Fear of Clowns

Bush's campaign site points out,

Since 1989, Kerry Has Raised $1,108,428 From Commercial Banking Employees, More Than Any Senator In That Time Period. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 8/26/04)

So that means Kerry is in bed with bankers, right? The Bush campaign cites opensecrets.org as their source. Watch what happens when you actually go to opensecrets.org:

Top recipients from Commercial Banks, 2004 presidential election cycle:
1. Bush, George W (R) ... $2,834,869
2. Kerry, John (D) ... $891,932

So what they are saying is that since 1989, all of Kerry's campaigns have raised from Bankers well less than half of what Bush has raised for this election alone! They got him there, good!

Via Apostropher via DailyKos

// posted by Erik @ 8/31/2004 12:45:00 AM
permalink | 23 comments | post comment | email post:

Today, President Bush appearance on the Today Show provided lots of comedy. When asked if he thought the deficit he was presiding over was actually pretty good, he agreed, "Yeah. I do. I do." The guy will just say anything. He also said that removing Hussein from power was not a popular decision in Iraq,

I made decisions on what I think is best for this country and yet the decision to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan was unpopular in Pakistan at the time. And other places it wasn't so popular either I might add ... same in Iraq, there's no question.

The contrast between that and is past statements is so absurd, citing examples is barely needed, but following are a few. In his April 5 radio address, President Bush reflected,

One Iraqi, when the coalition troops arrived, described the emotions of his village: They were waiting for you, he said, and all the people believe that America and Britain have come to liberate them, not to conquer.

Musing on the tone of Iraqi representatives he had just met with on December 15, 2003, President Bush noted,

The thing that struck me about the meeting was the kind of joy that they expressed about being free.

Speaking to military personnel at Fort Lewis on June 18, 2004, President Bush told them,

These are thankful people, because they know what you've done. They've seen firsthand the power of liberation. See, they have seen our mission. We don't come to conquer, we come to liberate.

He also conceded that his war on terror was not winnable,

President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.

Lauer: So I'm just saying can we win it? Do you see that?

President Bush: I don't think you can win it.

Again, examples of when Bush has claimed his war on terror is winnable are barely, needed, so here's a short snippet of a January 31, 2004 talk he gave to congressional leaders where he said we'd win it three times within the space of four sentences:

These are historic times, because we're at war - you're a war Congress. And this upcoming year we will continue to make sure our troops have what it takes to fight and win the war against terror. And not only make sure we fight and win the war against terror, but to make sure we continue to promote our values of freedom and, therefore, peace, in parts of the world where people long for freedom and peace, where people are desperate for freedom ... No question, we will win the war on terror by staying on the offensive.

Bonus blast from the past: President Bush reverses his opinion on the importance of UN resolutions within the same press conference.

I don't care what the United Nations has said over a decade; I don't care about all the resolutions passed ... [Saddam Hussein] just treated the U.N. as an empty debating society, as if their resolutions meant nothing.

// posted by Erik @ 8/30/2004 05:56:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Continuing form Part I:

1. Belief: We, as right-wingers, adhere to the constitution as it describes and protects individual rights.

   Reality: The Constitution provides a framework through which our great nation works as a united and harmonious chorus of individuals.

   • The Constitution defines how we together agree to govern ourselves, including guarantees of individual rights necessary to guarantee collective harmony. The first word of it is, in fact, "We",

     We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

2. Belief: The Second Amendment protects my right to own a gun.

   Reality: The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, prohibits Congress from making a law infringing upon your right to own a gun, which is granted by the states.

   • For well over a century, the amendment has been applied as only restricting acts of congress, not guaranteeing a right. In the 1875 Supreme Court decision US vs Cruikshank, it was held,

     The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

3. Belief: The Bible forbids abortion.

   Reality: The Bible is mum on abortion.

   • Perhaps the most commonly cited Biblical verse by pro-lifers is Psalm 139,

     For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
     I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
     your works are wonderful,
     I know that full well.
     My frame was not hidden from you
     when I was made in the secret place.
     When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
     your eyes saw my unformed body.
     All the days ordained for me
     were written in your book
     before one of them came to be.

     All that says is that God is involved in the creation of a human; it doesn't say anything close to "life begins in the womb". If one wishes to take the Bible literally, one sees that God created many things which he gave humans full domination over. Conversely, the passage refers to an unborn state as a "frame". Indeed, that's why the verse is presented in a blue frame rather than red.

     The important historical Roman Catholic theologians St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and Thomas Aquinas all held that the soul does not enter the body until on into pregnancy at various certain points - either the formation of a body, or the "quickening". Popes throughout history have gone back and forth on whether a fetus before the quickening has a soul. And the Church's opinion on abortion has likewise varied.

     The reasons various Christian religions differ on abortion - both between one another and with themselves over time - is due to a lack of a clear scriptural basis to support a position for or against abortion.

4. Belief: "Flat" means "curved".

   Reality: Flat means flat.

   • When arguing for a "flat tax", people typically mean income taxes should be levied at the same rate regardless of income level. Income, however, is not the only thing that is taxed: taxes are additionally levied on property, services, and consumer purchases - and the smaller an income, the larger the proportion that goes to these types of non-income taxes. The result is that when taking into account all taxes, we already have a nearly flat tax - the curve is a subtle inverse bell curve where the middle class shares slightly more of the burden. Accompanying a NY Times essay about "double taxation" (there goes that left wing NYT pretending to be on the right again) was a graphic illustration this phenomena, showing that the total percentage of income for the poorest fifth of Americans in 2002 was 18% whereas the total taxes paid by the richest Americans was 19%. (The last and literally un-graphed "as a percentage of income" column illustrates fairness as "a percentage of income")

     

     If all levels of income would be taxed at the same level, we could end up with a regressive tax, the poor paying a much higher percentage of their earnings in taxes than the middle class and the middle class paying a higher percentage than the wealthy.

5. Belief: A "Flat" income tax is a "curved" income tax.

   Reality: A flat income tax is a flat income tax.

   • Tax law recognizes different types of income. Generally, the wealthier a person is the greater amount of income they acquire from capital gains. Capital gain is income from the sale of stock or property held over 1 year as well as stock dividends, and is taxed at a maximum rate of 15%. If you're married and you and your spouse both make just $35K a year each, your base tax rate is already over 16%. This means working people's incomes are already taxed at a higher rate than the incomes of those who make millions of dollars a year by sitting idly and collecting stock dividends.

     A truly flat income tax would require taxing all forms of income as well as all levels of income.

6. Belief: During the most recent UN mandated inspections, Iraq required the inspectors to provide a daily itinerary of sites to be inspected and/or denied or delayed access to particular sites.

   Reality: Iraq allowed the inspectors unfettered access wherever and whenever the inspectors chose.

   • On January 27, 2003, Hans Blix reported to the UNSC,

     The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt.

     During a press conference on December 19, 2002, Blix had described why access was not immediately obtained on one occasion:

     This was on a Friday, the Muslim day of rest, and the place was practically empty. There were some doors inside to offices which were closed, so they didn't have the keys. The Iraqis offered to break down the doors, and we suggested no, it might not be a good idea. Instead, we suggested, and they agreed, that we seal the doors until the Saturday morning.

     On November 30, 2002, Hiro Ueki, the Baghdad Spokesman for UNMOVIC and the IAEA explained that all inspections were unannounced unless the teams had requested in advance that Iraq provide assistance with monitoring equipment:

     Um Al Maarik Company, which the IAEA team visited today was notified by the IAEA team in advance that two of their technicians would review the status of the remaining video surveillance. Al Qa Qaa Company, which the IAEA team visited was also requested on Thursday afternoon to provide assistance to facilitate removal of sampler. This type of advance notification is sometimes given to facilitate their work on monitoring equipment. It happened to the above two cases. Except for these types of cases, our inspection teams do not provide advance warning to the Iraqi side, as we have emphasized time and again.

     In summary, Iraq granted access everywhere, including the presidential palaces they had denied access to during the 1990s:

     As reported by the UN 3 December, teams from the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency today conducted an unannounced joint inspection of one of the eight Presidential sites in Iraq ... Access to the entire site was provided without difficulty, and the planned inspection activity was completed, the spokesman reported.

     Bob Stevens, a US inspector that was part of the UN teams of the 90s as well as the 2002/2003 inspections described his observation of Iraq's more recent cooperation in the Cleveland Free Times,

     The other striking difference in this trip was how extremely cooperative just about every Iraqi was, even when we inspected the undeclared sites that were targeted based on intel. The Iraqis were running for us (something Iraqi adults don't normally do) and were bending over backwards to cooperate.

// posted by Erik @ 8/30/2004 12:24:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

A stand-alone version of the following essay can be found at Jesus on taxes and welfare programs

A really good argument for welfare is found in the Gospel according to Matthew. In summary,

• Helping those in need is a right act and should be done as an end in itself, as God favors it as an act in itself
• Being concerned with worldly wealth prevents a person from doing the right things
• You should always pay your taxes

When reading the story of Jesus' message, the parts where he speaks of a light within really stand out to me. I believe he was referring to the ability of humans to reason within the context of a universally accessible conscience - in other words, God within all of us. It's clear that humans are not expected to fully understand what is meant by "God", but I readily accept the existence of God as far as I just described my understanding. It's just as clear to me that what Jesus is recorded as saying about how humans should treat one another strikes true to my ability to reason within the context of my conscience. So I think his message is both valid and important.

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount starts at Matthew chapter 5, and represents the beginning of Jesus' ministry. The description of his message start at Chapter 4, and describes him as providing free health care - through miracles, of course, to those who would hear his words. The next 20 chapters presents the entire case. Much of it is repetitive by virtue of it's simplicity - yet it takes me a little over an hour to read. For those who would like their whistle whetted, an abbreviated version appears below as well as short responses to the three possible objections to the notion that Jesus approved of helping the poor and sick through income redistribution. Jesus words as reported in Matthew appear blue.

Matthew 5 - God desires people to be charitable towards one another

These teachings do not replace scriptural law, but expand upon it. By following these teachings, you will already be obeying the law, plus much more. One should love everybody, even your enemies, just as God does not withhold anything from anyone.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "Raca," is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, "You fool!" will be in danger of the fire of hell.

You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 6 - providing welfare is pleasing to God, concern with worldly wealth is incompatible with pleasing God

Give to the needy not to be showy, but because it's the right thing to do and pleases God. Do not be concerned with wordly wealth, as devotion to wealth prevents service God's will.

Be careful not to do your "acts of righteousness" before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Matthew 7 - it doesn't matter if welfare recipients afford themselves luxury

Don't pass judgement on others, but rather treat them as you would wish to be treated. That, in fact, is a summary of scriptural law.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Much of the story from this point until Chapter 21 tells of Jesus healing the sick and expecting nothing in return and feeding thousands and expecting nothing in return. He did these things because people were sick or hungry, and for no other reason.

Matthew 10 - expect nothing worldly in return for your charitable giving

Jesus sends out his deciples to heal the sick, imploring them to give freely because they have received freely.

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

Matthew 17 - pay your taxes

You should pay your taxes - even if they are unjust.

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?" "Yes, he does," he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes - from their own sons or from others?"

"From others," Peter answered.

"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Matthew 19 - greed and pride are disfavorable in God's eyes

Attachment to wealth puts you out of God's favor

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, "'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Matthew 22 - pay your taxes and treat others as you wish to be treated. A regular act of charity alone doesn't cut it

Pay your taxes. The greatest thing one can do it to love God. The second is to love others as you love yourself. Tithing itself is not a replacement for the goals at which charity aims.

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they replied.

Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Matthew 25 - no excuses for not understanding the message

If you've heard Jesus' words and followed his teachings, you will find an infinite reward. If you've heard his words and refused to embrace the message, you're in a heap of trouble.

Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me."

Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?"

The King will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

"They also will answer, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?"

He will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

Now, I'm not the type of person who takes the Bible literally, it was written by men. In fact, I view the vast majority of it as silly. But Jesus had an amazing message and the only place it's recorded is in the Bible. It's impossible to understand and agree with that message and at the same time object to paying taxes for the purpose of working together to feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless and provide health care to those without it.

Incomprehensibly, some self-identifying Christians will object to understanding Jesus' message. The objections come in one of three forms,

1. This is twisting Jesus' words, the Bible doesn't tell you to make sure everybody else is helping those in need.

   This is an attempted diversion. Asking people to read Jesus' message and compare it to their view of government welfare programs isn't twisting Jesus' words, rather asking that Jesus' message be heard - and spreading that message is indeed something Jesus said to do.

2. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says "If any would not work, neither should he eat."

   This is taking half a verse and misinterpreting it, or worse, presenting it dishonestly. 2 Thessalonians 3 is in general speaking of the work of spreading the gospel, and the verse cited is a reminder to the Thessalonians of the arrangement Paul had with them: that he worked for his keep while spreading Jesus' message to therm. Paul also emphasizes this in his first letter to the Thessalonians. It's quite obvious that he was addressing a complaint that people were sometimes too busy to help spread the message. In context, it reads,

   We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
   
   We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies.

3. Jesus never said the government can steal my money and give it to someone else.

   The short answer to this objection is that what Jesus said is more important than what he didn't say. The long answer is to also point again to Matthew 22:23 ("... Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.") and further point to Romans 13:

   Romans 13

   Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Jesus was a liberal in the sense that he advocated for personal income redistribution for the purpose of helping those in need, healing the sick and helping those in need, asking no earthly reward for charitable actions, and being happy to pay taxes.

// posted by Erik @ 8/30/2004 12:12:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Today, the Wall Street Journal published the results of the new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll in a front page article. The results are not overly favorable to Bush. But the raw data in the PDF linked to in the sidebar present a pathetic view of Bush supporters. The poll surveyed registered voters - here are the results for the question regarding how the participants said they voted in the 2000 election:

45% Voted for George W. Bush
33% Voted for Al Gore
2% Voted for Ralph Nader
1% Voted for Pat Buchanan
1% Voted for other candidate
1% Not sure who voted for
11% Did Not Vote
3% Too young to vote
3% Not Sure/Refused

In the 2000 Presidential Election, only 67% of registered voters cast a vote. 85% of the respondents to this poll claim to have voted. Another way of looking at it is that 33% of registered voters did not vote. The only answers that would be truthful for people in that 33% would be "did not vote" or "not sure", but only 14% provided one of those answers. About 19% of the people in this poll are lying or remembering incorrectly.

Both Gore and Bush got about 48% of the popular vote in 2000. If the sample of this poll was perfect, we would expect 32% of respondents to have voted for Gore and 32% to have voted for Bush. Compare to the actual results: 33% say they voted for Gore, 45% said they voted for Bush. Bush supporters are much more likely to lie or have shoddy memories. Not surprising. The results of the poll are interesting, nonetheless:

Mr. Bush's handling of the antiterror war continues to represent his greatest asset as Republicans gather several miles from the site of the World Trade Center. While the electorate splits on the president's overall job performance -- 47% approve, 48% disapprove -- Mr. Bush enjoys approval by a 53%-to-42% margin on dealing with the war on terrorism.

... While Mr. Bush continues to receive positive marks for his "strong leadership qualities," his 50% approval on that dimension matches the weakest of his presidency. Just 45% of voters rate him highly for "being honest and straightforward," while 39% give him low marks.

More problematic are the ratings Mr. Bush receives on the issues, aside from the broader antiterror war, that have dominated campaign debate thus far. On Iraq, a 51% majority says Mr. Bush needs to change his approach, and a 49% plurality says removing Saddam Hussein from power wasn't worth the human and financial costs. By 51% to 43%, voters say it is appropriate to begin considering troop reductions in Baghdad, which Mr. Kerry recently suggested could begin in the first six months of his presidency.

On the domestic front, the most critical issue is the economy, for which Mr. Hart describes the president's ratings as "dreadful." Some 52% of voters overall disapprove of the president's handling of the economy, and the proportion who say the economy has gotten better in the past year has fallen to 29%. Despite a revival of economic growth overall, voters say by a 2-to-1 margin that circumstances for middle- and working-class families aren't improving.

Those negative assessments span Mr. Bush's handling of a series of issues. By 55% to 38%, voters say the president's tax cuts mostly have benefited the wealthy rather than all Americans. As oil prices hit record levels, six in 10 voters criticize his approach to gas prices. Some 58% of voters want major changes in the president's approach to health care, while 55% say the same thing about his policies on jobs.

In other words, people don't think Bush is doing a good job at anything except for attacking an appropriate number of countries, even if attacking them wasn't worth it, and that alone makes him a good leader, so they'll vote for him anyway! Go Team America! Kerry needs to make people understand that you can't kill or arrest every terrorist, so the focus needs to be on preventing terrorists from being able to do harm.

This poll is also particularly interesting because it shows that Bush/Cheney support is currently much weaker than Kerry/Edwards support. The participants were asked, "Even though you are not supporting [John Kerry and John Edwards / George W. Bush and Dick Cheney] now, what are the chances that you might support them in this November's election - is there a fair chance that you might support them, a small chance, just a very slight chance, or no chance at all you might support them?" 38% of Bush supporters said there was a fair, small or very slight chance they would vote for Kerry, whereas 28% of Kerry supporters said there was a chance they'll support Bush. Of course, Bush has the nominating convention and debates to try to shore up his support, whereas Kerry only has the debates.

The most significant finding isn't interesting, but what is to be expected if you've been paying attention to the results of state level polls:

But the poll also shows the president trailing Mr. Kerry by four percentage points among respondents in 17 closely-contested battleground states.

As a brief end note, today, LA Times polls flipped the latest result in Wisconsin barely into the Bush column and well within the poll's margin of error, and placed Missouri back with Bush exactly at the margin of error.

// posted by Erik @ 8/27/2004 06:08:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Yesterday, the LA Times reported that Kerry nationally trailed Bush 46% to 49%, losing his lead of 2 percentage points from late July: "resident Bush heads into next week's Republican National Convention with voters moving slightly in his direction since July amid signs that Sen. John F. Kerry has been nicked by attacks on his service in Vietnam, a Times poll has found."

A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll also reported a slip in Kerry's advantage nationally partially due to "a sharp drop in people who said Kerry's military service would make them more likely to support him."

It's been my contention that the Swift Boat Vets for [Bush]'s effort has likely only served to further polarize the electorate and driven voters away from Bush if anything. To confirm the hypothesis, one would have to show that since the group's efforts have become popularized, states in which Bush already lead had seen an increased lead and states who already supported Kerry had shown a like increase.

The method I used is described in detail below the table. In summary, I found the difference between Bush and Kerry preference numbers on a state level and compared them to the change between the most recent poll and the most recent poll on or prior to August 5 - the day Swift Boat Vets for Truth aired their first ad. The polls had to be conducted by the same entity.

There are 31 states for which poll data is available to make the analysis:

• Kerry gained ground or stayed even in 11 states in which he currently leads: OR, NY, WA, NH, PA, IA, NM, WI, MN, TN, and NV
• Kerry lost ground in 5 states which Kerry currently leads: MD, IL, CT, MI, CA,
• Kerry gained ground in the two states which are currently tied: CO and MO.
• Bush lost ground in 5 states in which he currently leads: FL, VA, NC, IN, OK
• Bush gained ground or stayed even in 8 states in which he currently leads: AR, OH, WV, AZ, SC, KY, GA, AL

In other words, my hypothesis bore out: Bush is generally more ahead in hates which favor him, the same for Kerry. Colorado went from a Bush lead to a tie.

The results of the method of analysis indicate that Kerry may be in trouble in Michigan and California for a total of 72 electoral votes, and that Bush may be in trouble in Florida and Colorado for a total of 27 total electoral votes. California matters lots. If the sharp drop reflected in CA is close to accurate, Kerry should feel quite nervous about the state.

As these numbers only reflect the differences between two polls and that the states which appear to be tossups are close to or within the margins of error, I've put together a page of the same results sorted by different columns. I'll conduct a similar project in the near future if enough state level polls change so as to warrant it. Here are the results sorted by current difference.

// posted by Erik @ 8/26/2004 11:01:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland was rebuffed by the Secret Service when he ">tried to hand deliver a letter signed by 9 US Senators who are also veterans. The letter calls on Bush to condemn the content of Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"'s attack ads. Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan referred to the attempted feat by the triple amputee as a "stunt".

Meanwhile, Swift Boat veteran John O'Neill, who has claimed in his book that Kerry could not have been in Cambodia in 1968 because no Swift boat was in Cambodia, has tried to explain that what he meant when he told Nixon, "I was in Cambodia, sir," was "I was about 100 yards from Cambodia".

The Dallas Morning News revealed that Bob Perry - the Republican allstar fundraiser who provided the bulk of SBVT's seed money and has denied that he's connected to the Bush campaign - is indeed directly involved with Bush's campaign as the co-host of a fundraising event next week. Through his spokesperson, Perry comments "I never approved the use of my name. I'm not going to be there." My analysis: it doesn't matter if you try to hide the fact you're involved, Mr. Perry, you're still involved.

Through his spokesperson, Bush announced his intention to sue 527s to stop their endorsement and attacks on candidates. It's unclear whether he means Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I doubt it.

The most significant development in the last 24 hours was that in an unspoken admission of collusion, the Bush campaign's chief outside counsel Ben Ginsberg has resigned that position so he can continue to work with Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth" while giving the appearance the efforts are plausibly unconnected.

// posted by Erik @ 8/26/2004 10:40:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Today, 10 out of the 27 living Nobel Prize winning economists endorsed John Kerry for President in an open letter to the American public,

We believe that [John Kerry] will restore fiscal responsibility. He is committed to making key investments in human capital, such as helping families meet the cost of higher education. He has a proposal that will address the problem of rising health care costs. We believe that he has both the ability and the commitment to work with our allies and trading partners to promote global growth that lifts up workers around the world.

John Kerry is our choice for America’s next President. We hope that you will join us.

The signers follow, with links to information about each:

Paul Samuelson Endorses Sen. John Kerry
Kenneth Arrow Endorses Sen. John Kerry
Lawrence Klein Endorses Sen. John Kerry
Robert Solow Endorses Sen. John Kerry
William Sharpe Endorses Sen. John Kerry
Douglass North Endorses Sen. John Kerry
Daniel McFadden Endorses Sen. John Kerry
George Akerlof Endorses Sen. John Kerry
Joseph Stiglitz Endorses Sen. John Kerry
Daniel Kahneman Endorses Sen. John Kerry

The positions of the remaining 17 are unknown:

Milton Friedman position unknown
Gerard Debreu position unknown
James M. Buchanan position unknown
Harry Markowitz position unknown
Ronald Coase position unknown
Gary Becker position unknown
Michael Spence position unknown
Robert W. Fogel position unknown
John Forbes Nash position unknown
Robert Lucas Jr position unknown
Robert Merton position unknown
Myron Scholes position unknown
Robert Mundell position unknown
James Heckman position unknown
Vernon L. Smith position unknown
Clive W. J. Granger position unknown
Robert F. Engle position unknown

In June, four dozen Nobel Laureates endorsed Senator Kerry for President in a similar open letter:

Presidential elections present us with choices about our nation's future. We support John Kerry for President and urge you to join us ...

[John Kerry] will support strong investments in science and technology as he restores fiscal responsibility. He will stimulate the development and deployment of technologies to meet our economic, energy, environmental, health, and security needs. He will recreate an America that provides opportunity to all at home or abroad who can help us make progress together.

John Kerry will restore science to its appropriate place in government and bring it back into the White House. He is the clear choice for America's next President.

// posted by Erik @ 8/25/2004 08:30:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

I don't think I need to add anything to Joe John's report on Aaron Brown other than the quip that Republicans can't run a smear campaign any better than they can occupy a country:

JOHNS: Behind the scenes, Kerry's aides were fighting the swift boat charges with unusual ferocity. They say they have evidence one of the top members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an outright liar.

The co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," former swift boat commander John O'Neill said Kerry made up a story about being in Cambodia beyond the legal borders of the Vietnam War in 1968.

O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon.

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOHNS: Now, O'Neill may have an explanation for this but he has not returned CNN's calls. What does seem clear is that a top member of the swift boat group is now being held to the same standard of literal accuracy they've tried to impose on John Kerry -- Aaron.

// posted by Erik @ 8/25/2004 06:04:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

and Bush's stool that don't stink

Swift Boat Vets for [Bush] is the same thing as the official Bush campaign. In a post two days ago I wrote:

Swift Boat Vets for Truth are as closely associated to the White House you can get without being on the White House or Bush campaign payroll.

I used the "payroll" image because the Bush campaign has emphasized that Ken Cordier - a man featured in SBVT's latest ad at the same time as advising Bush/Cheney '04 - until the news came out was a volunteer for the Bush campaign and received no monetary compensation for his participation. Here is the Bush/Cheney '04 "volunteer", pictured in the teaser for the ad on the belligerent group's home page:

But that was two days ago. Yesterday, it came out that Benjamin Ginsberg, Bush/Cheney '04's paid lawyer, also renders services for Swift Boat Vets for the Truth. Ginsberg has claimed he's considering billing Swift Boat Vets for Truth for his services. Malarky - Bush/Cheney '04 pays him for his services related to the campaign effort - if his services to the group were separate, he'd be holding up a copy of an invoice. He's a Bush employee - on May 30, 2004, the campaign announced that,

Ben Ginsberg will serve as chief outside counsel, as he did for the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign.

"Outside counsel". Let's examine what an outside council may do. And pay attention to the dates.

Progress for America is a 501c non-profit Republican organization who on their "Who Are We?" page tell us they have reactivated themselves for this election cycle:

Heading into the next legislative session and beyond, it has become apparent that liberal special interest groups are forming organizations whose single goal is to attack and defame the issue agenda of President George W. Bush and other leaders who are working to enact conservative, common sense public policies that benefit all Americans. PFA is an issue advocacy/grassroots organization committed to keeping the issue record straight and serves as a conservative "Issue Truth Squad." It is the only such organization in the country!

On May 29, 2004 the organization reproduced an article from the National Journal in their "PFA Activities" section (The National Journal is the organization who's claim that Kerry is the "most liberal senator" was echoed endlessly by America's army of right-wing media pundits early this year):

Progress for America has also recruited Brian McCabe, a New Hampshire-based grassroots specialist, as its president. According to sources, Progress for America is aiming to raise $40 million to $60 million to fund grassroots work, issue advertising, and "truth squads" to burnish the Bush record on tax cuts, the economy, energy, and other issues. Over the past few months, [Progress for America's] counsel, Ben Ginsberg, who is also the chief outside counsel for the Bush campaign, has been telling potential board members about a game plan that would allow Progress for America to answer liberal advocacy groups.

So far, we have Progress for America (and the National Journal) knowing Ben Ginsberg was the Bush campaign's chief outside counsel before Bush's campaign announced the hire. As a 501c, Progress for America is subject to restrictions that 527s are not. On May 28, 2004, PFA announced their establishment of the Progress for America Voter Fund 527:

"I am excited to announce the establishment of the Progress for America Voter Fund and the addition of our new board members," said Brian McCabe, the President the PFA Voter Fund. "We are confident that this new 527 committee and new board members will dramatically increase our impact on public policy in America," McCabe added.

Way back in November 2003, Progress for America announced that they had reformed by reproducing this report in their PFA Activities page - and look who was involved:

A not-for-profit organization with strong Republican ties has re-formed in recent months with several top GOP strategists at the helm in an effort to counter the proliferation of soft-money groups on the Democratic side.

The group - Progress for America - is a 501(c)(4) membership committee that was begun in 2001 by Tony Feather, a longtime Republican consultant with strong ties to President Bush. Feather recently cut his ties to the group, however, and has been replaced atop the organization by Chris LaCivita, political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in the 2002 cycle and the top political strategist for NRSC Chairman George Allen (Va.).

Republican lawyer Ben Ginsberg, who specializes in campaign finance and election law, is also closely affiliated with the committee, according to well-placed sources.

Progress for America's daughter 527 organization produced and aired the pro-Bush/anti-Kerry "What If? ad.

It's crystal clear that Ginsberg's job as "Chief Outside Counsel" for the Bush campaign is to work with soft money groups. And he's paid to do it - the fact that campaign finance is one of his areas of concentration likely means that arguments are ready that his activities technically do not contravene the law. Swift Boat Vets for Truth spokesperson Jennifer Webster explained Ginsberg's role, "It was an effort to make sure we were doing everything legal, that's why you hire a lawyer." One can't help but recall the administration's legal contortions to skirt the Geneva Conventions and justify torture. The conspicuous observation here is that advice Ginbsberg gives on behalf of the Bush campaign on plausibly staying within the law is all the evidence any Doubting Thomas needs to be convinced that Swift Boat Vets for Truth and Bush/Cheney '04 are appendages of Bush's coordinated campaign effort. Thanks to Leilani for the "tie that binds" imagry.

The Republicans' strategy is to use the good cop/bad cop ploy: SBVT is a vile mouthpiece while their candidate himself tries to come across as someone above reproach who would never criticize a war hero. If Bush wants to vilify Kerry's service, great, but pretending it's not part of his campaign's strategy makes the childish and non-sensical attacks dishonest as well as repugnant. (Before you think "But wait", remember Kerry has condemned ads that remind America Bush was an alcoholic who probably skipped out on a few months of National Guard service while he was supposed to be protecting Alabama from the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong.)

My own opinion is that on it's own, it doesn't matter that Bush avoided Vietnam by joining the champagne corps, I'd like to think I would have tried to avoid that war myself. He gets a pass from me - and if he'd have been upfront about it in 2000, it would be a closed issue for all. The salient fact is that Kerry volunteered, served honorably as a brave and exceptional commander, and furthermore came around quickly and was unabashedly vocal against war once he saw it for what it was. "My country right or wrong; when right, to keep her right; when wrong, to put her right." - Carl Schultz.

The salient fact about Bush today is that he's happy to perch on a hollow ivory pedestal, hovering over a cesspool of right-wing Republican filth, claiming his stool doesn't stink.

// posted by Erik @ 8/25/2004 02:09:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

• Conservatives continued to claim outrage at those who disagree that everything is fine, just fine.

• Some pointed out that although a smoking gun has not been found in Iraq, conservatives have had no trouble employing smoke screens anyway.

• Being that testimony from people who were actually there with John Kerry in Vietnam does not seem to satisfy some Americans, Kerry tested what would happen if America is presented supportive testimony from people who weren't there.

• Police charged a New Jersey man with employing a weapon of mass stupidity: "Cedarville resident Michael File received several small lacerations on his back Sunday as the result of being whipped with a dead six-foot-long blacksnake, state police said."

• The panel investigating the torture at Abu Ghraib acknowledged this administration's theological assurance that car bombs and kidnappings are just the way Iraqis always celebrate liberation: "In Iraq, there was not only a failure to plan for a major insurgency, but also to quickly and adequately adapt to the insurgency that followed after major combat operations. The October 2002 Centcom war plan presupposed that relatively benign stability and security operations would precede a handover to Iraq's authorities."

  But the panel also determined the pesky Rumsfeld-approved "augmented techniques for Guantnamo migrated to Afghanistan and Iraq where they were neither limited nor safeguarded." Damn the migratory patterns of augmented techniques! For the life of me I can't figure out why those techniques didn't realize that if they migrated to Iraq and Afghanistan they'd transmute themselves into full blown torture and murder.

• On a lighter note, John Kerry did the Daily Show (Windows Media video - if link doesn't work, find it from here.

• Dick Cheney made some bigots' heads explode by voicing support for allowing same sex couples to be taxed like to opposite sex couples if they choose.

• Zogby tallied the "battleground state" race as 14-2 Kerry, further bolstering my contention that at least a few of the sates such as FL, NH, and WV should be referred to as "swung states".

• Ben Ginsberg,Bush/Cheney '04's "chief outside council," who in late April had strategy meetings with soft money groups about "a game plan that would allow ... to answer liberal advocacy groups, revealed that he indeed serves as an advisor to Swift Boat Vets for Bush. Just a few weeks ago, Ginsberg condemned Democrats active in both 527s and the DNC Convention as going "over the coordination line."

• And while I was blogging, two tragic things - or maybe thing - happened in Russia.

While all that was happening, I was regaining control of a server hijacked by Teutonic hackers who love 50 Cent so much they figured it would be awesome to have two versions of his same album available for their friend's pirating pleasure - the "uppercase" and "lowercase" versions ...

I don't have enough of an ear for rap to speculate on their musical tastes and am too kind to characterize their taste in movies ...

// posted by Erik @ 8/24/2004 08:06:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

I'll add to this collection in the future. I you have anything else to add, please give a hollar.

• "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is not something to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage. And the whole outfit served with honor."
  - George Elliot, 1996

• "I said, 'John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post' ... But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that." - George Elliot, 2003

• "It took guts, and I admire that." - Roy Hoffman, 2003

• "Senator Kerry was no exception. He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers." - Adrian Lonsdale, 1996

• "I would not try to question the awards given to him or his service." - James Zumwalt, 2004

// posted by Erik @ 8/23/2004 11:16:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

I hadn't seen this White House press gaggle that happened a few hours before I commented earlier today on the fact that the White House and Bush campaign refuses to condemn the false charges put out by Swift Boat Vets for Bush, but only says the President wouldn't make the charges himself, but condems the fact that they're made by a 527 group. Scott McClellan was asked 12 times (twelve times) whether the Presendent condemned the content of specific ads such as Kerry has done regarding MoveOn's ad about Bush's service. His answer to twelve pointed questions was to repeat the deflection that Bush doesn't like the fact that the claims are being issued by a group registered as a 527 and claim that that was an answer to the question.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has condemned -- well, first of all, the President has called on Senator Kerry to join him in calling for all of these ads and activity by these shadowy groups to stop, and he renewed that call today. The President has condemned all of these ads. And when he says he condemns them all, he means it. He wants Senator Kerry to join him in calling for a stop to all of these ads and activity.

Q But does he condemn the actual charge within the ad?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said --

Q Can I assume that, then?

MR. McCLELLAN: He condemns all of these ads --

Q So I can assume he condemns the content.

MR. McCLELLAN: Deb, he condemns all of these ads --

Q -- and the content?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me answer your question. The President condemns all of these ads. And he's been very clear in that. When he says he condemns all of the ads, he means all of the ads. And Senator Kerry should join us --

Q He's condemning the content of the ad, as well?

MR. McCLELLAN: He's calling for a stop to all of these ads. That's what he's -- he's renewed his call today to Senator Kerry: Join us in calling for a stop to all of these ads.

Q So let me just ask you --

MR. McCLELLAN: And activity by these unregulated soft-money groups.

Q You're not making a difference -- you're not distinguishing between the fact that they are 527s --

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean -- go ahead.

Q You're not separating, then, the fact that these are 527s getting unregulated money and the actual content of the ad, that Kerry might have fraudulently obtained his medals, he might have falsified records? You're lumping that all in. When he says he condemns them, he condemns everything.

MR. McCLELLAN: Senator Kerry wants to have it both ways. Let's call for an end to all of these ads by these shadowy groups that receive unregulated soft money. That's what the President has previously called on Senator Kerry to join us in doing, and we renew that call today. He should call for a stop to all of these ads. We thought we got rid of this when we signed -- when the President signed the campaign finance reforms into law. The President has been on the receiving end of more than $63 million in negative attacks from these shadowy groups, these 527s that exist. And that's why he believes that we should stop all of this activity that is going on by these unregulated -- soft money activity. And so I -- let's go and look at all that has happened over the last year, and all the negative attacks that have been aimed at the President, and all the false attacks that have been aired against the President out there.

Q So the content of all of them, he condemns that as well?

Q So can we assume that he's also denouncing the content of the ads?

MR. McCLELLAN: You've heard what he said -- he condemns all of the ads, Deb. He could not be more clear in saying that -- and when he says something, he means it. Senator Kerry can put an end to all of this by -- help put an end to all of this by joining us in calling for a stop to all of these ads. That's what he ought to do.

Q -- charge in the ad.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what he ought to do. Why has the Kerry campaign been silent for more than a year, and then actually been fueling some of these very false and negative attacks that have been airing against the President of the United States for the last year?

Q But this one was against them.

MR. McCLELLAN: Right, they want to have it both ways. The President has been consistent from the very beginning. When he signed the campaign finance reforms into law, he thought he got rid of all of this activity and these ads. And he believes --

Q So you're condemning these ads, but not --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he believes we should get rid of all of this activity and ads by these shadowy groups.

Q But he's not denouncing the specific charge within the ads?

MR. McCLELLAN: How many times are you going to ask the same question, Deb?

Q You didn't answer.

MR. McCLELLAN: That is the answer: Senator Kerry should join us in calling for an end to all of this unregulated soft-money activity by these shadowy groups. And we call on Senator Kerry again today to join us in calling for a stop to all of these activities. The President condemns all of the ads. That's what he said, just again a minute ago, and that's what he has said previously.

Q Okay, so he would -- in terms of the question that I asked, he would discourage Republicans from supporting --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- we've never questioned Senator Kerry's service, and we won't. This race should be about the future. This race should be about how -- who is in the best position to lead the country, going forward, for the next four years. The President has a proven record of results, and he's laying out an agenda that builds upon that record of results. And we should be talking about how we lead and win the war on terrorism. We should be talking about how we -- the best way to create jobs and keep our economy moving forward. We should be talking about ways to reduce rising health care costs and make health care more affordable and accessible. That's what this election should be about, and instead you have Senator Kerry continuing to engage in false and negative attacks against the President of the United States.

Q Can I ask you a sort of unrelated question, which Dick wanted me to ask for another story?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I would remind you also, Deb, that the false and negative attacks being launched by the Kerry campaign have no basis in fact. They have presented no evidence. But there has been a revolving door between these Democratic front groups and the campaign strategist and the personnel and the strategies.

Q Okay, so you say these have no --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why we need to --

Q -- they're false and baseless, but are the Swift Boat ads false and baseless as well?

MR. McCLELLAN: Deb, this goes to your whole question. These ads are another example of the problem with these shadowy groups, and that receive unregulated soft money activity. And so the President condemns all of these ads. The President, as you heard him say again today, has called Senator Kerry's service "noble."

Q So Republican or Democrat, they're all false and baseless.

MR. McCLELLAN: We should condemn all of these ads, and put a stop to all these ads.

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. McCLELLAN: No, what I was talking about was the claim that the Kerry campaign has now made, which is, all of a sudden -- I think his campaign, the other day, said that Senator Kerry had reached the boiling point. Well, reaching the boiling point shouldn't be excuse to launch into false and baseless attacks against the President. Yet they continue to do so.

Q Can I ask you a separate question about something else? Basically -- I don't know if you saw the University of Maryland poll that shows one in seven people think we went to war under false pretenses. That poll and others --

MR. McCLELLAN: Haven't seen the poll.

Q Ask the campaign. (Laughter.)

McClellan's as well as this White House's rhetoric are eerily easy to predict. Although we didn't anticipate that the 527 aspect of the deflection, on August 5 - the day after Senator McCain condemned the ad - an internet friend and I correctly predicted the White House's response to questions about the ad. Here is the transcript of the future press briefing we came up with:

Q: Senator McCain strongly spoke out against the group of veterans making inflammatory statements about John Kerry's service in Vietnam. What is the President's view of this group and the claims they are making?

McClellan: I think the President already answered questions about John Kerry's service. The President is proud of every soldier, sailor and airman who has served his country with honor.

Q: But the ad?

McClellan : The president wants to take the high road in this campaign, Helen, and he thinks the issues of this campaign are about America's future and ALL THESE INCREDIBLE THREATS that president Bush will SAVE US ALL from.

Q: I'm not asking about terrorism. I'm asking about the ad attacking Kerry and the group that is making these claims. Does the President -

McClellan: This is a issue that the President has already -

Question: This ad just emerged in the last few days. I'm asking what the President -

McClellan: I think it's important to remember that the American people agree with the President that intentions do not always translate into results, and this campaign will allow the voters to examine the President's record and compare it to Senator Kerry's.

// posted by Erik @ 8/23/2004 05:07:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

Every day of his 1996 presidential campaign, Bob Dole wore a Purple Heart lapel pin as a symbol of his devotion to his country. Dole received a debilitating wound during WW II and touted that wound; his campaign gaving prominent attention to his sacrifice and there was nothing wrong with that:

Dole's official campaign video, "Bob Dole: An American Hero," features an "America's Most Wanted"-style recreation of the battlefield scene, with shaky, slow-motion footage of a rifle and an empty helmet rolling on the ground. His convalescence is conveyed with shots of a man from the knees down, shuffling forward.

The Kerry campaign, of course, is indeed featuring his Vietnam service. But anyone that would claim Kerry is making a lot of racket about his Purple Hearts isn't paying attention to John Kerry - they're paying attention to the racket John O'Neill and other Bush surrogates are making about Kerry's medals. O'Neill seems to have Bob Dole's ear more than John Kerry does. On CNN yesterday, Dole bemoaned Kerry's Purple Hearts and service record yet in the next breath made the astute observation that nobody thought to question his own service record and Purple Hearts:

And he's, you know, a good guy, good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out. I think Senator Kerry needs to talk about his Senate record, which is pretty thin. That's probably why he's talking about his war record, which is pretty confused ...

I said John Kerry's a hero. But what I will always quarrel about are the Purple Hearts. I mean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart - he got two in one day, I think ...

I remember in '96, I was the veteran in the race. Bill Clinton avoided the draft. And we didn't have all this trouble over my service versus his non-service. There wasn't much written about it. People accepted the fact that I had a record.

- Bob Dole, August 22, 2004

Indeed. It's the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" that are confusing Kerry's service record, his record is clear and publicly available to download. Here is how Del Sandusky today responded to Dole's nonsense:

"[Kerry] deserved every one of his medals ... He carries a piece of shrapnel in his leg because he refused to be operated on and (spend) a couple of days in the hospital and leave us on the boat" I was there when he got wounded. I saw the blood. I don't care what Dole said."

Dole, however, is right on the more important count - nobody was low enough to question Dole's record as they are Kerry's, Dole was free to run on it (and lose) in 1996. Here are some excerpts from 1996 Republican Convention floor speeches that nobody had the audacity to smear:

"Bob Dole wears on the lapel of his coat a small pin. The purple heart, a symbol of his devotion to this county."
- Michael O. Leavitt, August 15, 1996

"When his country called - Bob Dole was there - ready to make the sacrifice. America is calling again."
- Kay Bailey Hutchison, August 13, 1996

"Bob Dole himself, bloodied in combat, tested by fire on the battlefield and in the world of politics, has proved his service to his country."
- Former President George HW Bush, August 12, 1996

Dole's wound that was traumatic an affects him to this day. As an important side note that others have observed - Dole has a second Purple Heart for a minor wound, yet, as Dole says "People accepted the fact". Dole described his wound like this in a campaign autobiography:

"As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg - the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."

- Bob Dole, 1988

If it wasn't for people like Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" making ridiculous claims and people like Bob Dole repeating them, there would be no problem. Although it doesn't seem to be much of a problem as Kerry's preference numbers have since risen in states that could go either way

Here is an especially ridiculous claim by the group for you to chew on: Kerry wrote his own after action reports and embellished them. Their evidence?

See Exhibit 17. KJW identifies the report as Kerry's.

The initials KJW indicate that the report was written by John Forbes Kerry. Dole is right - Kerry's record is confusing - to stupid people.

// posted by Erik @ 8/23/2004 01:24:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

During press availability at his 700 acre Crawford hobby ranch today, President Bush repeated the same position his administration and campaign have always voiced on the Swift Boat Vets for Truth attack ads, that all 527 groups should be banned and that he does not criticize Kerry's service but rather thinks it was honorable. I guarantee that an army of right-wing media pundits will treat it as if he said something new:

Q Some of your supporters are refighting the Vietnam War with their comments about Kerry's war record. Do you think that these attacks of this nature are unpatriotic, un-American, seeing as we're sending young people to war at this time?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think we ought to be debating who best to be leading this country in the war against terror. And that's what I'll continue to try to convince the American people of, is that I'm the right person to continue to lead the country in the war on terror. I think we ought to be looking forward, not backward. And that's the kind of campaign I'll continue to run.

Q But why won't you denounce the charges that your supporters are making against Kerry?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm denouncing all the stuff being on TV of the 527s. That's what I've said. I said this kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process. And I asked Senator Kerry to join me in getting rid of all that kind of soft money, not only on TV, but used for other purposes, as well. I, frankly, thought we'd gotten rid of that when I signed the McCain-Feingold bill. I thought we were going to, once and for all, get rid of a system where people could just pour tons of money in and not be held to account for the advertising. And so I'm disappointed with all those kinds of ads.

Yes, Adam.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. This doesn't have anything to do with other 527 ads. You've been accused of mounting a smear campaign. Do you think Senator Kerry lied about his war record?

THE PRESIDENT: I think Senator Kerry served admirably, and he ought to be -- he ought to be proud of his record. But the question is, who best to lead the country in the war on terror; who can handle the responsibilities of the Commander-in-Chief; who's got a clear vision of the risks that the country faces.

Yes.

Q Mr. President, some Republicans, such as Bob Dole and some Republican donors such as --

THE PRESIDENT: What paper are you with?

Q I'm with Bloomberg.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. First time I've seen you ought here. Welcome.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: No problem. Did you write the story about the Vice President? (Laughter.) Yes, go ahead.

Q That's okay. Some Republicans such as Bob Dole and some Republican donors such as Bob Perry have contributed and endorsed the message of these 527 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads --

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q Do you -- when you say that you want to stop all --

THE PRESIDENT: All of them.

Q Does that mean --

THE PRESIDENT: That means that ad, every other ad.

Q Would you encourage Republicans not to give to --

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it. And I wish -- I hope my opponent joins me in saying, condemning these activities of the 527s. It's the -- I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold. I've been disappointed that for the first six months of this year, 527s were just pouring tons of money, billionaires writing checks. And I spoke out against them early. I tried to get others to speak out against them, as well. And I just don't -- I think they're bad for the system.

The issues are that a) Swift Boat Vets for Truth are as closely associated to the White House you can get without being on the White House or Bush campaign payroll and b) that their factual claims are fictional. Kerry has not condemned 527s, but he has specifically condemned the MoveOn ad criticizing Bush's service in the Air National Guard (or more accurately, lack of service) saying "I agree with Senator McCain that the ad is inappropriate."

Kerry Denounces New Ad on Bush's Service in Guard

Senator John Kerry denounced an advertisement by the liberal group MoveOn.org questioning President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the Air National Guard yesterday, a move likely to raise pressure on President Bush to condemn a recent commercial accusing Mr. Kerry of lying about his war record.

Bush has not said the Swift Boat Vet's ad is inappropriate, he is saying he's disappointed the ad is funded by a 527 group.

// posted by Erik @ 8/23/2004 12:31:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

A day doesn't go by without hearing that this presidential election is neck and neck. In terms of the popular vote as it shows up in preference polls, that's true. But when you look at electoral votes, Kerry is clearly in the lead. In order for things to start looking good for Bush, he's going to have to reverse the trend in several states: over the last two months, Florida, West Virginia, New Hampshire have slid into the Kerry column. If it doesn't make immediate sense how Kerry can clearly be leading with an advantage of only 2-4% nationally, consider how the electoral college works, if it does make sense, jump down this post a bit. Here's an illustrative example of a three state nation that elects their president more or less like we do, with the difference of voting being mandatory. Keep in mind that each state gets two "free" electoral votes regardless ofd population:

• Freedonia, population 2,400,000, 5 electoral votes. 90% prefer Bush, 10% prefer Kerry.
• El Dorado, population 700,000, 3 electoral votes. 49% prefer Bush, 51% prefer Kerry.
• Ecotopia, population 1,500,000, 4 electoral votes. 49% prefer Bush, 51% prefer Kerry.

Splay that out to find how many people in each state prefer Bush or Kerry:

• Freedonia, 2,160,000 prefer Bush, 240,000 prefer Kerry.
• El Dorado, 343,000 prefer Bush, 357,000 prefer Kerry.
• Ecotopia, 735,000 prefer Bush, 765,000 prefer Kerry.

Add up the votes to see who is ahead in the popular vote nationally and who wins the electoral vote:

• 1,362,000, or 30% prefer Kerry.
• 3,238,000, or 70% prefer Bush.
• Bush wins Freedonia for 5 electoral votes, Kerry wins El Dorado and Ectopia for 7 electoral votes.
• Kerry wins.

When you look at state level polls today, you see something very similar is happening. In the states where Bush is ahead, he's generally ahead by a larger margin than in states where Kerry is leading. Here are a few examples from large states to illustrate:

• Texas, 36 electoral votes, Bush leads 55%/37%.
• Georgia, 15 electoral votes, Bush leads 54%/38%
• California, 55 electoral votes, Kerry leads 49%/46%
• Florida, 26 electoral votes, Kerry leads 47%/46%

Looking at only the 132 electoral votes from those four states, we see that across those four states, Bush has 49% of the vote and Kerry has 46% - that's not how we determine the winner of a presidential election. If you get the most votes in a state, you get all the electoral votes: Kerry wins California and Florida for 81 electoral votes and Bush wins Texas and Georgia for 51 electoral votes.

If you do the same thing with every state, you find Kerry has 286 electoral votes and Bush has 233. An easier why of explaining what I just pointed out at length may have been simply to have noted that in 2000, Bush lost the popular vote, but won the electoral vote.

An additional peculiarity I'm anticipating on election day comes from the phenomena of many people desiring "anybody but Bush" to be in the White House. In a typical election, a lot of people are going to not particularly like either of the major candidates and they'll not vote for either, but just stay home from the polls. This election will likely be the same in that way. But also in this election, there are a whole bunch of people that virulently dislike Bush and will be motivated to vote solely to get Bush out of office. There were so many people that showed up to the Democratic caucus in my district and wanted to be delegates for the state convention, special "how to be a delegate" sessions were arranged. In my precinct, people who had been going to the caucuses since they began again during the Vietnam war said there were four times as many people as had showed up ever before. It seems clear to me that the people who are "anybody but Kerry" voters would be voting for Bush anyway.

Pollsters come up with the populations they survey by going off of lists of registered voters - lists which anybody can purchase from secretaries of state. From those lists, they usually poll "likely" voters - a category they come up with by looking at how often the subject has voted in recent elections and asking them a few qualifying questions at the beginning of the interview. If a person hasn't voted since 1992, most pollsters aren't going to consider them "likely", but not pollster uses the exact same criteria. You can see that different pollsters use different criteria by comparing the "likely" numbers to the "registered" numbers - all have Kerry doing better among "registered" voters:

• Time - Kerry doing 1% points better among "registered" voters

• Gallup - Kerry doing 2% points better among "registered" voters

• CNN/USA Today/Gallup - Kerry doing 4% points better among "registered" voters

• ICR - Kerry doing 5% points better among "registered" voters

• ABC/Washington Post - Kerry doing 6% points better among "registered" voters

Except for the FOX poll which shows Kerry doing better among "likely" voters:

• FOX/Opinion Dynamics - Kerry doing 3% points worse among "registered" voters

FOX's poll is the only one that makes sense if you accept the premise that there are a lot of angry voters who will be drawn to the polls by an "anybody but Bush" sentiment (or kept away because they only want to vote for a Republican, but not Bush). FOX's presidential polling sticks out for another reason as well: the president rather consistently has a higher approval rating than in other polls taken around the same time - the president - not "Bush" - FOX had Clinton's ratings higher than the other pollsters as well.

To me, it seems reasonable to believe that the anger at Bush will result in high voter turnout among people that typically vote for Democrats, and that Bush's policies will have brought about low voter turnout among people that typically vote Republican: spending money like there's no tomorrow, expanding the welfare state, having a welcoming attitude towards those south of the border and allowing the size of the federal government to mushroom.

Pollsters don't make such evaluations - their determinations of who is likely to vote are based on questions like "How important you think the outcome of the upcoming presidential election is? Very important, somewhat important, not very important or not important at all?" A better question might be "Are you so angry at Bush that you'd never vote for him in a million years or are you so angry you'd even prefer the idiot is inside that Barney the Purple Dinosaur costume?"

Because new voters do not show up on the voter rolls the pollsters go off of, they are neither "likely" not "registered", there is no way of measuring their influence. So add a lot of new "anybody but Bush" votes to the fact that we already have an angry registered electorate, and Kerry could easily win in a few states which conventional wisdom have until recently considered "safe Republican", but are actually pretty close among the population the pollsters are querying: Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina. Maybe later I'll write about the fact that a few reasonably close states have no senatorial or gubernatorial elections will also work to Ke