The articles were written in 2000 and I read them the old fashion way…in the paper. You could check the WAPO archives to see if they go back that far.

Mike N:

It superficially supports your point about the mythical middle. However, keep this in mind. Despite what the DNC said they would rather have run against McCain then Bush. I suggest that Gore wanted to move unaffiliated to vote for McCain in the primaries because McCain voters in a Republican primary were likely Bradley voters in a Democratic primary. Bradley was a lefty so by your logic the middle is leftwing.

In a general election campaign McCain would have had to run against two smarter candidates. He would have come off as a dim bulb in comparison (he already did in his debates with W) to either Bush or Gore. The likely result would have been a Gore victory just as Perot helped put Clinton in office in 1992.

“slobber” all over McCain or Kerry……

lol….

One who starts out with an arrogant condescension air and presents himself as he who is ‘in command’ of all facts without pointing out what he in fact disagrees with on fact…. is pretty likely just simply an ass……

So find someone else who might want to bite..

Mike

Simply put, being wrong isn’t the issue, being stupid about being wrong is the issue.

How’s that for being absolutist?

Well, I see your impressive command of facts extends to my political positions. The last time a checked with the Republican Party, being pro-gay marriage and pro-gun control was not considered in good absolutist form.

In any event, all you really did was sidestep the comment I made. If you want to try to bluff your way through your posts, feel free…it will avail you nothing. Too many people around here take the time and trouble to stay informed.

And if absolutism means actually have the facts down, try it sometime.

Why is it that every time someone loses to a Republican they are a victim of “dirty tricks”?

Let’s add this up… 2 Republicans were running. Thus, the chances of losing to someone Republican were about 100%? Thus, your theory actually holds up…

…….Politics ain’t beanbag!

No its certainly not. Except I don’t think calling people and telling them that his wife is a drug addict in order to scare them from voting for McCain is about politics just about being a scumbag.

Jerry

All the pointed out facts you made about South Carolina are true, which is why I said McCain may have still lost the state anyway. However, that doesn’t mean there were not dirty tactics used by Bush ’supporters’. Are you saying there weren’t groups calling South Carolina voters and telling people McCain’s wife was a ‘drug addict’?

Second, your point about cross over voting proves my point about the middle of the country, the largest segment, preferring a McCain or Rudy, but the political machines in both parties being run by the outer parts.

Also, noone said anything about W’s intelligence… that’s your own projection coming to the fore.

Lapsed Randian

Lol…. but he put up a picture of McCain and Don Rickels – not his brother. Plus, who the hell would know about Rickel’s brother (or think they do) other than Lileks? lol…

Lindenen

Do you actually care enough to read an article about someone trying to theorize on 2 “people’s intelligence”? Who the F really cares? Bush isn’t a good speaker nor quick on his feet, that’s just the way it is.

Dennis the Peasant

For the second time in a week you have displayed an impressive lack of command of fact, and an equally impressive lack of understanding of presidental campaign politics. I’m sure you’re a nice guy and all, but wow, you need to start doing some homework. Or are you looking for work with the Kerry campaign?

Dennis, and I’m sure you’re a hellavu sweet/nice guy yourself….

despite the fact you and try and hide your absolutist politics under the guise of one not understanding the ‘actual facts’ ie…. someone actually liking McCain or simply questioning whether or not the Kerry’s 71 testimony will truly hurt his image or not.

Simply thinking outside the box and not towing the hard party line is simply below the pale.

Well, here’s a political tip for free for ya.

This election is more about people in the middle, like me not people who are absolutists like you. So politically speaking the analysts couldn’t give a shit about how something strikes you, per say, your vote is a given. lol…

And Thibaud better toe the line as well or else you may begin to think he’s a shill for the Kerry campaign? )

That sounds pretty ‘thought’ provoking?

Give it a rest. Most countries would have shot those men at Gitmo and that would have been the last you heard of them. Here we discuss their rights and their fate and the whole damn world is watching.

And as for Abu G the Brits had a case of their own like this, it happens. If the army had been in charge of it you would never have known about it, there would have been no pictures and those people would have just been gone. Now the people responsible will be punished, but this administration can not be held responsible for sadism on the night shift in one part of one prison. Grow up.

Thanks for getting my back. After Knucklehead blew out of town I was starting to feel like the Lone Ranger out here.

For the second time in a week you have displayed an impressive lack of command of fact, and an equally impressive lack of understanding of presidental campaign politics. I’m sure you’re a nice guy and all, but wow, you need to start doing some homework. Or are you looking for work with the Kerry campaign?

Thibaud-

You are usually good. Why all this blather, then? Are you looking for a job with Kerry, too?

Hey, jerry, do you have some links? I’d like to read these articles.