Third Party & Independents: Archives

Can anyone find any resources that show day-by-day poll numbers for previous presidential elections? Particularly graphical versions. I am interested in seeing what the ‘spread’ between the candidates was over time in the 2000, 1996, 1992, etc. elections, in order to compare them to today’s numbers. I remember Bush and Gore, for example, trading the lead several times during the last campaign.

Thanks in advance!

-Cf

Christopher

I was watching Fox New Sunday as I was writing my email below (multi-tasking). They talked about polling numbers in earlier elections. I wasn’t paying enough attention to give you precise numbers, but I expect the transcript is available on line.

Now my original post responding to Martin

A “generic Democrat” might have defeated President Bush, but John Kerry is not the man to do it. Your advice to Kerry is good, but he can’t take it because he is too weak. Think of how he came out swinging after the Republican convention. Kerry stayed up late to fight back, but he primarily attacked Dick Cheney (not Bush) based on his lack of service in Vietnam. What is wrong with this picture? Cheney is the vice president. Maybe he is an easier target but Cheney is not the man Kerry has to beat. And Vietnam again? Honestly, can’t he talk about anything else? Doesn’t he have any other relevant experience to talk about?

I think the problem with Kerry is that he is not used to being opposed. He and Teddy Kennedy have Massachusetts sown up. No real challenge at home. He was born rich and educated at great private schools where he was a favored son. After that he earned his own money the old fashioned way – he married it. Having a billion dollar fortune (of course it is not “his”, but he gets to use it anytime he wants) insulates you from being told “no”. He believes he has a right to be president, as he had the right to all the other good things in life. I am not criticizing his wealth. It is better to be rich if you can. Some rich kids get the message about life, just not John F. Kerry.

Like a car salesman who keeps directing you to the car you don’t want, Kerry has already lost the sale.

The American people didn’t want to look at the marvelous features of Vietnam, and how great a war hero he was in it, …but never mind what’s under the hood, or that after he got home he threw those medals away.

This is the reason Bush got a bump and Kerry didn’t. Kerry has been trying to sell us a used car as if it were new.

Kerry’s campaign strategy has been to counter Bush’s strength on security by overemphasizing his military service. Kerry attacked Bush’s strength, not his weakness. One of you dems should get Kerry a copy of Sun Ztu.

The army’s formation is like water.

The water’s formation avoids the high and rushes to the low.

So an army’s formation avoids the strong and rushes to the weak.
sonshi.com

I do believe the Elder Bush came out of the convention with a substantial lead before he lost to Clinton. It’s a bounce. Let us see what happens after the impressions of the conventions and other things settle in.

I remember when Bush’s numbers were so high, people were in doubt as to whether it was worth it to have a Democrat challenge him. There’s a reason those numbers dropped. There’s also a reason why the Democrats got as aggressive as they did in the past few months. The real fumble here would be to assume that the convention bounce has anything to do with Kerry’s campaign. Bush reminded people why folks liked him so much after 9/11. We Democrats can go ahead and remind them why they stopped thinking so kindly about him.

Jack, you really should read up on Kerry’s background before you talk about it like you know something about it.

As I’ve pointed out to you before, Kerry had to fight a monumental re-election battle against Governor Bill Weld in 1996. It was nip and tuck to the very end and Kerry eked out a win. Kennedy himself had a tough challenge from now governor Mitt Romney (the fourth straight Republican governor in our state, by the way) a few years earlier.

To say Kerry was “born rich and educated at great private schools” is beyond an oversimplification. His father was a public servant, working for the government. His mother came from money— she was a Forbes— but she came from a large family and saw only a small share of that fortune. Kerry actually ran in rich circles as one of the least well off among his peers. By contrast, George W. Bush grew up in a vastly more wealthy setting. (The part you have right is about marrying money…smart man.)

This is from John F. Kerry: Candidate in the Making,” a series that appeared in Kerry’s hometown newspaper, The Boston Globe.

But Kerry did not fully belong to this elite world, either. His father’s government salary, combined with his own struggles with money, left him planted further on the outskirts of New England’s ruling class than many realized. The boy who was educated at patrician prep schools grew into a gentleman without significant means, part of a landless aristocracy that one might find in a Jane Austen novel. He married wealthy wives whose net worth dwarfed his own.

You know so little about John Kerry that it may speak to his inability, thus far, to still define himself for the majority. Or perhaps you “learned” what you did, then stopped listening. Either way, what you think you know about John Kerry isn’t even close to the truth. Next you’ll tell me he’s 100% Irish.

Bush 41 got a low single digit bounce in 1992. That race was very different, in any case.

Don’t forget that Bill Clinton won with a plurality of only 43%. Carter lost to Reagan with a similar percentage.That is about where Kerry sits right now. The low 40s is the hard core of the Democratic party, but in this year’s race, it won’t be enough.

Historical point - Not since Bush 41 has anyone got a majority of the votes. Clinton won with pluralities. Dems will point out that Gore won the popular vote, but still without a majority.

Jerome

Thanks for the Kerry lesson, but I know a little about his experience as a poor little rich kid. I have the same type of job as Kerry’s father. It is not that bad. Even though neither my wife nor I has the family wealth and privilege the Kerrys enjoyed, I have had a really hard time keeping it real for my kids. Unlike the Kerrys, I sent my kids to public schools and made them get jobs at fast food restaurants, but they still think is perfectly natural have a friend take them to Cyprus for a birthday party. I know the Kerry type only too well and I will admit that as a former member of the working class, it rubs me the wrong way. The easy feeling of entitlement is something I both admire and abhor.

George Bush senior came from that same background, but his family had the redeeming grace of seeing themselves as public servants first. GW Bush’s growing up in Midland Texas, beyond the reach of the liberal elite, his marrying of a schoolteacher and his (self imposed) near disaster caused by his drinking habits, helped wash away the blue blood. No poor guys are running in this election. Bush is rich. I read that his fortune is about 22 million. But his fortune pales beside the Kerry bucks.

The challenges Kerry has faced? We should all be so challenged.

Your one-sided view is coming clear to me, Jack. The wealth of the Bush family compares to that of the Kennedys. Perhaps favorably at this point. Have you been to Kennebunkport?

I don’t suggest that you cry for John Kerry, or even that he was “poor” by any standard. (Though I’m glad I never faced the challenge of fighting in Vietnam.) I’m simply stating that the perception of John Kerry as coming from the same kind of money as George W. Bush is false. You can’t really argue this point.

To suggest that George W. Bush is any more down to earth than John Kerry— simply because he’s “real Texas” and he married a school teacher (I thought she was a librarian, but I’m done lecturing you on the details)— is the pure fantasy of someone choosing to see things their own partisan way. Phillips Andover? Then to Yale? Yep, George is a Regular Joe all right.

Blue blood doesn’t wash away. Not when you use your family influence to avoid combat. Not when you use family money and influence to buy a major league baseball team. Not when Dad spends 12 years in The White House. You can be born again, but you can’t be born anew.

The bottom line is that Kerry may exude elitism, but George W. Bush is immersed in it. It’s who he is and it’s who he caters to. He’s said it himself: it’s his “base.”

“This is an impressive crowd. The haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base.”

George W. Bush, 10/19/00, Al Smith Dinner, Waldorf-Astoria, New York

From the sounds of it Jack, if I ran in the same circles as you do, I might be backing Bush too. As it is though, the paltry gain I received from Bush’s cut in federal taxes was devoured (and then some) by increases in property tax, health insurance, and energy costs. If my federal tax savings were in the tens of thousands, rather than in the hundreds, we might find ourselves in the same camp. Instead, I’ll back my rich guy and you back yours.

I just wish you (and most people I’ve talked to about the subject) knew a little more about John Kerry before you passed judgment on him.

I don’t know Kerry well. You are right. How could I? I met him and heard him speak, but only because I happened to live in New Hampshire last year and the Dems were interested every potential granite state vote last year. He did not make a good impression on me. That is not scientific or logical but the personal meetings tend to trump impersonal media. (In contrast, I liked Edwards a lot, but he’s not leading the ticket.) Most of what I know of Kerry comes from what he says on newspapers and television. He talks about Vietnam a lot. He says he was a hero and I believe him, but I know several people who were heroes in Vietnam. I didn’t like what he did when he came back and that kind of negates the Vietnam plus for me. I think his experience overseas and his ability to communicate in French would be a plus with some of the Euros, but given the behavior of some of the Euros, I am not sure that is a plus with many Americans. I didn’t like it a couple of weeks ago when he criticized the Bush administration about their plan to move military bases. This was something we were working on for years and something that won’t happen for years. Kerry should have known better than to make it an issue. Kerry just hasn’t given me an affirmative reason to support him.

As far as I am concerned, it is up to Kerry (and Bush and Nader) to explain himself to the voters rather than ask voters to research his life. This is not a trivial thing. To lead, a president must be able to connect with the American people. Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan were able to do that. Nixon, Carter and Bush 41 didn’t really have that talent. If Kerry is unable to connect, he will not be president, no matter how exquisite his resume.

P.S. Laura Bush was a schoolteacher and librarian. Her degree was in education. I didn’t think that particular detail mattered, since her roles overlapped and the point was her ordinary beginnings. As for the circle I run in – I am only an ex-officio member poorly living on a government salary. I still make more using coupons at the super market than investing in the stock market. Besides many of the rich Americans I personally know are voting for Kerry.

No argument here on your most recent post, Jack. It’s incumbent upon Kerry to make his case and, to this point, he has failed to do so. I’m hoping he can in the debates, but time is running out.

I had hoped that Kerry would win by making a connection with the electorate, rather than simply due to dissatisfaction with Bush. With the campaign running the way it is, I believe that making that connection is now his only chance. I still think he can do it, but the task is infinitely harder than it would have been three or six months ago.

P.S. You’re right about Laura Bush of course. The librarian crack was an attempt at a little humor, in part self-deprecating. And as for your circles, that was a reference to your comment about birthday parties in Cyprus. Rich or not, those are some high-flying circles.

They are rich. We are less so.

Can anyone find any resources that show day-by-day poll numbers for previous presidential elections?

If you are looking for evidence that Kerry still has a chance, the example would actually be Ronald Reagan in 1980. Carter, the incumbent, was well ahead of him in mid-October.

Why can’t the Democrats mange to formulate an effective response to these types of nasty attacks?

I heard an undecided voter on NPR saying that he was disturbed by how “clumsily” Kerry handled the Swiftvets. Am I the only person who finds this phenomenon more than a little sinister? People claim to hate negative campaigning, but then they knowingly let themselves be affected by even spurious charges. If voters don’t want politicians to engage in scurrilous personal attacks, they should try a little harder to resist them. That is my rant for the evening…

As I noted in an earlier post, I’m not really sure how much credit/blame the Swifties actually get, although the anecdotal evidence is there.

After that he earned his own money the old fashioned way – he married it.

I don’t know how people got this impression that Kerry coasted through life on Teresa’s money. He didn’t marry her until 1995. What is wrong with a mature, accomplished, and in fact wealthy man marrying a woman who has more money?

[Bush’s] (self imposed) near disaster caused by his drinking habits, helped wash away the blue blood.

I love it!!! He may have been born to privilege, but he’s a recovering alcoholic!

Personally, I don’t really care about Bush’s lost years, but to tout them as a qualification is incredible. Maybe Kerry should have gotten addicted to something when he was in Vietnam…

As for the “easy feeling of entitlement”, if Bush’s biography isn’t a story of entitlement then the word has no meaning.

A passage from Scott’s Ivanhoe that I posted on my blog several months ago:

Those who remarked in the physiognomy of the Prince a dissolute audacity, mingled with the extreme haughtiness and indifference to the feelings of others, could not yet deny to his countenance that sort of comeliness which belongs to an open set of features… so far frank and honest, that they seem is if they disclaimed to conceal the natural workings of the soul. Such an expression is often mistaken for manly frankness, when in truth it arises from the reckless indifference of a libertine disposition, conscious of superiority of birth, of wealth, or of some other adventitious advantage, totally unconnected with personal merit.

Sound like anyone we know?

Woody, Teresa was not John’s first wife, you know. You might want to check that out…

As for the swift boat guys, what I really don’t understand is that this guy has been dealing with the Swift Boat group, under some name or another, for over 30 years. You’d think he would either have apologized for what he did wrong or be able to counter what they are saying since John O’Neill and John Kerry have been debating and arguing this stuff since at least 1971. This is not a new issue.

Did John and the DNC think it would just go away? Did they think that he would be able to just ignore them like before?

Is this inability to forsee this and counter it something that should be taken into account when determining how he will function as a president?

There are a lot of questions that are unanswered in many people’s minds about Kerry. Unless he answers them well in the next 2 months I believe that people will avoid voting for him and pull the Bush lever.

Ok, so his first wife was pretty loaded, too. Nevertheless, I don’t see why getting money by marriage is any worse than getting it from your parents.

To respond to an earlier comment bvy Jack…

He believes he has a right to be president, as he had the right to all the other good things in life.

Yep, Kerry is just like all of those other rich brats who VOLUNTEERED TO GO TO VIETNAM. That fact doesn’t qualify him to be president, but if it doesn’t prove that he wasn’t a spoiled rich kid who thought his you-know-what didn’t stink, I can’t imagine what would.

It’s amazing to me, really, the excuses people can come up with to hate someone they disagree with. The mind is a wondrous thing…

You are right, who he got his money, how rich or poor he is, whether he went to Vietnam or not, none of these things prove one way or another that he is qualified to be president. I’ve never asserted that it did.

So, can you list out what does make him qualified? If you can, I think that with the current shakeup in his campaign you could probably earn a spot running the show because so far no one has effectively done so.

I have been asking people, and hearing others asking people who say that they are voting for Kerry to explain what Kerry has one to convince them to do so, the only real answer we get is ‘He’s not Bush’. And, while that might get you to the dance, you’re going to have to be able to sell yourself and what YOU are for and about sufficiently to the voters or you will not become president.

Rhinehold,

I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. It was really Jack who I was arguing with.

As for Kerry’s qualifications, I wouldn’t claim that he is uniquely qualified to be president, but he certainly has the kinds of credentials that previous successful presidential candidates have had. Why he has not been more successful at selling himself, I do not pretend to know.

Haha! Rhinhold, are you kidding? Six months ago, this election was totally unwinnable for a Democrat. Kerry has done a brilliant job of defining himself, and if your buddies still don’t know what Kerry is all about, then they just don’t care very much. All they have to do is go to his web site.

I also find it humorous that you guys seem to be mistaking Kerry for Bush. Bush is the guy who got the free ride through life.

And Jack, no amount of boozing, poor grades, coke sniffing, skirt chasing, drunk driving and drunk & disorderly arrests, are going to convince me that Bush is a devoted “public servant” who can run this country. I’m baffled as to how you can even make that connection.

Bush is a failure. He’s divided this country, he’s isolated this country, he’s gutted this country, and he’s bared this country’s throat to terrorism by doing homeland security on the cheap to protect his stock dividend and estate tax cuts at all costs.

Bush offers four more years of BS and misleadership.

Kerry’s got solid progressive plans for counter-terrorism, for homeland security, for the future of our energy industry, for strengthening our economy, for clean land, air, and water, for our health care system, and for creating jobs.

And I’d put up serious money that John Kerry can outshoot, outride, and outfight his momma’s boy Connecticut-cowboy opponent - assuming Bush wouldn’t just hide in a Louisiana bunker until the bad man goes away.

When people say Kerry mishandled the swiftvets story, I take it to mean that he only reacted with massive indignation and then refused to answer questions about it. Isn’t it odd that he has refused to even SPEAK with a real reporter for over a month now? How can you run for president and hide from the press during the most crucial months? Even if I were fervently pro-Kerry, I coulnd’t see that this was anything but a bad idea. It seems to me that even if the swiftboats were lying (as Democrats continue to believe) Kerry could have gone a long way in diffusing the situation with a smile and shrug—instead of bellowing “Bring it on!,” attacking the messengers instead of the message (in Watchblog speak) and then going to ground.

Much of this about perception—and totally aside from the veracity of the charges—Kerry seems totally unable to control and shape his reactions in a way that might postively influence perception. Perhaps even Kerry’s supporters would agree with that.

And then attacking Cheney’s deferments—what was THAT about? Does he not realize how many of the voters he needs to be wooing got military deferments during the Vietnam era? And in the same speech he crows about the Red Sox gaining on the Yankees (which wasn’t even true) before a dumb-struck audience in Springfield, Ohio! Did he think he was in Boston? If anybody understands what Kerry thinks he’s doing with such acts, I’d love to have it explained.

Jeez, I thought this blog was about 3rd parties, not the duopoly!

Anyway, Kerry’s peeked through a bit in the mainstream media (which, IMO, is still more influential than the internet) with a few self-definining moments. His nomination speech was one, for example.

That said, he seems to be playing only a slightly better game than Gore did in 2000. And that’s to go after the other guy’s voters. This is one of the worst strategies for him in the current political environment. Clinton did this so well that it forced Repubs to come back by appropriating some of their issues. Kerry wants to do that with Iraq, fore example. He’s not anti-war, in fact wants to send more troops. This isn’t what most liberal & progressive voters want to hear, and they’re his base.

My question is: If the country’s electorate keeps getting more polarized, why the hell does Kerry keep moving to the center. Repubs do it with a wink in their eye, knowing that the undecideds they’re courting will probably vote for them anyway. The result is the entire discourse moves further to the right.

A few days ago, there was a great article on Gadfly.com that said Kerry needs to do more unexpected things if he expects to solidify his base as well as attract undecided voters.

Thank goodness we’ve got Nader & Cobb trying to pull it back to the left!

Qualifications for Kerry.

-Actually served in the Military for two tours of duty, spent years from 1966 to 1970 in the Navy. Saw great amounts of combat and distinguished himself with bravery, earning a Bronze Star with Combat V, and a Silver Star (any accusations of forgery concerning a combat V on that should have to be addressed by the naval personal who actually authored and typed the form instead of Kerry) He recieved three purple hearts.

-Combated abuses in military policy he saw from his superiors, joined protest groups, and testified against the continuation of a war generally regarded in that time to be a mistake. When group became to radical and assassinations started getting discussed, Kerry resigned from the group. Earlier, when given the chance to have Jane Fonda come to one of their meetings, Kerry disinvited Fonda.

-Spent years as a prosecutor/assistant D.A. in Massachusetts, with a record for going after white collar criminals.

-Elected to Senate, took down terrorist financing bank BCCI, was a driving force in Iran Contra investigation, Spent years in the Foreign Affairs Committee, eight years (admittedly poorly attended) in the Intelligence Committee, sponsored about fifty-two measures that have passed the senate. Was part of the delegation dealing with MIAs/POWs and normalization of relations with Vietnam. In early career voted against certain weapons systems, but in later career would regard those votes as mistakes. Even then, he would vote for most of the Military budgets since then, and would vote to authorize nearly ever war he was asked to. His strategy for going after banks that fund terrorists would be an integral part of the PATRIOT act provisions regarding financial investigations.

He’s a much more experienced candidate than Bush is, and more familiar with the nuts and bolts of the systems in question.

I never understood why military experience qualifies someone to govern. Last I checked, shooting a gun is quite different from say balancing a budget or listening to voters’ concerns.

And in the same speech he crows about the Red Sox gaining on the Yankees (which wasn’t even true) before a dumb-struck audience in Springfield, Ohio! Did he think he was in Boston?

Come on, Martin, is that the best you can do? To call that a cheap shot is an insult to cheapness.
(And FYI, the Red Sox HAVE been gaining on the Yankees for the past few weeks.)

Stephen, those may be Kerry’s qualifications as you seem them, so why does Kerry only campaign on the first item on your list?

Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I NEVER hear him talking about his time as a prosecuter, his senate record or his anti-war activities. Why is that you have to make a case Kerry refuses to make for himself?

I’m really struggling to understand this—it makes no sense to me whatsoever. For Kerry it’s all Vietnam all the time, as if he never existed except for four months decades ago. This is the only reason the swifvets are able to damage him so much—if you only offer one rationale for being elected, then you can be utterly destroyed when that single rationale is cast into doubt. If I were pro-Kerry, I’d be tearing my hair out and screaming for him to talk about his complete record. Kerry has to be running the most tone-deaf, tactically-challenged campaign in the history of presidential elections.

Martin, why would Democrats believe the Swiftboat Veterans were lying? What do they have to go on except that…

- Official Naval records back Kerry unequivocally

- One of the accuser’s own Bronze Star citations supports Kerry’s version of the events

- That accuser, Larry Thurlow’s own second-in-command filed a report stating that the boats were under enemy fire, as Kerry claims and Thurlow disputes.

- That second-in-command recently reconfirmed his position that Kerry was under enemy fire when he pulled Jim Rassmann from the water

- Two other veterans there that day, who had previously remained silent, also support Kerry’s version

- In the Silver Star incident, the only living swiftboat captain who was there supported Kerry’s story, stating that what the Swifties are saying about Kerry on that day is simply not true

- Elmo Zumwalt flew in personally to pin the Silver Star on Kerry, saying he’d actually wanted to give him a higher honor

- George Elliott, Kerry’s commanding officer, gave him nothing but glowing reviews, and came to Boston to support Kerry in his 1996 re-election campaign

- The same George Elliott, after criticizing Kerry as part of the Swifties, recanted his statement to a reporter, then recanted the recantation

- That Lewis Letson, who somehow remembers treating a single soldier (Kerry) for a single wound 35 years ago, accuses Kerry of lying about the “wound” and say he didn’t deserve a Purple Heart for his….”wound”

- That Lewis Letson isn’t even listed as treating Kerry on the official record.

- Or that the Swiftboat Veterans for Bush haven’t produced a single document or a single compelling piece of evidence to support their claims about Kerry’s actions in Vietnam…claims they waited 35 years to make.

But with only that (and a few other things I left out), why would the Democrats question the honesty of a handful of veterans in a group whose sole reason for existence is to bring down the candidacy of John Kerry? It’s a real mystery.

Woody, I live in NY, but don’t think there’s anything wrong with Kerry cheering for the hapless doomed slapstick routine known as the Boston Red Sox. Politicians always do stuff like that to try and connect with their audiences—it’s harmless stuff.

I’m just pointing out how strange it is do that before an audience of Ohians. Couldn’t he have mentioned the Indians or Reds? It’s a tiny insignificant matter, but one that says something about oddly out-of-touch Kerry is—like when he called Lambeau field “Lambert Field” last week, thereby incurring the hatred of Packer fans everywhere. Small things like this add up over time, and aren’t helpful at a time in a campaign when Kerry needs to be spot-on-perfect to climb back into this thing.

I’m just pointing out how strange it is do that before an audience of Ohians. Couldn’t he have mentioned the Indians or Reds?

Martin, that’s the kind of shameless pandering I’d expect from a politician Bush. Not from a true sports fan.

AP:

Calling Lambeau Field “Lambert Field” is a symptom of why Kerry is NOT connecting with people. Any Packer fan (and any football fan for that matter), knows that Kerry is faking it, since he doesnt really know what he’s talking about. It means that he TRIES to pander to the audience, but fails.

Performers and entertainers do this all the time. (My favorite instance is Bob Seger telling a Detroit audience that “Rolling Stone magazine called Detroit rock and roll fans the best fans in the world. Then after the cheers subside, Seger announces, “Sh**, I’ve know that for TEN YEARS!” The audience goes WILD).

Every now and then a performer will get the wrong city, or wrong anecdote, and the audience then realize its all been a pre-planned set up. That makes it worse than no set up.

I think Kerry has been trying to be seen as a “regular” guy. But that’s not who he is. He’d be better off being himself, and maybe laughing at how he ISNT a regular guy. He isnt pulling the regular guy thing off, and people are seeing it.

Rhinehold wrote:

As for the swift boat guys, what I really don’t understand is that this guy has been dealing with the Swift Boat group, under some name or another, for over 30 years. You’d think he would either have apologized for what he did wrong or be able to counter what they are saying since John O’Neill and John Kerry have been debating and arguing this stuff since at least 1971. This is not a new issue.

Did John and the DNC think it would just go away? Did they think that he would be able to just ignore them like before?

Is this inability to forsee this and counter it something that should be taken into account when determining how he will function as a president?

Here’s part of your answer, from the Boston Sunday Globe

Kerry has made Vietnam far more central to his presidential campaign than in his previous seven political races. Yet interviews with aides, friends, and fellow veterans of Kerry show that his decisions to showcase his war past in the White House bid was far from automatic. As with Brinkley’s book, one constant danger always loomed: Talking about his combat heroism inevitably invited talk about his antiwar activism after returning home, most notably his 1971 statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that some US soldiers had committed rape, torture, mutilation, and other “atrocities” in Vietnam.

The Democrat now finds himself paying a price for those comments and the anger whipped up over the Brinkley book — a backlash McCain had warned against and some of his own advisers had predicted.

“There was no doubt for John or for me that the far right of the Republican Party would use Vietnam to go after his patriotism, because it’s the sleazy stuff they do,” said David McKean, Kerry’s Senate chief of staff and an adviser.

Yet in meetings with Kerry, McKean and other advisers say, they told the Democrat that he had an extraordinary story of heroism to tell Americans. Campaign advisers say they felt sure of two things: Past Vietnam critics like John O’Neill, now a leader of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, would probably resurface, but Kerry and his allies could neutralize the criticism as they had done before.

The attacks on Kerry by the swift boat group, however, have stunned many in the camp and left Kerry frustrated that the media have not dismissed the charges as unsubstantiated. “What has surprised me is the voracity with which they have tried to attack his heroism,” McKean said. “I have never seen people lie so egregiously and get away with it. This is as close to McCarthyism as you can get in a campaign. The print press has worked hard to discredit it, but television just replays the charges over and over.”

It’s an interesting story and I found out some things I didn’t know. For instance, I thought Kerry had retained more control over Brinkley’s book.

And here’s the article’s description of how Jim Rassman became involved in the Kerry campaign:

Just before the caucuses, in January, Brinkley’s “Tour of Duty” came out. Kerry was, for the most part, relieved. “He got it,” Kerry said of Brinkley, according to McKean. Soon the chief of staff was touting the book by word of mouth, and the Kerry campaign sent copies out to opinion-shapers in the media and politics.

Among those veterans who picked up Brinkley’s book was an Oregonian named Jim Rassmann. Standing in a bookstore that January, his eyes filling with tears, Rassmann read the account of how Kerry had rescued him from a Vietnam river while Kerry’s swift boat was under fire. The action garnered Kerry a Bronze Star. (It has also been assailed as overdramatized by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.) Rassmann, a Republican and former sheriff’s deputy, went home, called Kerry headquarters, offered to volunteer, and almost instantly found himself with a campaign-paid airplane ticket to Des Moines for his first reunion with Kerry since that day of war in 1969. Campaign aides carefully orchestrated the reunion — telling reporters about it at the last minute and making sure that media elite, such as “Greatest Generation” author and NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, were there to witness it. The event, just two days before the caucuses, was widely televised in Iowa. Several voters afterward said they were impressed with clips of Rassmann, a former Green Beret, saying that Kerry was a man of “good character” who served in Vietnam “with distinction and good faith.”

He isnt pulling the regular guy thing off, and people are seeing it.

Haha! joe, you mean Bush, right? Everytime I see that guy read one of Frum’s speeches, with his stiff overpronunciation, unsureness of what to do with his hands, and the “Hot damn! I just spoke in a complete sentance, didn’t I?” grin at every pause, it makes me wonder why Rove doesn’t just use a voice actor hiding behind a cardboard cutout.

I don’t get the sense that Kerry is trying to be anything but himself. He’s a smart guy who can think on his feet, and doesn’t require a script 24/7.

Election campaigns are usually nasty and hateful and we always hear that this particular election is the most important of our lifetime. We just suffer from forgetfulness every four years. I don’t think this election is the most important of my lifetime, but I do think it is the most hateful.

One reason is campaign finance reform that pushed soft money into 527 groups. Political parties did (and do) nasty things, but at least you could hold them responsible. Now they have plausible deniability and in fact real deniability. Creating 527s is like arming a militia and turning it loose. Parties really do not control the details of their activities.

The most important reason for the acrimony, however, is that we are in a transition period. American history is less about two equal parties than about a senior and a junior partner. (Third parties are important providers of ideas and may pull the big guys in one direction or another, but they are not a big part of this equation) From the Civil War until the New Deal, Republicans were the senior partners. From the New Deal until about 1990, the Democrats held the upper hand. Democrats significantly outnumbered Republicans and they controlled the agenda. Congress, think tanks and Democratic leaning civil servants circumscribed even Republican presidents. The tide turned with Ronald Reagan and continued throughout the 1990s. There are now about the same number of Democrats as Republicans. Conservative think tanks successfully compete with liberals and a president has a good chance of enacting a conservative agenda. The Republican Party has a chance to become the dominant American party. Both sides understand this tipping point that may set the political landscape for a generation.

I am not sure which way a Bush victory would tip the balance. Conservative influence grew under Clinton and seems to have receded a little under Bush, but 9/11 was such a wild card that it makes it hard to assess. So Bush is an uncertain messenger and I am fairly certain that a President Kerry would not turn the tide. That is why this election is not the most important of my lifetime.

Martin,

So every time George Bush mispronounces something, I know he’s basically a trained monkey who doesn’t know what he is talking about? Interesting…

OOPS, need more coffee. The previous comment was mainly directed at JBOD, who is usually more rational than this. (Note to editor: I’m defending the messenger.)

Jack, this really is the most important election in many, many years. In fact, I can’t remember another election that was labeled as “the most important election of a lifetime”. Certainly not the last one.

This country is on the cusp of a new era. We have a new enemy, a new global economy, a new relationship with countries that were our traditional allies, and new allies that were formerly arrayed with our enemy, the Soviet Union. We’re struggling to balance liberty with security, and culture and class differences are growing among Americans.

The result of this election will have tremendous consequences for the direction of this country.

BTW, we only have 527s because you guys refused to completely eliminate “soft” money campaign donations. They weren’t originally part of the McCain-Feingold bill. Remember your party’s ‘campaign money equals freedom of speech’ whining? You asked for it, so you got it.

Kerry comming back to win a “tough” fight with Weld, in a state dominated by liberals is a selling point for his chances on a national scale ?
Clinton did win 2 terms, however, Kerry doesn’t have Ross Perot helping him this time.
Perot was a MUCH bigger factor than Nader ever was. ( Nader is running again ).

Many Dem. pundants admit that gun-control was what cost Gore the election.

Kerry learned somewhat from that lesson and has made a few “photo opps” shooting trap and some planted pheasants. However Kerry is on record voting for provisions adding to the assult weapons bill that would ban the most popular shotgun in the US, and the most popular squirell rifle in the US.( the remington 1100/1187 and the ruger 10-22 would both be banned under that ammendment).

The “assult weapons ban” will expire soon and the NRA will endorse Bush. ( Bush said he would sign to renew it if nothing was added to it).

Someone, soon, under the “freedom of information act” will check to see how many hunting licences Kerry has purchased, in, lets say ,the last 20 yrs.,and he will be exposed as a “pander bear”.

You have all heard about “soccer moms”,and “nascar dads”, But Dems fail to see “lunchbucket Republicans” ( I think I coined that phrase), They vote Republican because they don’t want more gun-control, enviro-nuts controling their farm and outlawing their pickup truck or suv, unlimited abortion up to the point of birth, and higher taxes.

Independants DO have an opening in 2008 if they can field a candidant that doesen’t take a radical stance on those positions(and others).

I’m not telling independants what to do, just giving my opinion on why politics are as they are today.

“Why does military service matter?”

Wrong question.

“How does military service matter?”

That’s the real question.

Military service, when it’s a relevant part of one’s career (as is the case with both Kerry and Bush) is a measure of how one faces challenges. Bush’s records, even in the kindest light show him to be irresponsible and impulsive, failing to even maintain his flight status. That flight status was a gift to him from the American Taxpayers, who paid to train him and paid him to keep to his duties.

Kerry, put in an even riskier position did much better, and did not neglect his duties. If you don’t trust what the SwiftVets say (and they say an awful lot of things not worth trusting) Then his service demonstrates qualities in his personality that we would want in a president- discipline, creative thought, agressive pursuit of enemies and the willingness to sacrifice himself for the good of the nation. It’s Ironic, though, but I didn’t really consider Kerry’s war service all that important until I readhis service reports and about how he got his medals.

Beagle:

Based on your post, it looks like Kerry has the squirrel vote.

Of the last eight people who have held the governorship of Massachusetts, six have been Republicans. Mitt Romney, the current governor, is the fourth consecutive Republican governor in our state.

Massachusetts is undoubtedly a left-leaning state on the whole— Democrats comprise its entire Congressional delegation right now. But anyone who knows anything about Massachusetts knows that liberalism is far from universal here. And as the list of recent governors attests, a moderate Republican can succeed in Massachusetts politics.

I voted for Weld and I voted for Romney. In this presidential election, I’ll be voting for Kerry. Politically speaking, the three men are not all that far apart in their positions, despite what many people seem to think.

Of the last eight people who have held the governorship of Massachusetts, six have been Republicans. Mitt Romney, the current governor, is the fourth consecutive Republican governor in our state. Posted by Jerome at September 6, 2004 01:23 PM

Jerome, I don’t think it’s uncommon for predominately Democratic states to have a Republican governor. I’ve often wondered about the reasons for this and suspect (with admitted personal bias) that it may have to do with their having a more tight-fisted approach to limited state resources. At the state level, deficit spending is more of a problem than at the federal level…most of the time anyway.

Is anyone aware of any studies done on this?

Eric—

I never thought I say this in an open forum, but I have to agree with your assessment. People—at least this person—are tired of the Vietnam reference, let hear about something else, in the here and now. Those who were surprised that Bush won the first time should not be when he wins this time if the same old formula is used. Perhaps its time for Kerry’s campaign manger to go…

Jerome,
I would’nt go so far as calling Kerry voters squirrels.
In fact, I don’t think I attacked anyone, or their point of view. (I’m sure you did’nt mean your responce to imply that I did).
Out of respect for Independants,( this is thier column) I was giving my views on how they could make a serious run in 2008.

I truely believe that a strong Independant in 2008 could get the lunchbucket republicans, conservative dem’s, and some libertarians if they had a balanced platform.
An independant could glean 20% from each of those groups in 2008 and win!
Personally, I see none of the names from the major partys, being put forth by the talking heads in the media, for 2008, that I could vote for.
Just my opinion.

Nototh,
I can site no studys, however, Its quite common for liberal states to elect Republican governors to keep their personal taxes down, and vote liberal at a nationl level to bring in other peoples money to their state.
The liberals that cry for higher taxes dont check the box to pay more of their own money, they want YOUR money!!

AP and Woody:

I’m not a big fan of the Bush’s style of speechmaking—it seems a bit stilted to me. But the last part of his speech the other night was different, and his emotion in talking about the victims and tragedies was genuine. I doubt he’s a good enough actor to summon tears on command, and certainly, neither of you have given him any credit at all, so it would be really interesting (in a warped hypocritical sense) to see either of you now give him that kind of credit.

But the point I made and stand by is that Kerry is seen as a stiff upper crust elitist. In a way, I see a similarity to Bob Dole. Dole has shown himself to have a great sense of humor, and to be a funny guy. but on the campaign trail in 96, he was stiff and postured. I bet Kerry in private or even one to one, comes off much more effectively than he does in public.

I think the pictures of Kerry skiing, windsurfing, playing hockey etc are intended to transfer his image from the elitist into a man of action. But I just havent seen it happen.

On the contrary, while Bush is also wealthy and elite, he comes off to many in the polls as more ordinary. Some of this comes from his clearing brush on the ranch, biking (and falling) or running.

Its not so much me saying this as the polls saying this.

“This is the reason Bush got a bump and Kerry didn’t. Kerry has been trying to sell us a used car as if it were new.”

That is because liberals see everything through the prism of Vietnam and the 1960s. Virtually every war (except those fought during Democratic administrations)is called the next vietnam. Remember Afghanistan? We couldn’t possibly win it! It will be Vietnam part duex! Now they are attempting to come forward as if they were behind this President during the fighting in Afghanistan. I remember what liberals were saying at the time and I know what they are saying now. Now they want to take credit for it, that is why they NEVER mention it anymore. It was and is an amazing success.
It is this out-dated view of the world that is the same old game plan run by the Dems. Class warfare and fear of losing your jobs all seen through the prism of Vietnam….and Nixon/Agnew.
In short, NO, Kerry can’t win. The sixties are over. Pump your brakes.

I’m not a big fan of the Bush’s style of speechmaking—it seems a bit stilted to me. But the last part of his speech the other night was different, and his emotion in talking about the victims and tragedies was genuine.I doubt he’s a good enough actor to summon tears on command, and certainly, neither of you have given him any credit at all, so it would be really interesting (in a warped hypocritical sense) to see either of you now give him that kind of credit.

Not sure which comments I made that you are responding to. I don’t think that Bush is lacking in human emotions.

As for his speaking ability, apparently I should not say anything nice about it or I am some sort of a hypocrite. His speeches are apparently pretty effective. I think it is worth noting, however, that that Time poll showed a double digit lead before he even spoke.

I agree, by the way, that Bush is seen as more of a “regular guy” than Kerry. Why people feel that way and why that makes them want to vote for him are both mysteries to me.

I think the reason most voters under the age of forty is either to young or wasn’t born in 71. They don’y understand what was going on in America at the time.

Yes it is up to Kerry to explian how that effected America, but the folks over fifty lets just say you all got your own opinion. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? I just know that I came close to living through a second civil war. Check out American opinion after the shootings at Kent State University, Ohio in 1971. And the following events that lead up to Watergate. Why did America remove almost ever seating elected official in DC?

But the point I made and stand by is that Kerry is seen as a stiff upper crust elitist.

Umm… I’d have to say that the GOP and the conservative media try to portray Kerry as a stiff upper crust elitist. On TV and in all the interviews I’ve seen, Kerry has never struck me that way.

I agree, by the way, that Bush is seen as more of a “regular guy” than Kerry. Why people feel that way and why that makes them want to vote for him are both mysteries to me.

Woody, I agree. I prefer my leaders to be smarter than me. The President of the United States is at the helm of a country that has the largest economy in the world, the most powerful armed forces, and everything he does has repercussions acros the globe. I’m baffled as to why Americans think a man, entrusted with such great responsibility, should be some yokel who’s fun to drink beers and swap dirty jokes with.

Jack, this really is the most important election in many, many years. In fact, I can’t remember another election that was labeled as “the most important election of a lifetime”. Certainly not the last one.

AP, there was an interesting article in the NYTimes on Sunday that talks about this. They find quotes about for election back to 1976, and quite a few before that, in which the election is labeled the “most important” ever.

Jerome wrote:

- Official Naval records back Kerry unequivocally
- One of the accuser’s own Bronze Star citations supports Kerry’s version of the events
- That accuser, Larry Thurlow’s own second-in-command filed a report stating that the boats were under enemy fire, as Kerry claims and Thurlow disputes.
- That second-in-command recently reconfirmed his position that Kerry was under enemy fire when he pulled Jim Rassmann from the water
- Two other veterans there that day, who had previously remained silent, also support Kerry’s version
- In the Silver Star incident, the only living swiftboat captain who was there supported Kerry’s story, stating that what the Swifties are saying about Kerry on that day is simply not true
- Elmo Zumwalt flew in personally to pin the Silver Star on Kerry, saying he’d actually wanted to give him a higher honor
- George Elliott, Kerry’s commanding officer, gave him nothing but glowing reviews, and came to Boston to support Kerry in his 1996 re-election campaign
- The same George Elliott, after criticizing Kerry as part of the Swifties, recanted his statement to a reporter, then recanted the recantation
- That Lewis Letson, who somehow remembers treating a single soldier (Kerry) for a single wound 35 years ago, accuses Kerry of lying about the “wound” and say he didn’t deserve a Purple Heart for his….”wound”
- That Lewis Letson isn’t even listed as treating Kerry on the official record.
- Or that the Swiftboat Veterans for Bush haven’t produced a single document or a single compelling piece of evidence to support their claims about Kerry’s actions in Vietnam…claims they waited 35 years to make.

The thing I don’t understand is this: if the above isn’t sufficient evidence to “thoroughly discredit” the allegations, then what would be? What would it take to discredit these allegations? What, indeed, would it take to discredit any allegations about anything? Is there no standard for truth any more at all?

There is a thousand times more evidence out there to “prove” the existence of UFOs and leprechauns than there is to support the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth! Anyone who beleives these guys in the face of the evidence against them is quite frankly a fool, possibly even a partisan fool. Anyone who knows about the evidence mentioned above but who still spreads their stories or gives them any credence whatsoever in a public forum is either an utter fool or a shameless liar.

I think they named themselves “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” because they knew that a name like that would help delay the media’s realization that they are a bunch of liars.

-Cf

Haha! OK LawnBoy. I guess that until this election, I didn’t think they were important enough to pay attention to the strident rhetoric. :)

I could make the argument that the sheer number of people who feel that this is the most important election of their lifetime trumps a single quote, usually by one of the candidates themselves, for a few previous election. But it’s not an argument I feel the need to win.

Hey Cf. I can’t believe you’re still arguing about the SBVT liars. I think Martin’s just yanking your chain at this point. :)

AP,

I don’t need to argue it either. I agree that this is a very important election. Basically, I saw the article and didn’t know whether to post on it. Replying to your comment filled the need for me :)

I agree with you. As a registered Republican, I’ve grown increasingly disillusioned with the party and it’s dominant conservative elements. I keep waiting for Kerry to give me a reason to vote for him, something, ANYTHING! Why does he, in EVERY speech, simply take stabs at Bush and say “I won’t do that.” but never ellaborate on what he will do and how he will do it? The image he has given us is entirely defined by how he is “non-like-Bush.” C’mon, throw me a bone Kerry! Just give me a good, viable reason to vote for you, other than “I’m not Bush”.

JB. Try www.johnkerry.com. On the left margin is a big list of reasons to vote for him. Don’t blame Kerry (or Bush, for that matter) for the media’s infatuation with creating controversy.

I look at my infant son and know we are living on the brink of WW3.We have no foreign allies and our economic control over the world no longer exists.Bush can destroy the only home humanity has.