Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

This whole article presupposes that Kerry has no real personal support. I myself am an enthusiastic Kerry supporter, and I can think of scores of others I know in the center that occupy the same boat with me. His plans for tax reforms, trade reforms, and a competent foriegn policy are just the first things that come to mind that I like. Furthermore, stories about his time as a prosecutor are really ripping good reads, with the young man clearing a huge backlog of cases and being involved in several high-level corruption cases. During his DA time, he brought low democrats as readily as republicans. That went a long way towards endearing him to me. He’s a man who does what he sees as the right thing, and given that our values tend to coincide, I like that about him as well.

All in all, I think Kerry is a knock-out candidate in his own right. When he starts putting together his list of high-placed administration-to-be officials, his upcoming presidency will look even better.

There’s a good story that I’ve got on this subject. For kicks on the weekend, I consult for a local PC shop. I was fiddling with a machine’s AOL connection (shudder), and upon connecting I was greeted by some headline to the effect of “Will Kerry’s Anti-war Activities Hurt His Campaign?”

Standing around me was a group of 5 good Georgians - two groups of two and one individual. When I saw the headline, I said “Huh, that’s weird.” They thought I was talking about the computer, so I clarified: “I wasn’t alive during the Vietnam era, so I can’t say that I really know, but everything I’ve ever heard was that Vietnam was a mistaken, ill-concieved and executed war. It was a boondogle that was and getting our boys killed, and for what? So, I guess the only problem I’d have with Kerry’s Vietnam record would be if he had whole-heartedly supported the war. Coming back and opposing it seems like the right thing to do.”

To a man, everyone agreed. One of them even went on to critisize Bush’s apparent lack of plan for a post-Saddam Iraq.

I’d call that a pretty Kerry-supportive crowd. I’m sure that at least 3 or 4 out of the 5 were republicans, just given the democraphics among caucasians in our fine state, so I’m sure some will vote for Bush all the same. But if one votes for a third party as a protest, and that pattern extends throughout the state, even Georgia could be in play this election. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

Ah yes, the old denigrate your opponents support so you look strong tactic. Please! Kerry is an extremely respected Democrat with a long history of service to this country. Sure he will have to talk about his record, but that is because he has one. The only thing Bush has ever voted for was himself, and the only record he has is one of complete failure. Bush’s support is what is extremely fragile. Fiscal conservatives - no excitement there. Moderate Republicans - they will stay home. Gun rights groups - they are worried about the steady move towards a police state. That leaves the single issue pro-life voters and the small group of neocons. Karl Rove isn’t sleeping well these days.

A little early to be throwing in the towel on Kerry, isn’t it? Even if The Village Voice is advocating it. (They wanted to run Dean against Bush. My God, how the Bush campaign must have been licking its chops to have a go at Governor Dean.)

Still no VP announced. The Democratic convention is still weeks away. We haven’t seen a single debate (and based on the president’s inability to think on his feet, Kerry has to be favored in that arena). Yet, Kerry is neck-and-neck with Bush in the polls— including the ones that matter, in the battleground states. I’d say this thing is going to the wire, barring someone making a huge misstep.

I consider myself a moderate and I’m a strong Kerry supporter. I would venture that all who call him a liberal do so without any significant review of his 18-year voting record in the Senate. But just because the Right Wing pundits and the Bush campaign say he’s a liberal, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a liberal. Certainly not as liberal as they want you to believe.

Mark, you’re right that President Bush has a solid base of support. And among Kerry’s equally solid base, there is a large element that is there only because their mantra is ABB. For Kerry to win— and I believe he has a very good chance of doing so— he needs to turn the ABB crowd into true believers in his message. Then he needs to capture the attention and the trust of a majority of the small group of undecideds and independents who may eventually decide this election. If he can do that, and the Iraq and economic situations don’t change drastically in Bush’s favor, I believe Kerry will win.

The Democrats had several good candidates and no great ones. (If they did have a great one, Bush would be in serious trouble come November, because he is vulnerable.)

Each serious Democratic contender had his problems. Edwards’ ideas are good, but not quite fully formed— the Bush campaign would have painted him as a slick trial lawyer who’s all style and no substance.

Lieberman is a true centrist who could garner support from the middle and even some on the right, but would have a hard time with many of the Democratic party’s most loyal, most liberal constituencies. The left-wing Dems paint him with the same brush that the right-wing Republicans paint McCain.

Hillary Clinton carries too much baggage, at least I hope so. Gephardt is a good man with a solid record who unfortunately couldn’t excite enough people about his candidacy. Dean, as I mentioned earlier, may have been the Democrats’ worst chance to beat Bush. By the time the Bush campaign was done with him, they’d have us all believing that the traitorous, peacenik Dean had given Mohammad Atta cab fare to Logan.

So it is now, and it will be in November, Kerry vs. Bush. He’s the Democrats’ best hope, and most of them know it. A good man and a good choice.

With Bush’s approval rating at 46% (very recent CBS poll), George McGovern would whoop him!

Columnist Mark Shields had the most brillant and clever ideas for a personal survey.

Find 10 of your friends, family or co-workers who voted for AL Gore in 2000. Now, find 10 of your friends, family or co-workers who voted for Bush in 2000.

Of the Gore group, count those who will not be voting for John Kerry, and of the Bush group, count those who will not be voting for him, this time.

What are the totals of those 2 groups?

46% isn’t bad, actually. It’s a long way from what it was, but it’s historically better than what many who went on to win landslides have had at this point in their first terms.

If you guys are serious about dumping Kerry, any chance you might ressurect Dean? Kerry’s all right, but Dean would make a much better chew-toy for Karl Rove I think.

Mark, are you trying to intimidate us? That’s all this kind of argument does. You’re just trying to say that some how, Kerry is doomed. Well maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. Bush still has a few bullets left in that gun he’s using to shoot himself in the foot. Let’s see how many he fires. And let’s see how Kerry does as the Convention season approaches.

I think Mark forgets that many moderate Republicans, who are finding it increasingly difficult to live with the direction of their party, will be joining Kerry in this year’s election.

A most telling moment came for me when a friend’s father, a staunch Virginian Republican who voted for Ollie North for Govenor, declared that he would not vote for Bush this time around because, among other reasons, he lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I think the question Mark should truly ask himself is whether his party is as cohesive as he thinks it is for this election go-around.

A little presumptuous Mark to couch wishful thinking into an article that supposedly is to provide information forthrightly. Now if you had some poll numbers to support your wishful thinking that Kerry does not have a chance, the article would have some substance.

I think it’s going to be John Edwards as a running mate.

I think Bush is going to be in such a hole, that even he and Jeb won’t be able to buy their way out this time.

I was originally a Clark guy (I’m insanely moderate), but I’m totally on board with Kerry’s platform.

I really like Kerry’s energy and health care plans. His tax plan is the same one the Democrats have always had: progressive tax structure and tax cuts for the middle class. He’s got a solid plan for post-war Iraq, I like his “Service for College” plan, and his economic plan is Clintonesque. It all looks very centrist to me: Fiscally conservative and socially progressive.

Mark, since Bush is polling so poorly right now, you guys might want to consider switching candidates. :)

Where is your evidence, Mark? All you have against Kerry is your subjective impressions, and the fact that Bob Shrum works for him. It’s true that he only seems to have about 40-45% solid support, but that is also true for Bush! Perhaps you aren’t aware of the fact that undecided voters tend to vote against the incumbent.

You may be surprised to learn that about a week ago John Zogby said that the election is Kerry’s to lose.

Other political pundits that I respect say that this election will be decided by events that haven’t happened yet. From this point of view, Kerry’s caginess is a virtue.

Great idea, Lee. Maybe the Republicans can ditch Bush and put in McCain. Then I’d have a decision to make on November 2.

I think Kerry senses that he has quite a few months before the Big Push for the presidency should really start. Give him a month or two.

It’s going to be Mary Landrieu.

Kerry and Landrieu, that is.

Al Maline wrote: “Ah yes, the old denigrate your opponents support so you look strong tactic.”

Stephen Daugherty asked: “Mark, are you trying to intimidate us?”

David R. Remer wrote: “A little presumptuous Mark to couch wishful thinking into an article that supposedly is to provide information forthrightly.”

None of the above. I do not engage in denigration, intimidation, or wishful thinking (unless clearly labeled). I’m a political writer, not a baiter.

Folks, I’m offering an analysis. If you read my article, it was not overtly pro-Bush; rather, I was looking an electoral problem I, and some inside the Democratic Party, see on the horizon.

We have seen a dynamic in which the President has received almost nothing but bad press this year. JF Kerry was riding a double-digit national-snapshot lead coming out of the primaries, during which he did little but attack the President. The President closed that gap — albeit one which is only the nation’s vague pulse at a particular time — and is leading in some polls.

In order to unseat an incumbent, a challenger must rely on the weakness of the office holder and excitement about his own candidacy. The President is still proving not weak enough to be ousted, and there is little excitement about Kerry.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter beat a weak incumbent Gerald Ford because people were excited about his honest brand of politics: “America, once and for all, why not the best?” In 1980. Ronald Reagan beat a weak incumbent with great excitement about his candidacy/revolution. In 1984, Fritz Mondale was a weak candidate who lost to a strong incumbent. In 1996, an unexciting Bob Dole lost to a popular Bill Clinton who by now had his own following.

This year, we have JF Kerry running against President Bush. Bush has a solid block of support; and Tanya, do not overstress GOP defectors. Every Republican President has them, even Reagan in ‘84.

President Bush lied about the war? Not if Bob Woodward’s book is to be believed.

Kerry does not have the personal support to knock of the President. Kerry has to hope for either economic disaster or defeat in Iraq, probably both. The Democratic Party PTB are not stupid, so they have to privately recognize this. That is why I posited a new candidate, and I threw it open.

Mark, thank you for clarifying the intent of your article as an opinion piece.

In view of that, I’d like to change my response to: You’re just wrong.

Here’s something lifted from Monday’s Financial Times:

“I think the election will be a referendum on George Bush,” said Mr Buffett at the close of his annual [Berkshire Hathaway] shareholder meeting in Omaha. “The Kerry campaign is quite unimportant compared to how people feel about Bush when they go into the voting booth.”

From today’s NYTimes:

[A]s Mr. Kerry built up momentum among both real-life primary voters and the control group in the experiment, Senator John Edwards enjoyed the biggest surge in the well-informed test group, which was won over by his personal traits as well as by his policies, notably his protectionism on trade. Besides appealing to the Democrats in the test group, Mr. Edwards did better among the group’s independents and Republicans, and he emerged as the strongest candidate against Mr. Bush.

Can JF Kerry beat the President in November? Yes, if the economy tanks or the war takes a major turn for the worse. It will probably take both.

Dear Mark in la la land, the economy has tanked, the war has taken a major turn for the worst.

Hmm… Warren Buffet doesn’t seem convinced that an ABB vote can’t beat Bush. It sounds like he’s counting on it.

On the other hand, Mark, maybe you’re right. My Aunt told me the other day that she’d vote for a monkey before she voted for Bush. She didn’t mention Kerry at all. Maybe we should try running a monkey against Bush. That would crack me up.

All Kerry has to do to win is endorse existing Immigration Law. This issue has the support of 87% of the electorate across all political wings. Yet Republocrate Corporate Shills ignore law inviting 9-11, Malvo/Mohamad and low wages. These shills care about re-election and associated donors agenda, always contrary to the common good.

I’ve read Woodward’s book, Mark. I do recall the passage where Tenet pronounces the case a slam dunk. As I recall it, two things are true:

One, it was a slam dunk. Saddam was in violation of several restrictions he had agreed to, and there was circumstantial evidence for more than that. So Bush wasn’t lying or misleading anybody when he said Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions.

Two, it’s worse than you think. Four months after Joseph Wilson says the Niger Yellowcake is B.S., the president speaks those infamous sixteen words. The president speaks of Iraq being capable of attacking other countries 45 minutes after an order is given, when the CIA considers the British report of poor value, and the George Tenet himself refers to it as the “They can attack in 45 minutes shit”.

Now, you might say, well, Bush had the sense to say the case was thin when he first got it. But you would be undermined by what’s said later. Instead of going back to the CIA and saying, give me a sharper intelligence picture, he instead gives the case to Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Chief of Staff for the Vice President Scooter Libby, who then proceed to give it their best trial lawyer’s treatment. These fellows go back to the CIA, and ask in writing for the information they might have. The information they come up with is full of exaggerations, material taken out of context, and intelligence widely considered iffy in the intelligence circles.

If Bush had simply trusted the word of a subordinate who gave him bad intelligence, that would be forgiveable. But to instead take that case he so distrusts, and have his staff lawyer it up? That shows a distinct apathy for the credibility of the evidence they were asking congress and America to go to war based on.

These are grave matters, Mark, and I hardly see how such sloppy attitudes towards selling the American people on a war. Go back and re-read Woodward. President Bush may look more competent in some ways in that book, but he also reveals some rather glaring weaknesses.