Well, even with Kerry offering alternatives, I think voters are focused on Bush's performance, win or lose. That said, I'm somewhat optimistic that Kerry will be a good president. Some of his flaws as a candidate (let me note, by the way, that I don't think Bush is a particularly good candidate either -- which is why he's luck to have cheerleaders like Fox News, the Drudge Report, and Rush Limbaugh) -- such as being aware of the multiple side
blogic
Great piece Steven, In fairness to Bush, it's the American people who keep demanding to be told that the War on Terrorism is winnable; so Bush keeps claiming to be winning it in some measurable way, and he and Kerry attack each other when either admits that the WoT is no more winnable than the War on Drugs, or the War on Poverty, or the War on Run-On Sentences... oh wait.
Well, most Republicans will support Bush, just as most Democrats will support Kerry. That said, I think that Kerry will do well among the small percentage of "independent" Republicans, while Bush will not do well among the equivalent group on the Democratic side. Among self-identified Democrats and Republicans, each party has roughly 10% who are undecided. I think Kerry will get most of those votes. Reality's mileage may vary. We may wake
Mitch21 writes: Blogic, you could at least TRY to mask your desperation. I could list democrats supporting Bush until my face turned blue, but its pointless because everyone knows there are democrats voting against Kerry and there are republicans voting for Bush. I guess you thought that since you are a democrat, you have to vote for a democrat candidate every time just because they are a democrat?
If Kerry wins, I can see that all the conservative and indepedent endorsements coming Kerry's way will cause us problems down the road. I can just see it: in 2008, Republicans will quote all these conservatives, "[Generic conservative] supported Kerry in 2004, so why has he turned against the President?" I guess we liberals will deserve it, after so
Wow, I was pretty shocked by this one. Sure, lots of conservatives have come out against Bush, and Andrew Sullivan -- who once proved that one could be gay, conservative, and support Bush -- finally endorsed Kerry, but Christopher Hitchens? Hitch has spent years as one of the most hawkish of the Iraq hawks. It never occurred to me that he would endorse Kerr
As I think most readers know, Kerry is way ahead on both his number of major newspaper endorsements and total circulation of those papers. Bush supporters may not take this seriously, arguing that of course the "liberal press" is supporting the Democrats. Well, it turns out in the great majority of presidential elections, <a href="http://www.salon.co
Great article, CrispE. I don't see much of a mandate coming out of this election, other than not being what the other candidate is. For an incumbent, Bush has run a campaign exceptionally focused on Kerry's flaws -- that's very unusually, and very different than what Reagan and Clinton did when they ran for re-election. If Bush wins, it'll be because he succeeded in demonizing Kerry. Meanwhile, as is true for most challengers, Kerry
TW, thank you for your thoughtful comments. The problem is that I think many people are still convinced that the torture was nothing worse than frat hazing. That's what Rush Limburgh told his listeners. What scares me is that I think a significant number of Americans refuse to admit to themselves what's going on under Bush. You're probably aware that opinion surveys show that Bush supporters are both relatively (compared to Kerry supporters
Of course, the Bush supporters are totally ignoring this story, and now grasping at supposed report that the explosives site was cleaned out before American troops first go there during the invasion... the problem?: the journalist involved says that she never reported that. I think the Bush supporters are simply in complete denial about the mistakes Bush has made. I have a lot of trouble understanding it. When Clinton made mistakes, most of
That's what it looks like. I'm now cautiously optimistic that Kerry will win. The polls appear to be moving in his direction, and I think Bush is a little desperate. Today or yesterday, Bush was making the point that he doesn't actually oppose civil unions. Nice for him to make a point of that now, after supporting an a constitutional amendment that appears to weaken or eliminate the basis for civil unions. I think the Bush campaign may ha
This is why this became a story now: International Atomic Energy Agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said Tuesday that the Iraqis have not told the IAEA about any other missing materials since their Oct. 10 letter stating that the weapons vanished from Al-Qaqaa as a result of "theft and looting ... due to lack of security" sometime after coalition forces took control of the capital. So much for conspiracy theories regarding the ti
For anyone who's interested, the claim of the lead post is really shaky. The reason this is news now is that people didn't connect the dots until the last few weeks regarding just how many tons of explosives had gone missing. Apparently, the Bush government has known for months, but didn't bother telling anyone. Of course, that's not clear, because the Pentagon has been inconsistent in its responses to reporters' questions, and George Bush
It really says something when Republicans are so concerned about George Bush that they're willing to support John Kerry, a candidate with whom they have large policy differences. Non-Democrats are Endorsing Kerry If you've been following the newspaper endorsement race, you know that Kerry's built up a substantial lead in terms of both number o
This is the big Iraq news of the day, high up at sites that rank stories by reader interest, although not higher than the Ashlee Simpson lip-syncing scandal -- "Lip-sunk" as the AM-NY daily put it. Anyway, Bush's policies are less of a problem than his incompetence... This is from the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middl
The government's contract with Halliburton stinks, and new information keeps coming up to cast suspicion both on the contract itself, and how it was issued without the normal competitive bid. Some people keep defending Halliburton and the contract, even as the Pentagon is investigating the company for huge overcharges. The linked article is about a contrac
Hey TW, Thank you for your comments. I blame the leadership, not the military. Chief among the people responsible is Donald Rumseld, which is too bad because I have a soft spot for him -- I think he may be the smartest person in the Bush administration. Unfortunately, I think he's directly responsible for the development of an environment where this torture could take place. I also think Bush is responsible, since it's increasingly clear t
Hi Messy Buu, I appreciate your sense of humor, but I guess you don't have a real answer for my question. To me, it looks like some of these anti-choice activists are being inconsistent.
Great piece, stevendedalus.
Frankly, a significant part of Bush's base is dedicated to the view that inspired revelation is more true than factual observation. This is most obviously true when it comes to the existence of fossils, evolution of species, etc. There simply isn't an equivalent group that's part of Kerry's base. There is no significant part of Kerry's coalition that sees the scientifc method, or the observations that come from that method, as a fundamental challeng
What's really disturbing is that prosecutors are trying to keep current prisoners from having access to DNA tests, to determine whether these prisoners are actually guilty of the crimes for which they were incarcerated. How slimy is that? The problem is that most states promote prosecutors based on successful they are on getting guilty convinctions, with no disincentive for getting incorrect convinctions.
Good post stevendedalus. I really have trouble understand how Bush so screwed up the occupation of Iraq. The only thing I can come up with is that Bush is so stubbornly opposed to doing what his critics suggest, that he peevishly insists on sticking with his policies even when it's obvious they aren't working. In Iraq, he was simply unwilling to send the necessary number of troops, precisely because his critics suggested that he was sending
Hi dabe, Thanks for posting the list. Two things impress me: (1) Most -- although not all -- of the points are factual, and really can't be debated anymore than you can debate the existence of the Moon. (2) In spite of (1), Some bush supporters will still insist that these points aren't true or don't matter.
Don't many Christians take advantage of fertility treatments that create unused embryos? Do I have my facts wrong? Shouldn't churches be making an uproar over this?
"How so? The flu *may kill* a couple of thousand people (which ain't cool). A nuke will *kill* a couple of hundred thousand (REALLY not cool.). " Since the first terrorist attack on American territory, in 1993, nearly 3000 people Americans have died from terrorism. That's an awful loss. I live a mile or two from the World Trade Center site, and lived in Washington when we had to flee downtown DC because of the 9/11 attack. According