Contras and General Manuel Noriega was vital. And of course he played a large role in the investigation of BCCI.

If you look at his career, you won't find the earmarks of a glory hog or opportunist, but rather the opposite. When he could've gotten more name recognition pushing bill after bill, he put his experience as a prosecutor to work oversight committees. He went after big but obscure targets, making enemies inside as well as outside his own party...precisely what you shouldn't be doing if you're looking for a shortcut up the ranks.

I point all that out for a simple reason, the war on terror. Kerry has the skills and experience to run it. He knows what to look for. He knows how terrorists operate. He's talked about hiring more people in port and border security, protecting vulnerable targets, and several other concerns raised before and since the 9/11 Commission.

I don't see some liberal paradise under Kerry. Only what we need.

If Kerry is as "well versed in terrorism" as you assert, he isn't sharing his knowledge. To use one of your sources:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241

I have a significant problem with someone paid by you and me that doesn't show up for work. This fact would certainly prevent him from being promoted in the private sector, and is atrocious behavior for a public servant. Would you agree?

Energy independence would be a great thing, I grant you that. But Kerry's statements on this are terribly vague. A snip taken from http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=190:

"But some statements are so vague as to give voters practically no sense of what Kerry actually would do if elected. For example, to help achieve what the ad calls "independence from Middle East oil," Kerry has proposed "A Plan to Use Hydrogen Throughout the Nation By 2020." That "plan" contains few specifics, and is not terribly different from President Bush's own proposals to fund research on hydrogen-powered vehicles. In any case it's highly dubious whether hydrogen will be a practical fuel for motorists by the time this year's newborns reach driving age, according to a study issued last year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Laboratory for Energy and the Environment."

I know he makes liberal mention of it, but it doesn't sound like much of a plan to me. By the way, our most efficient way of producing hydrogen requires the burning of fossil fuels. So, should we burn them at my house or yours?

As far as healthcare goes, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Kerry's healthcare plan will reduce the quality of care we receive over the long term. Doctors will be limited to the procedures for which they can be reimbursed profitably. That's not a motivation I wish my doctor to have. At the same time, it will cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions - that's a fact. I agree that prescription drugs can be very expensive...but what will happen to research if there's little incentive in the way of profit? Remember that the drug companies are businesses. And before you jump to conclusions, most large drug companies' stock values have trended down during the the Bush administration - Merck and Pfizer to name a couple. Yes, the big whigs at these companies have obscene amounts of money. So does Teresa Heinz. Interestingly, John and Teresa have significant significant holdings in Merck, Pfizer, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, and Walgreens.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/652/

It's also interesting worth noting that Kerry has chosen as his runningmate a guy who has made a career (and a fortune) out of suing doctors. These malpractice suits are one of primary reasons why healthcare is so expensive. That's a fact.

Kerry would not give us what we need. Kerry would tell us what we need and then we'd pay for it.

"I have a significant problem with someone paid by you and me that doesn't show up for work." First, we haven't established that's really the case with John Kerry's tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Even if we use the total of open and closed meetings, that still doesn't quantify his input or the extent of his knowledge. And if you really want to press that standard, do that with the President's vacation time as well. Even the most charitable numbers suggest Bush gets more down-time than anybody here.

"By the way, our most efficient way of producing hydrogen requires the burning of fossil fuels." You're dismissing all the other ways out of hand just like that? That's neither open-minded, informed, nor in keeping with America's can-do spirit. Hydrogen fuel cell tech is already commonplace. Offshoot technologies like NiMH batteries are part of mainstream society. I don't see the logic in dismissing hydrogen just when the R&D is paying off.

"Doctors will be limited to the procedures for which they can be reimbursed profitably." Will be? That happens now. HMO's haven't prevented that. So how is that unique to a universal health care system? I'm not jumping to conclusions about the average profit-to-drug-design budget ratio in a typical pharmaceutical company.

"Yes, the big whigs at these companies have obscene amounts of money." Well, if they earn a big honking profit, that's the American way. We all want to do that, really. Fraudulent pricing practices are a different matter. We can talk about executives' paychecks too, but that wasn't what I was getting at.

"Interestingly, John and Teresa have significant holdings in Merck, Pfizer, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, and Walgreens." And reducing drug prices is in their financial best interest exactly how again?

"It's also interesting worth noting that Kerry has chosen as his runningmate a guy who has made a career (and a fortune) out of suing doctors. These malpractice suits are one of primary reasons why healthcare is so expensive. That's a fact."

That's a smear, a right-wing double standard, and a cheap shot. But a fact? Very sloppy. Also, you blame lawyers instead of fraudulent doctors, juries, or judges for the cost of malpractice? Didn't you say something about jumping to conclusions?

Man, I thought the tone was improving. We were on the verge of a discourse here, discussing issues. If this is going to be nothing but ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies, we're back where we started. Disappointing.

I like Edwards' plan for malpractice reform: setting up panels before the trial to show that the suit has merit. The whole problem with frivolous lawsuits is, duh, the number of lawsuits. The answer is to reduce the occurrence of frivolous lawsuits. Not to reduce *all* lawsuits, or to reduce the maximum jury award (which makes no sense whatsoever). Reducing the maximum jury award only reduces how liable an offender is. Since when does "too many frivolous lawsuits" mean that a legitimately guilty party is somehow all of a sudden less guilty?

If you interpreted the tone as combative, I apologize. That wasn't my intention - however, I know that we both are vehement about these points, and sometimes things can be interpreted that way. So let's just establish that this conversation is not personal, merely an exchange of opposing views. This is the very definition of an argument in the field of logic.

"Even the most charitable numbers suggest Bush gets more down-time than anybody here." I submit to you that a President is on duty wherever his physical location may be. That could be the White House, Crawford, Camp David, AF1, the bathtub, wherever. Do you really think he says "hold my calls" and checks out like you or I would do? If Kerry could vote without attending sessions, you might have a compelling point. However:

http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_missed_votes_tally.htm

"That's a smear, a right-wing double standard, and a cheap shot." Why is when a Republican makes an assertion it is deemed a "smear," while Democrats call their statements "the truth"? Talk about a double standard.

For the record, you read into what I said almost to the point of embellishment. I'm not talking about fraud here. Unfortunately, fraud does occur today and it will continue. There will always be bad seeds, and Kerry's plan would not prevent that. Malpractice is a different situation entirely. Sure, there are bona fide cases for which doctors need to be punished, financially and otherwise. Too, the patients of these doctors deserve reasonable compensation. But the rationale for many cases in which Edwards triumphed (quite smartly) has been discredited:

"In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a joint study that cast serious doubt on whether events at childbirth cause cerebral palsy. The "vast majority" of cerebral palsy cases originate long before childbirth, according to the study. "

Now how exactly have his actions helped the "little people"?

"And reducing drug prices is in their financial best interest exactly how again?" Bingo. You've just discovered why the promise he's made you (your quote, "It's also a call for lower medical costs, less bureaucracy, and an end to overpriced prescription drugs.")
can be viewed as inconsistent at best.

"Hydrogen fuel cell tech is already commonplace." I wouldn't say commonplace, but that's not the point. Yes, the technology for the production of energy exists once you have the hydrogen! You fail to get the point though. Fuel cells do not produce hydrogen - they require it. There must be a source of hydrogen, which doesn't occur in the atmosphere in a ready-to-use form. It is produced by breaking down fossil fuels in a process called "cracking." Yes, there is potential here - but it does not eliminate our dependence on oil. It simply switches the location of where this oil is used. Instead of the car's engine, it's processed at a plant somewhere. Forgive me, this explanation isn't really germane to the argument. What is, however, is that Kerry's "plan" is not unlike Bush's own. The difference is that Kerry is spouting off like it's something unique, and his supporters are buying it.

I do think we have a discourse here. Don't give up because you disagree with me. I think this is a rare thing. I can tell that there are strong feelings behind your statements. This is a refreshing departure from those who really can't say why they support a particular candidate. We may think the other is woefully misguided, but that's part of the process, no?

I assume that you'll be watching the debate tomorrow night. I'll look forward to your take.

ST, I'm sorry, bud. Sean Robins just doesn't strike me as a credible source. And it's not about the name of his site. He stands by many groups and stories that are heavily biased and often inaccurate. I'm busy vetting the junk I see every freaking day as it is.

"Do you really think he says 'hold my calls' and checks out like you or I would do?" No, of course not. But the current state of telecom or the extensive admin support system weren't factored in for either Bush or Kerry. Even so, if a representative of the state has a poor attendance record, regardless of whichever side of the aisle he's on, it doesn't inspire much confidence. My point was that it cuts both ways.

As far as Kerry's attendance goes, I would like to see him make those records public, barring security issues. I think he just doesn't like being pushed around, regardless of the intentions. It's a trait he and Bush have in common, I suspect.

"It is produced by breaking down fossil fuels in a process called 'cracking.'" There is also electrolytic production, photolytic processes, thermo-chemical reforming, to name just a few options. Yes, the current state of hyrdogen fuel tech uses huge cracking stations. Basically refineries. But it's not the only game in town. For example, research at the University of Minnesota are working on a much smaller reactor prototype that converts ethanol into hydrogen. (The February 13 2004 issue of Science has an article on it. Not much luck getting it online. Off to a library in realspace for me.)

The point that's gotten lost, however, is that we need to seek out alternatives. Whether it's hydrogen, natural gas, or even nuclear--it was botched at best in the 1970's, but I'm not ruling it out--we should give alternative power a serious look. Kerry has an energy plan. Whether we actually see it, Congress and campaign promises being what they are, is anyone's guess. But he's talking about it and I like the sound of it so far.

"You've just discovered why the promise he's made you (your quote, 'It's also a call for lower medical costs, less bureaucracy, and an end to overpriced prescription drugs.') can be viewed as inconsistent at best." Um, no. It simply means you haven't figured out how it'd work. Keep an open mind and study his proposals. Don't just throw them out sight unseen.

"Why is when a Republican makes an assertion it is deemed a 'smear,' while Democrats call their statements 'the truth?' Talk about a double standard." I don't lay claim to any monopoly on the truth. But I'm sure working a hell of a lot harder to get there. Keep up.

Apparently you didn't try the link to the American Prospect. Here it is again: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8399 To make sure you get the point, I'll quote a relevant bit here:

It further galls the right that some small fraction of trial lawyers actually get rich by helping injured people to collect. Notice that when some business mogul becomes a billionaire, the right insists that he earned that money by bettering mankind. But when a talented personal injury lawyer prospers by helping an injury victim, he's a parasitic shyster.

You made a personal attack on Edwards because of his profession. For years this has been a common tactic for the right. If you fault any lawyer that fits your criteria, regardless of party affiliation, then I'll concede your right to your point of view and leave it at that.

I'll throw in another link and quote for you: Should Doctors Vote Against John Edwards?

A close reading of the Campbell case reveals that the hospital may have given the jury a few reasons to pick Edwards' theory over theirs. In the course of the trial, Edwards brought out that the hospital never offered to the Campbells the choice of opting for a Caesarean section. He pointed out that the Campbells weren't even asked to sign an "informed consent" form until after Jennifer was born - even though the form stated that they had been informed before the delivery of its various dangers. At the end of the trial, the jury found the hospital liable for failing to respect the Campbell's right to make decision based on informed consent.

Your case against Edwards is built at least one of three suppositions which are all shaky at best: that he intended to promote a theory that was fraudulent; that he knew he was fraudulent; or that he should've been clairvoyant enough to know what the scientific community did not know for another 30 years. Unless you have documentation as to Edwards' intent, the whole premise falls apart.

"I do think we have a discourse here. Don't give up because you disagree with me." It's not the disagreement that turns me off. I can disagree with someone and still come away with a smile on my face because of the food for thought that came of it. (The very thing happened last week, come to think, when my wife and I were comparing notes on "Sky Captain.")

No, it's the vitriol, the adversarial tone that's soured the whole thing. To be fair, you've been charitable and open-minded when you could've gone on to something else. Yes, we're pretty vehement about our opinions. And even I can use a little less caffeine, but I lose patience when confronted with poor reasoning or invective. Whether you're right or wrong, for God's sake, show some maturity and be gracious. Hell, especially if you're right! No one likes a sore winner.

So far there has been more venom than reasoning in your points. It's gratuitous and divisive. If someone pushes you, you're more inclined to push back or leave instead of say hello. What's the point of inviting someone over just to flame on when they show up? It's like that Monty Python argument sketch, except arguments and abuse are all in the same room. Neither discussion nor analysis are confrontation for its own sake. If that's all I wanted, I'd spare myself the grey hairs and fire up UT2004 or something. This isn't petty nitpicking. This is a genuine concern of mine, and I've expressed it repeatedly. To get a civil discourse, one must first be civil.

If you're genuinely interested in my take on the debate tomorrow, I can tell you right now I'm skeptical about the whole thing. I'll be stunned rigid if an actual debate takes place between the candidates. In real debates participants are docked for poor conduct, poor logic, or using too much time. I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest any semblance of such discipline. It might be dueling soundbytes, followed by days and days of more bloody spin. It might even be somehow informative. But I hardly expect a debate. The last time that happened, there was only one "Star Wars."

"ST, I'm sorry, bud. Sean Robins just doesn't strike me as a credible source." OK, poor choice of link, but it's merely a record of the votes cast in the Senate - not opinion. If the data proves incorrect, shame on him and shame on me. I'll see if I can't corroborate it from a source that might be more acceptable to you. OK, here we go - takes some effort, but I think you'll find the data to be identical.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_2.htm

"As far as Kerry's attendance goes, I would like to see him make those records public, barring security issues. I think he just doesn't like being pushed around, regardless of the intentions. It's a trait he and Bush have in common, I suspect." Hey, we agree!

"There is also electrolytic production, photolytic processes, thermo-chemical reforming, to name just a few options." Yes, we agree again. There is some hope here, as I indicated in my initial writing...but it's not around the corner. The continued research will go on no matter who wins the election. As I indicated, Kerry's and Bush's plans for alternative energy differ very little...the point being that there's no clear differentiator for Kerry here.

"You made a personal attack on Edwards because of his profession. For years this has been a common tactic for the right. If you fault any lawyer that fits your criteria, regardless of party affiliation, then I'll concede your right to your point of view and leave it at that." My, you are painting with a broad brush here saying that it is a "common tactic for the right." That type of generalization is dangerous, as many on each side of the aisle would assert. I suppose I could fill this page with "common tactics from the left," but in the spirit of our agreement I'm trying to keep this civil. Let's not go there! For the record, I DO fault any lawyer that fits these criteria. I don't indemnify persons from their trangressions simply because they belong to my party (or any other group or commonality with me). Let's get that straight right now. I don't dislike democrats because they're democrats. It might surprise you that I think rather highly of Sen. Lieberman. While I don't agree with a lot of his views, I think he's a decisive, honest man.

"No, it's the vitriol, the adversarial tone that's soured the whole thing." Lighten up, please. This is an election. Our candidates are adversaries. I think if you could imagine being on my side, reading your notes, you might see a bit of venomous content as well. I'm not trying to rile you up - what do I have to gain? Nada. Your vote is with Kerry and I doubt I can change it. Mine is with Bush and likewise, there's nothing you can do there. However, I'm truly interested in this exchange - else I wouldn't waste my time typing these. Until your last response, I haven't agreed with a single word you've typed. Now we see there IS some common ground (albeit slight). So maybe you should also keep an open mind?

"poor reasoning or invective." Do you not realize that I feel the same way about a lot of your assertions? However, I'm really doing my best not to hurl these types of insults your way. It's not because I'm not tempted, believe me. I'm making a conscious effort to keep this civil, and I really don't see anything to get upset about in any of our posts, yours or mine. In fact, whether you believe me or not, I have found a respect for you in the last couple days through these notes. We don't have to agree to respect each other's convictions.

" fire up UT2004" I'm not familiar with this. What is it?

"If you're genuinely interested in my take on the debate tomorrow" I wouldn't waste my time mentioning it if I wasn't.

"It might be dueling soundbytes, followed by days and days of more bloody spin." We agree. This is most assuredly a certainty.

"But I hardly expect a debate." Not a debate on issues, that's probably true. It will, however, be a debate in who can connect with the audience/viewers the best. I have my suspicions, but I won't make any predictions here!

>"There is also electrolytic production, photolytic processes,
>thermo-chemical reforming, to name just a few options." Yes,
>we agree again. There is some hope here, as I indicated in
>my initial writing...but it's not around the corner.
Right, we're still talking about research instead of manufacture. That hope is what I've been trying to address, regardless of candidates. My concerns are that some kind of alternative energy plan must be implemented and that it be effectively funded. After the election...eh, we'll see.

(And in case anyone's wondering, I'm just copying and pasting quotes, then adding a little quoting caret or whatever it is on my own, just to clarify the back-and-forth.)

>My, you are painting with a broad brush here saying that it is a
>"common tactic for the right."
I say that because I've seen a lot more neocons, those in the real as well as folks in the real world, play the "slip-and-fall lawyer" card a lot more than left-wingers have. I'm not saying that just one side plays that card, only that people on the right have used it much more often. If that's a broad brush, fine. But using one wouldn't be my first choice.

>I don't dislike democrats because they're democrats. It might surprise
>you that I think rather highly of Sen. Lieberman. While I don't agree
>with a lot of his views, I think he's a decisive, honest man.
Actually it makes perfect sense to me. He's been pretty bi-partisan. And I feel the same way about him. I don't agree with him 100 percent of the time, but as you say he's sincere and decisive.

>Lighten up, please. This is an election. Our candidates are adversaries.
Under most other circumstances, I'd cop to a need for an attitude adjustment. But there's a lot at stake in this election. Between that and the utter lack of unbiased news coverage, we as an electorate need intellectual standards of some kind.

>I'm making a conscious effort to keep this civil, and I really
>don't see anything to get upset about in any of our posts,
>yours or mine. In fact, whether you believe me or not, I have
>found a respect for you in the last couple days through these
>notes. We don't have to agree to respect each other's convictions.
Now you've surprised me! LOL Okay, I'll say here for the record I appreciate the effort you've put into this. We've gotten further away from the verbal street brawls and political horse races political discussions of late have become. I'm all for that. And yes, I always try to keep an open mind. I've been known to fail and be the first to say so, if it's any consolation.

>" fire up UT2004" I'm not familiar with this. What is it?
Unreal Tournament 2004. It's a first-person shooter video game. I think it's available for PC, Mac, and Linux. Virtual fragging is a guilty pleasure of mine. Cheaper and safer than keeping real guns, at least around me. ;D

>Not a debate on issues, that's probably true. It will, however,
>be a debate in who can connect with the audience/viewers the best.

Yeah, personability and a dash of theatrical acumen have become major criteria in these things. This morning I heard a commentator referring to recent presidential debates as "joint press conferences." I think that encapsulates it pretty well. That's the closest I can safely get to a prediction at this point!

UT2004 - should've known that one. I'm still having fun with Medal of Honor. New maps due out soon.

Debate shall be interesting! Looking forward to it.

Well, that was interesting. Both candidates kept it pretty clean. I was hoping for a slam dunk by Bush, which obviously didn't happen for either candidate. I don't believe Kerry persuaded those on the fence, but he certainly solidified those who already support him. It'll be interesting to see how things play out in the coming days...

The fact that Bush is leading just shows a statistic I have known (and ANYONE can look up) for years. In highschool we are told about the Bell Curve and how intelligence is distributed. Lots of average people with the really smart or dumb tapering towards the edges. WRONG! Look up any IQ scale and average American scores and one quickly finds that 80% of the population is average or below in their scores. Is it any wonder that his fear-mongering is working so well when so few can actually see through it?

"You can't claim terrorists cross the border into Iraq, yet at the same time try to claim that Iraq is somehow a diversion from the war against terror. The president cannot keep changing his mind. The president must speak clearly, and the president must mean what he says," Bush said.

The tererorist were not there to begin with. The terrorist are crossing the border thanks to Mr. Bush. He allowed the terrorist to enter Iraq in the numbers they have and is quickly adding to those numbers... or can't Dubya see that?

"The tererorist were not there to begin with."

You neglect to realize that Saddam Hussein is [was] one of the biggest terrorists of our time. One who gases, burns, shoots, hangs, chops, and otherwise defiles his own people certainly plants him solidly in that category.

You also fail to consider the KNOWN terrorist training facilities that existed in Iraq before the war. Here's but one example:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

I think you might wish to continue your research on this.

"The terrorist are crossing the border thanks to Mr. Bush. He allowed the terrorist to enter Iraq in the numbers they have and is quickly adding to those numbers... or can't Dubya see that?"

Ever heard of a roach motel?

Roach motel, you've got to be kidding me. Josh Marshall dealt with this comparison - why not also build a really dirty hospital so all the germs will go THERE? The rest of us will be healthier for it.

Josh Marshall....lol.

I guess you'd laugh too if I said Rush Limbaugh had "dealt with this comparison."

You people dreaming of a Reagan-style landslide for Bush -- keep dreaming. No incumbent has ever won with numbers under 50 percent, and with this guy's approval rating tanking since his Oct. 9 "Burning Bush" performance lumped with his earlier scowlfest, he'll be on the Carter/Bush41 heap this Nov. 2. Kerry in an electoral walk!

ST, how are you comparing Joshua Marshall and Rush Limbaugh at this point? Do you mean they're both biased or something. Seriously, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Joe,

Yes, indicating that I view Josh Marshall to be rather liberally (pun intended) biased.

"You people dreaming of a Reagan-style landslide for Bush -- keep dreaming."

Adios, I'm not dreaming of this. I'm pretty realistic and know that it's not in the cards. I also know that 270 electoral votes achieve the same result as 538 when it comes to winning.

"Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. My prediction is for a narrow but clear Bush victory.

Well, it was a close race and a good fight. It is a relief to me that the nation upheld the values in which we are grounded, not only in the election of our President, but of our legislative body. I know it's difficult to accept for some former Kerry supporters - the '92 election was a tough pill for me to swallow so I can relate. I do hope the nation can come together again and move forward under our leader...I know the correct choice was made.

A special thanks to Joe who I've enjoyed exchanging with over the past couple months. You were willing to swap views and share your thoughts in an often heated yet civil manner.

While I think the Democratic party was charged up like never before, I think Kerry was unelectable. Had the Democrats selected a more moderate, appealing individual, we might very well be preparing for a change of guard today. It is confusing to me why the Democrats would put all their chips behind this individual while there were more attractive options. The DNC MUST steer more towards the middle if it hopes to gain popularity/power. If 2008 brings the nomination of Hilary, I think the party will near extinction.

To folks (paricularly those in Hollywood) who have threatened to leave the US, please don't break your promises again....as far as I'm concerned (and the majority of the country by virtue of the vote), you are free to go. You lied in 2000. All bark and no bite. I for one will help you carry your bags to the airport if you can prove to me that your ticket is one-way. Don't ever forget that you are actors, here for our entertainment...that's all. Your sense of self-importance is laughable.

I'll monitor the site if anyone wishes to discuss the results of Nov. 2. If not, I appreciate the conversation and it's time to move forward!

Thanks for the shoutout, ST. Normally I'd say I did my best, but my initial footing was about as graceful as a compound fracture. ;)

I wouldn't mind going over election results (I have my share of complaints for both of the big parties), but I think it can wait for a newer thread or even a better time. The President is entitled to a honeymoon period. And so are we; I agree that we have to heal the divisions in this country if we're to move ahead.

Your comment about folks threatening to leave the US is ironic, at least for me. My wife and I had a long talk about doing the same thing. For a few people, it's a hissy fit, I'm sure. For some of us, though, it's genuine shock and dread. Not exactly a walk through Gethsemane, but ramifications and worst-case scenarios start spiralling in your head. When you get a phone call around midnight from a friend, who's in tears because they no longer feel welcome on their native soil, it come close. I just can't give up, no matter how bleak the future seems in my eyes. I believe in America. But I'll be using my decade chaplet a lot more for a while.