Watching the polls again

Zogby International

Zogby predicted a Kerry victory on the Daily Show last week. He cited the fact that Bush's approval rating is too low to get him elected.

That's reason number six to be sure of a Kerry victory.

Number seven: Zogby has the confidence to make his call early and surely. He could be wrong, but I like his moxy.

Fighting for our victory after Election Day

This year, we all have a responsibility to each other to ensure that our votes count. When the results start pouring in, so will the complaints of irregularities. We cannot allow the press to drop the issue this year, unlike in 2000. Especially after it was decided that Gore should have been the winner in a fair, accurate and uniform recount. Doubly so after we knew that tens of thousands of voters were improperly denied their right to vote.

We can expect that, regardless of whether Kerry's victory is 3 or 60 electoral votes, the GOP will dispute Ohio, Florida, Iowa and any number of other states. When this happens, we cannot allow their tactics to obscure the truth.

Four years ago, we got duped by the FOX newsroom. As a matter of pride, I expect them to call the election for Bush before the polls close on the east coast.

This year we must support the accurate, uniform recount of a legally conducted election in every corner of the nation. Chances are that they will find more votes for Kerry in the process.

Has Bush saved any Iraqi lives?

Taipei Times - archives

One of the most ridiculous rationalizations for the war, since all others have proved false, is that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy who killed his citizens. They say he killed a million or more over a couple decades.

Now Bush has killed 100,000 in less than two years. Over a couple of decades that could add up to tens of millions. Bush has proven deadlier to Iraqis than Hussein.

Not suprising.

Curt Schilling was my hero for about a week

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: Red Sox Hero Curt Schilling: 'Vote Bush'

You blew it Curt. Your doctors' skills allowed you to pitch. Not God - He doesn't care! What does God have against the Cards?

And vote for little w? Go back to Arizona.

Some nights it's tough to string together two coherent sentences

The mind gets full. It bursts. And I never look back. No matter how terrible the post.

Now it's time to unload again.

I talk to folks, good, hardworkin' folks. Some folks express doubts that we will win the election and secure the Oval Office. I do not hesitate to bolster their spirits and share five reasons why you should lack that doubt.

First: the cell phone toting transient lifestyle of generation X, plus all those people (Zogby methodology) who have been displaced by the economy since late 2001 (when the 2002 phone listing was compiled) and are not polled.

Second: the current poll numbers suit the needs of the pollsters. The polls would be worth much less if they showed the long-standing runaway Kerry victory. Daily numbers are not worth the money at that point.

Third: media corporations profit from indecisive numbers.

Fourth: Gore won last time. With thousands of voters robbed of their voting rights in silence. And thousands who voted for Nader, who will (100%, at least among those that I know) cast Kerry ballots this time around, because this one is too important to let it be close.

Fifth: Gore failed us. Kerry will not. Gore was afraid of looking like a sore loser. He did not fight for us when we needed him. Kerry will.

I've heard the idea that people are afraid to vote for Kerry thinking that he would be worse for safety than Bush. I think that's one of the most deflatable ideas oozing out of the Bush camp.

The facts are: we're getting our ass handed to us in Iraq. Global terrorism is on the rise. This game plan is not working. And Cheney keeps reminding us that there will be another attack, somewhere, sometime with a nuclear or biological weapon of mass destruction. It's an admission that they have no idea how to ensure our safety.

President Kerry will likely have the EU, NATO and many other nations back at the negotiating table before Inauguration Day. Then we can move towards stability in Iraq, by providing complete training to Iraqi police in a much less lethal environment. When they go back fully trained and well equipped, then they will have a hope of surviving and ending the insurgency.

At the same table, they could discuss global solutions to international terrorism. When the governments around the world police their own neighborhoods, we will all be safer. At least as safe as we were before April 20. Or September 11. Or December 7.

Bush also talks about if Kerry had been president for these last four years. This sounds like desperation - grasping at straws for idiotic points of nonsense. What does this have to do with anything that's happening now? Kerry was not on the ballot last time. How could he have been president?

Then again, if he had been president, Saddam Hussein might still be in power. In power of what? His nation had been powerless for years. He couldn't even fly an airplane in his own country. We kept an eye on him. He was no threat to anyone. That's our point.

Tonight, America, rest assured. Kerry will win the election for us next week.

Big Government Conservatives

It boggles the mind. Before conservatives met Reagan and Bush, they were for small government. Out of one side of Reagan's mouth we heard the small government line. Out of the other side he grew government spending and government in general to the point of ruin.

Then along came this hot shot lawyer from Arkansas and his senate side-kick from Tennessee. Do you know what Al Gore did that saved us from bankruptcy? He guided the NPR. Not National Public Radio, the National Performance Review. The Osborne and Gabler thing. Remember them? They trimmed the fat from many agencies. Al Gore reinvented government and saved us from bankruptcy. Clinton budgeted us into surplus easily from there.

Now, Bush has sank us deeper into debt than Reaganomics did. He grew the government faster than ever before in history.

How is that conservative?

A Threat or a Promise?

CBS News | Kerry's Dilemma | October 22, 2004�14:31:37

One party rule? I think we've had enough of that as we can take. I voted last week, and voted the ticket for the first time in my life. We need to ride this ass across the finish line November 2nd.

Can you imagine the hell the GOP can raise with a guaranteed two years of unopposed rule? This article sounds like someone's counting their chickens and gloating about them. Haven't things gone bad enough in this administration for everyone to see little w has ruined the nation and the world?

Even now, new news exposes the moronitude of the leadership in Iraq. Doesn't anyone in the White House get the idea that maybe the peace can be restored by keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists?




PDX BALLOT NOTES


Locally, I went Adams and Francesconi, based largely on experience and openness. Potter is a clam. I can't vote for a clam. If I knew anything about his vision for the future, maybe I might consider him. Jim's got the experience and the contacts to manage an effective city government, which I believe will be accountable, as well.

And Sam Adams gets the vote for his experience, knowledge and skills. Nick Fish just does not make me feel confident about his ability to become effective immediately. He promises to walk the neighborhoods, maybe read a book at a local elementary school? He has no idea what to do and promises to pander at every turn. Wrong!

ABC News Instant Poll

It's not on the website yet. It said 42 kerry, 41 Bush, 14 percent tie for the debate. The respondents were 38 Republican, 34 Democrat and the rest percent independent. That means, in a sample the size of 512, with a statistical signifance of 4.5% and an accuracy of greater than 96%, Independents found a Kerry win by almost 3 to 1. Bush's range is -1.5% to 7.5% of .325 (or 32.5% of Independents). So, 32.5% to 40% of Independents are leaning Bush.

67.5% +/-4.5% Yields a range of 63 to 72% of self-identified independent voters who judged a decision in favor of Kerry.

But Bush doesn't like instant polls.

Bush Campaign Words I Heard on CSPAN

Clan. Whip. Only one's a slip.

Bush's Judicial Appointment Litmus Test

Last night, Bush claimed to not have a political litmus test for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court. Then he gave an example of his multilayered litmus test. Maybe this is the bullshitmas test.

His test cases are Dredd Scott and Newsom's "Under God" case. His personal test is whether in the next election they'll vote for him.

He started with a defiant, "I'm not tellin'." A hem, a haw, a bullshit, a strict constructionist.

A God fearin' fundamentalist Christian. Who would not vote for slavery.

WHAT???! How the hell did that question get asked? I think that one was settled twenty generations ago. Who wants to challenge that one? Answer me that Mr. Riddler.

No litmus test except for how I agree with how they interpret the Constitution.

Disturbing. The State has no business promoting a job opening only to Republican neo-conservative Christians, or monotheists who don't believe in Allah, according to the First Amendment.

I thought that we issued some other Amendments which also answered the equality issue. That is our Constitution, George. You can't conveniently ignore the Amendments or force your own.

I really hope this picture is becoming clear to everybody. Last doubt time is coming. Last chance to take advantage of growing dissonance and weak undoubt regarding the clash of belief and reality.

Bush also claimed that we have not lost any rights under the PATRIOT Act. If Brandon Mayfield has lost his rights, I have also lost mine. Kerry understands. He promotes changing it to bring it in line with our individual rights.

Who can, in good conscience, vote for this man?

been taking some time off

Tonight's debate should give me more to write about.

Truth is, I've been fearful that litlw could actually win this election. I decided to just stick to reading and watching and listening. I needed to regain my balance again as the dissonance grew deafening again. Spells always take me off my game.

I hope to usher in the election with daily posts again. The voters' pamphlet, vol. 1, came today. It's thick, and it's only for the state propositions! I can't wait to see the rest.

A first glance run down: No on everything for Oregon except 33&34. These seem to be good, plausible ideas which could lead to no real harm. 33? Look who's in the pamphlet against it: the Libertarians and some woman named Stormy Ray. That's it for people who would be willing to pay $500 to get their opinion in the pamphlet. That's not very compelling to me.

And on 34, it seems to me that mostly people who benefit economically from clear-cutting make up most of the people who are opposed. I am not compelled by the arguments of corporations which profit from my natural resources. It's mine!. You can have limited access to only half, and even then your ability to capitalize will be severely limited. Because it's mine.

No on everything else. Not a single good idea in the lot.

Why be Afraid of the Draft?

It seems that people of draft age are afraid of the draft. Survey says more than 50% think Bush might be inclined to bring back the draft. This is a legitimate fear.

I remember that when I was of draft age and Bush invaded Kuwait, I feared that they might draft me. I think this is perfectly legitimate fear. And Bush gives us no reason to think he has no designs on instituting a draft when he goes to war with North Korea and provides logistical support for and Isreali attack against Iran.

There might be no reason to think little w will go after them. Bush only went after Hussein because he knew he was impotent. And to do it he lied. With Korea and Iran, we are sure they have the weapons they shouldn't. So we can probably be pretty sure that he won't go after them since they're armed to the teeth. Unlike Hussein.

But I think greater events will push us into conflict with these nations, and probably others if Bush spends four more years in office. We know he has a little trouble telling the truth. So, why believe him now? I do not find it suprising that half or more draft eligible citizens find it plausible.

Kerry Panning Out with Strong Debate

It's almost unanimous. Let's take a peek...

Boston Herald acknowledges:

"Kerry's first debate performance...positive campaign reviews..."
"Bush grimacing and scowling through the debate..."
"Bush advisers...grudgingly admitted...wasn't his best performance and...began trying to set expectations low for future debates."

NYTimes:

"Bush...seemed defensive and less sure of himself..."
"Kerry...accomplished his primary goal...a plausible commander in chief."
"[Bush] seemed to lean into the camera, pursing his lips, at some pains to disguise his apparent exasperation..."
"Bush burst out a spontaneous answer to a question that Mr. Kerry had posed only rhetorically..."
"Kerry had the greater burden, and his performance was more disciplined and controlled...spoke plainly, politely, but did not shrink from direct and pointed criticism of Mr. Bush's policies."
"Bush jumped in and asked for time for an additional rebuttal as Mr. Kerry started pummeling him..."

FOX:

""Several times it looked to me as if the president was sucking on a lemon," said Washington Post political writer and FOX News political analyst Ceci Connelly. "
"Bush looked "clueless.""
"Kerry...got under the president's skin."
"Michael O'Fallon...voted for Bush in 2000 and still is inclined to support the president. But he was disappointed."


Bush:

"We did our best...It's tough...hard work..."

There you have it, folks. The jury has decided on round one. Kerry gets this one.