56 Comments

1. Dan S:

I agree. Dukakis I had respect for, even if I disagreed strongly with a lot of his positions. My respect for Kerry is eroding in direct proportion to the amount that I learn about him. Reading Tour of Duty is accellerating the process.

It’s odd. Clearly the book’s intent is to boost him, but it raises as more questions than it provides answers.

And it’s a slog.

Sep 6, 2004 - 7:38 am 2. BigFire:

Michael Dukakis always have a special place for me. He was the first presidential candidate (actually, the only) I’ve ever met. Back in 1988, he attended a rally in my highschool in the heavily Democratic (more so now) district in the west San Fernado Valley. Didn’t remember a single thing he said. We were let off the class to attend a rally.

Sep 6, 2004 - 7:49 am 3. Richard Nieporent:

So Kerry is turning to Clinton to reinvigorate his candidacy. Oh, this is rich. If we are to believe any of the reports that Hillary wants to run for President in 2008, and if Kerry wins in 2004 she can’t run, do you really believe that Clinton is the person to help salvage Kerrys failing campaign? While he is at it, why doesnt Kerry invite the fox in to guard his chicken coop?

Sep 6, 2004 - 7:56 am 4. David Thomson:

Is John Kerry another Michael Dukakis? He shares the latterís liberal instincts, and perhaps a unfairly, both men come across as bit silly. Itís easy to make fun of them. Many Americans perceive these gentlemen to be living in their own liberal make believe world. Red staters instinctively reject them. I am confident that Kerry will lose the election if he is tagged as another Dukakis. One cannot run a successful presidential campaign if Jay Leno is ridiculing you.

We should, however, not become overly confident of a Bush victory. John Kerry still has the liberal media on his side. They are going to do everything to portray the Massachusetts senator as a serious man with moderate, if not even conservative credentials. The emphasis will be placed squarely on the economy. Foreign policy and terrorism will be pushed into the background. To be blunt (Iím taking the chance of being described as a male chauvinist pig): Kerry is going after the soccer mom vote.

Sep 6, 2004 - 8:01 am 5. Michael Ubaldi:

Watch Michael Dukakis’ response to H.W. Bush’s tank ad and you’ll see a thoughtful, articulate man who just wasn’t cut out for the presidency. Though the parallels between feckless campaigns may be compelling, there’s little in Dukakis’ nice-guy-soft-leftism that corresponds to John Kerry’s smug, aristocratic indifference to transparency, debate &#8212 and most other things democratic.

Sep 6, 2004 - 8:04 am 6. Doug:

Roger,

I certainly agree that Kerry is no Dukakis. Kerry seems to believe he is entitled to the presidency. That he and his surrogates may say whatever they want about the president and that the president and his allies may not respond in kind. You know why Kerry did not instinctiveyl separate himself from Whoopie and the profane idiots at that radio city rally? Because he agrees with them instinctiveyl and he lacks the political instincts to understand the rest of the country does not agree. How did he think he would get away with this Vietnam crap? But it wasn’t just him. The whole Dem. party said for months and months that Kerry’s Vietnam service cancelled out Bush’s national security advantage. If this is what passes for political wisdom these days they need to retire the whole lot of them.

That said, Dukakis was not the saint you make him out to be. Part of the reason Bush’s smears (and they were smears) were so effective is that Dukakis also tried to play it both ways. Even in 1988, it was known that urban liberalism of the type represented by Dukakis (and Kerry)could not sell. Dukakis pretended he was a fiscally conservative budget balancer. He ignored his life long history of embracing liberal social issues. He should have made the case for them or renounced them but by ignoring them he left the field open to Bush. Only days before the election did he finally admit he was a liberal. He could have made an eloquent case for many of the issues he held dear. He might still have lost but that would have been honest. When will these politicians learn that you can’t create your own image if it’s not real.

Sep 6, 2004 - 8:12 am 7. richard mcenroe:

I knew Michael Dukakis. And you, sir, are no Michael Dukakis!

That was cruel. Do it again.

Dan S ó It was the excerpts from Tour of Duty in Atlantic Monthly that convinced me Kerry was a fraud…

Sep 6, 2004 - 8:28 am 8. Bleeding heart conservative:

If you were at Yale the same time as Kerry, did you know Michael Medved as well?

Sep 6, 2004 - 8:36 am 9. Ben:

Good post, Roger. I did not vote for Dukakis because I disagreed with his stands on many issues. Nevertheless, at least he took stands. I respect a candidate who takes stands, even if I disagree with them. I have contempt for candidates who have no stand other than a desire to get elected. Kerry fits into that category. Dukakis was a serious man, Kerry is not. In the last three elections, we had the luxury of being able to look beyond serious when voting. This time we do not. Kerry must be defeated.

Sep 6, 2004 - 8:42 am 10. Sandy P:

–Kerry is going after the soccer mom vote.–

Soccer moms who just saw schoolchildren slaughtered.

They had put the explosives under the floors of the gym and had the men take off the floor to get the stuff out.

Hopefully our schools are a little more protected than that.

Sep 6, 2004 - 9:31 am 11. David Thomson:

ì–Kerry is going after the soccer mom vote.–

Soccer moms who just saw schoolchildren slaughtered.î

Oh wow, Iím getting myself into the deep doo doo. Iím sorry but I must be blunt: John Kerryís whole campaign will be from here on end be focussed on winning the soccer mom vote. The Polls previous to the Republican convention showed that President Bush led the male vote by about 9%—and Senator Kerry had the loyalty of the womanís vote by an almost equal amount. Many soccer moms place a higher priority on economic issues. They believe the Democrats have the best answers. I strongly disagree, but this is the harsh reality. On top of that, these women are inclined to believe that appeasement policies will keep the world safer. A supposed cowboy like George W. Bush is likely to make matters worse.

Sep 6, 2004 - 9:47 am 12. Occam's Beard:

Many soccer moms place a higher priority on economic issues.

David,

My wife, who at best tolerates my episodes of Democrat-induced Tourette’s Syndrome (as someone termed it), burst into tears on watching CNN’s coverage of Beslan.

Economic policy for her has become what I call a “bike path” issue (pace Dean): a minor matter that can keep (that it didn’t for Dean was a reflection of his emotional equilibrium, IMO).

My list of bike path issues includes stem cell research, homosexual marriage, outsourcing, the budget deficit, the lot – everything except the war on terror.

Sep 6, 2004 - 10:17 am 13. penwil:

Tomorrow, every soccer mom in America’s heart will be in her throat when she drops her kids off at school or the bus stop, as she wonders, Will it happen again here, today, to my babies? The Beslan massacre has shown a big, brutal spot light on two things: this is a global war, not a Bush war; and these animals will stop at nothing.

So as a mother you are faced with a choice: a “cowboy” whose final words at his convention was that he would not falter in the fight to defeat these monsters. Or a wind surfing dude in a flowered bathing suit whose strongest statement on the subject to date was that he’d think about getting tough after the next massacre.

If Kerry had had half a brain he’d have come out after the Beslan massacre and given a really tough anti-terrorism speech. Instead, his only mention of it was to whine that it and the Florida hurricane was preventing him from getting his message out about the utter horror, horror of a 17 percent increase in Medicare.

Sep 6, 2004 - 10:54 am 14. David Thomson:

ìTomorrow, every soccer mom in America’s heart will be in her throat when she drops her kids off at school or the bus stop, as she wonders, Will it happen again here, today, to my babies?î

Are you sure of that? Iím sorry but I remain unconvinced. Many of these same soccer moms will instead blame George W. Bush, Ariel Sharon, and Vladimir Putin for getting the Muslim nihilists so angry at us. If only, they will argue, the Israelis were not so mean to the Palestinians. The whole foreign policy of John Kerryís campaign is subtly premised upon this ridiculous viewpoint.

Sep 6, 2004 - 11:17 am 15. bkw:

Tomorrow, every soccer mom in America’s heart will be in her throat when she drops her kids off at school or the bus stop, as she wonders, Will it happen again here, today, to my babies?

I’m afraid I’ll have to agree with David on this one. A goodly portion of the moms will continue that thought with ” … if it does, it’s that damn Bushie’s fault! They wouldn’t hate us so much if he hadn’t rushed off to war!”

I, personally, take a great deal of comfort reading the commentary on various centrist blogs (the majority of the ones I read regularly, I’ve noticed, are hosted by liberals who support Bush with varying levels of fervour). The thoughtfulness and insight of people who have taken the time to actually educate themselves on the issues and understand the who, what, why of all these issues makes me despair just a little bit less.

Despair? Yes. Because I think people who can think critically are in the minority. There’s a reason Reality TV is so popular. And there’s also a reason a central tenent of a certain political party is to get as many people to vote (legally or not) as possible — especially the ignorant, unmotivated, and intellectually lazy.

For many soccer moms, I think it will be easier for them to Blame Bush(tm). How much easier is it to blame the President? The soccer moms (in theory) can be personally self-empowered and can directly effect events by voting him out of office. What can they do by blaming the actual terrorists, about whom they can do nothing?

I think a good many people would rather Blame Bush(tm) — because it’s easier to think the President is Evil(tm), than to believe that there are actually people out there that want to kill us all.

I think a good part of the modern decay can be pinned on the pervasiveness of the “question authority” schtick. I mean, after all, my opinion on foreign affairs is just as right as the President’s, so if I disagree with him, he’s obviously an idiot, stupid, and eeeeeeeevil to boot!

But that’s another rant…

Sep 6, 2004 - 11:54 am 16. Juliette Ochieng:

“On top of that, these women are inclined to believe that appeasement policies will keep the world safer.”

I can vouch for that, and not only many of the soccer mom types, but many other women. I think that this is because many women aren’t students of history–not even cursory students.

I just had a conversation with my great-aunt (in her eighties). I brought up the fact (again) that President Clinton didn’t go after the Islamists in the wake of the many attacks we suffered in the nineties. She (die-hard Democrat that she is) said that it was because WJC believed that peace would solve the problem. (I managed to keep a straight face at this assertion.) I said that obviously it didn’t work–since the Islamist kept on coming–so why should President Bush continue a policy that demonstrably doesn’t work (appeasement)?

She then brought up the soldiers, et al., that have died in Iraq. I pointed out two things 1) that in WWII (her lifetime), 1000 soldiers dying a day would have been a minmal casualty day (much less a year and a half) and, 2) modern-day military personnel are voluntary and know, for the most part, exactly what they are getting in to–especially marines. (Thankfully, the conversation concluded with no one shouting and no one angry, a rarity, to be sure. But I did have a good opening to get my points in: she had been snickering at a televised broadcast of John Kerry’s latest diatribe.)

From conversations that I have had with other women, many don’t even have a basic knowledge of our military history. Granted, being not married and childless, I have more time for such things, but I think the key factors here are interest, willingness to confront facts that might go against one’s convictions and willingness to unflinchingly face the ugliness of what totalitarian entities are capable of.

Sep 6, 2004 - 12:00 pm 17. Terrye:

I am a woman and I am voting for Bush.

Women don’t like to see pictures of dead children. As far as them blaming Bush, well I have heard a lot of Democrats who are men doing just that.

Women are concerned with social issues but we realize that Medicare is not a partisan issue. Somebody has got to pay for expanding benefits. I work in a field that caters to disabled and elderly people and as a genral rule an increase like this means an increase in cost of living and that in turn means an increase in social security benefits. I don’t know if that is the case here, but if it is I doubt you will hear it from the press.

Sep 6, 2004 - 12:03 pm 18. Jamie Irons:

Bleeding heart conservative

You asked (I realize you weren’t asking me) :

If you were at Yale the same time as Kerry, did you know Michael Medved as well?

Kerry graduated Yale (IIRC) in 1966. Michael Medved (and I) matriculated there in 1965, and graduated in 1969.

I knew Michael casually, ate a few meals in the dining hall at Branford College (my “residential college” at Yale) with him, as he was a friend of a good friend of mine…

Jamie Irons

Sep 6, 2004 - 12:20 pm 19. richard mcenroe:

And of course this makes all the difference : Kerry says will “try” to have troops home by end of his first term…

Sep 6, 2004 - 12:31 pm 20. Greg D:

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I’m in a show. I talked with some people in the show this weekend about Russia. Everyone’s comments were on the order of “those terrorists are evil.” No “and it’s all Bush’s / Putin’s / whoever’s fault.”

If the American people are really as stupid as some of you seem to think, we shouldn’t be a democracy.

I think the American people are quite capable of understanding the situation, and I think there are a LOT of moms looking at those pictures from Russia and hating the terrorists who did it.

Sep 6, 2004 - 12:42 pm 21. DennisThePeasant:

Bush is not up by 10+ points because the Republican convention focused on his economic and domestic policy agenda. All Bush needs to do is continue to remind voters that we face real danger in the world, and that John Kerry has simply punted on that issue. Just keep reminding everyone that on Thursday you gave a speech on liberty for all and on Friday John Kerry decided he couldn’t be bothered by it all.

And while John Kerry is running around bleating “jobs and health care”, let us note that his policy positions regarding the economy and job creation have been articulated with about the same amount of depth and detail as his foreign policy positions. He’s focusing on domestic issues because Bush hasn’t got around to slaughtering him as a ‘tax and spend’ liberal…yet. When he does, I imagine Kerry will respond as he has throughout the campaign…incompetently.

Kerry has two strikes against him…he’s blown defining himself (convention/SBVFT) and he’s blown foreign policy. Wanna bet what happens on pitch number three?

Sep 6, 2004 - 12:48 pm 22. DennisThePeasant:

And it really says something about John Kerry’s character when he can’t even get slack cut as a well-meaning fathead.

In September.

Sep 6, 2004 - 12:54 pm 23. penwil:

Certainly the female ABBer’s mind was probably not changed by the Beslan massacre. But not every Democrat is an ABBer. (In fact, I seem to remember reading that the ABB crowd is about 35% of the Democratic Party). The emotion that drove Zell Miller to stand up at the Republican convention and endorse Bush was primarily fear for the safety of his family–he said as much. For him, love for his family had trumped whatever feelings of loyalty he held for his party, Why wouldn’t a soccer mom be capable of the same emotion?

It’s just a gut feeling I have, going by the fact that I’m a woman myself, but I think that lot of women with children are just going to want terrorism dealt with now, with whatever it takes, and they’ll go for the guy who seems the best able to deliver on that score. Protect their children now, and worry about the social stuff later.

Sep 6, 2004 - 12:57 pm 24. JohnPV:

I agree with the previous commenters that Beslan won’t be a motivating factor in support for Bushís war on terrorism. Just check out how the NYT is spinning it for confirmation. My local lib rag, the Chicago Trib, had a headline that the Russian Special Forces “raided” the school. The “reason was unclear”. The most infuriating thing to me is their label for the terrorists as “militants”. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck then it is a duck except when the MSM is involved. Just what the f**k are militants? Deliberate targeting of civilian populations in order to spread terror among the population and thereby putting pressure on the said population’s government is a cornerstone of terrorism the last time I checked. Later in the story they referred to the ìmilitantsî as “rebels” and no attempt was made to square that label with the reports that 10 of the dead terrorists were Arabs.

The MSM will position this as a failure of Putin to negotiate with Chechnya and an itchy trigger finger in causing the casualties on the scene. Their message is: move along this is no threat to you, but it is an object lesson in pointing out the failure of Bush like tactics. To do anything else would be to undermine their position against the Bush handling of war against terrorism.

.

Sep 6, 2004 - 1:02 pm 25. tdrew:

First, thanks for a great blog, Roger. I look forward to it every day.

I have to comment about the supposed hypocrisy in Mr. Kerry’s being anti-war during Vietnam, while volunteering to fight in it. I’m no fan of Mr. Kerry’s, but I don’t see this as a cogent criticism. The anti-war movement of the sixties was weakened by suspicions of cowardice. To this day, I’m not sure that wasn’t part of my own motives. In 1963-65 I had a roommate, more mature than I was, as vehemently against the war as anyone, who saw this and volunteered, saying at the time he hoped to gain credibility for his position by doing so. It makes sense to me. As it happened, my friend was killed in Vietnam. He became the subject of a fine article by James Matlack, in Christian Science Monitor, June 21, 2000 (unfortunately no longer available on the net).

I think there are plenty of reasons to prefer Mr. Bush’s leadership, most importantly that Mr. Bush is living in and coping with the present, and seems to me to possess some fitting modesty. But Mr. Kerry’s having been a soldier, even if a less than glorious one, is not a mark against him in my book.

On the other hand, the charade of throwing away medals (an act which I remember admiring at the time) then preening himself on them later (which would be repulsive even if they are well earned) seems a far greater blot on the man.

Best regards

Sep 6, 2004 - 1:10 pm 26. packsoldier:

Sorry to quibble, but I don’t remember Dukakis “stammering” or “wrestling” with his answer to Shaw’s question in that debate. Dukakis gave a very emotionless, pat answer.

Sep 6, 2004 - 1:14 pm 27. chuck:

DennisThePeasant:

He’s focusing on domestic issues because Bush hasn’t got around to slaughtering him as a ‘tax and spend’ liberal…yet.

My own impression has been that Kerry is going through the motions of duplicating the Clinton campaign. The main difference I see is that Clinton actually believed in some of his positions, with Kerry it just looks like boilerplate. That, and the fact that it is not 1992 — nor 1971 for that matter.

Kerry is the Oakland of politics: ain’t no there there. His misfortune, our luck.

Sep 6, 2004 - 1:41 pm 28. geezer:

Funny you should bring this up, Roger. I’ve voted Repub every year since ‘76, but had a brief fling with liberalism in 88-89. A combination of latent RR fatigue, a visceral reaction against Dan Quayle, and finding myself surrounded by a number of bigoted assholes while working on the B-2 at Edwards AFB brought me to vote for Jackson in the NJ primary and Dukakis in Nov.

I’m well over all that now, but I certainly don’t harbor the same ill will towards Dukakis as I do with Clinton, Gore, et al.

Tim Blair’s blog had a cool thread some months back, wherein folks were invited to come clean about past liberal tendencies. It was good to see I wasn’t alone. It’s also good to remember it took RR 51 years to become a Republican.

Sep 6, 2004 - 1:45 pm 29. Yehudit:

“Many soccer moms place a higher priority on economic issues. They believe the Democrats have the best answers. I strongly disagree, but this is the harsh reality.”

In addition to all the comments on this above, let me add that every couple I know (older couples who have raised children), the wife is the hawk and the husband is the dove or apolitical. Michelle Malkin calls the younger ones “security moms.” I think Kerry is misreading the women’s vote.

Sep 6, 2004 - 2:06 pm 30. Terrye:

Yehudit:

I agree.

Sep 6, 2004 - 2:22 pm 31. Jamie Irons:

Yehudit

I’ll say it again: I really like and admire your blog.

Jamie Irons

Sep 6, 2004 - 2:44 pm 32. richard mcenroe:

Packsoldier, Roger ó at that, Dukakis came off better than Mario Cuomo when Cuomo was asked a similar question. Cuomo had a really annoying tendency to couch his positions in his own innate moral superiority. When addressing a gathering of senior citizens who wanted stronger penalties for crimes against the elderly, he just had to explain that he opposed them even though he had suffered from violent crime himself:

“My wife has been mugged,” he claimed. “My daughter has been mugged. I’ve been muggedó ”

And some old codger from the crowd yelled out, “Well, mug him again!”

Sep 6, 2004 - 4:14 pm 33. bkw:

If the American people are really as stupid as some of you seem to think, we shouldn’t be a democracy.

*raises hand*

I’m admittedly harsh and negative in my assessment of the general populace.

But I also don’t think pure democracy works. I still have doubts about representative democracy too.

I mean, as soon as people can vote themselves bread and circuses …

Sep 6, 2004 - 4:46 pm 34. Terrye:

I just watched Fox news and they had some Kerry fans screaming at him to fight back. Not only was Dukakis smarter than Kerry his supporters were too. Or so it seemed at the time.

There was one idiot that said when Kerry was dodging bullets in Viet Nam Bush and Cheney were dodging the draft. How can any Demcorat say something that flat out ridiculous?

This is just my opinion but I think that the Kerry people let the crazier elements of the party run things for too long and now they are stuck. They can not honestly debate the propaganda of F911 nor can they just sit back and get pounded.

They could have fought fair and debated the issues but instead they went the Bush is a moron war mongering chimp route.

Now it is too late for intelligent debate on the issues. People say Bush is divisive, but the truth is the liberal reactionaires Roger has been talking about are the devisive ones. As far as they are concerned there are two ways to do a thing, their way and the wrong way.

Sep 6, 2004 - 4:48 pm 35. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ó They just had Kerry on the ABC news here in LA, braying that if Bush is re-elected and gets more tax cuts, “unemployment will continue to rise.”

“Continue?” “Rise?”

Sep 6, 2004 - 5:19 pm 36. Catherine:

David T

The Polls previous to the Republican convention showed that President Bush led the male vote by about 9

Actually, going into the convention (or shortly into it) polls were showing women and young people shifting back to Bush.

Wish to heck I could remember which ones (I could probably find them—)

Agree with you, though, that Bush had been leading with women up til then.

I also agree that any woman so inclined will blame Bush & Sharon.

One of my most liberal female friends told me in the midst of the Breslan siege that “It all comes out of Israel. Israel is the center of everything.”

She is Jewish herself, and her husband is a supporter of Israel. To her, Islamic terror is being provoked by Sharon and Bush.

Sep 6, 2004 - 5:36 pm 37. Catherine:

DtP

And it really says something about John Kerry’s character when he can’t even get slack cut as a well-meaning fathead

Has anyone ever mentioned you have a way with words?

Sep 6, 2004 - 5:39 pm 38. Catherine:

Believe it or not, I have a VIVID memory of Dukakis’s rape-and-murder answer, and it did not involved stammering.

It involved answering way too quickly.

He jumped in fast with something like, “I’ve always been against capital punishment.”

I can see where Roger would remember it as stammering, because it wasn’t “fluent” the way answers in debates usually are; it was way too quick off the mark, which made him sound thrown off his pace (which he probably was.)

Sep 6, 2004 - 5:44 pm 39. Terrye:

richard:

They are doing that whole net jobs thing which makes no real sense at all. More people get up and go to work every day then ever did before. Now we can complain about the jobs we have, but in my case that had nothing to do with George Bush. [My own stupidity.]

It is like the medicare thing. Well medicare costs are going up because Congress not only did not cut pay to doctors it increased it by 1.5%. It also increased benefits for diabetes screening and vision care and other preventive measures and the actual co pay will decrease for some people. And of corse there is an over all increase in health care costs.

Now note, this is something Congress did. I don’t remember Kerry and his fellow Dems stopping this or making a huge deal out of it or anything. The public pays 75% of the cost of Medicare and this increase will represent about $12 a month. A cost of living increase will help offset that cost.

But today on the stump Kerry was ranting and raving about the injustice of it all. So why didn’t he and his buddies stop it? What is their alternative for paying for it?

No, he is falling back on the Democratic stand by of scaring the old people. Right up there with sucking up to the Unions.

Sep 6, 2004 - 5:44 pm 40. insatty:

Following the Republican convention, Kerry returned to his Michael Moore roots and said that Bush “mislead” us into war. Chris Matthews today interviewed his fellow Carter aid, Hendrik Hertzberg, and they echoed the Iraq-war-makes-them-hate-us meme. Mayber men are bigger liberal weenies than soccer moms.

Sep 6, 2004 - 5:45 pm 41. Terrye:

Catherine:

I have heard people say the same thing aobut terrorism and Israel, but if you actully look at the history of Islamic fanaticism and all its variations it is obvious that the real problem lies within the religon and the culture.

I know how unPC that sounds but one of the reasons the Muslims lost Spain was infighting among its more radical elements.

If you read about the Black Death in Europe and the fears that the Chrstians had in regards to the Jews the same kind of unreasoning hatred and fear was obvious. This tendency to blame first the Jews and then Israel for things they obviously have no control over is a mystery to me. Especially when it comes from intelligent people.

Sep 6, 2004 - 5:53 pm 42. Ben:

I, too, watched the debate in which Dukakis immolated his campaign by his answer to the death penalty question. I remember being most struck by how emotionless it was. He could have hit a home run by saying something like this: “If someone raped my wife and daughter I would want to catch him and personally rip his heart out with my bare hands. And that’s exactly why I’m against the death penalty – because we shouldn’t let decisions about life and death be decided by emotion.” Then, he should finish his answer with a positive statement about what policies/ideas he would like to implement.

Sep 6, 2004 - 6:25 pm 43. Rick Z:

For what it’s worth, I had a long conversation with my ex-wife this morning, discussing the presidential election for the first time in several months. She lives and works in Berkeley, is a veteran of the Free Speech movement, a fan of Chomsky, and a life-long dedicated (if not fervently ideological) Democrat.

The long and the short of it is that in the last 48 hours, she’s switched over the Bush. Her primary reason was Cheney’s speech, but also mentioned the Russian situation. Up to that point, she’d bought into the whole Halliburton thing, and was fully expecting a Satanic performance. Instead, she was won over by his reasoned explanation for the WoT strategy and his adult demeanor. As I said, she’s not particularly analytical in her politics, relying mostly on gut; but it’s a gut I’ve learned to respect over the years.

She did ask that I not tell her family or friends about her change of heart, and I will respect her request. As always…

Sep 6, 2004 - 7:40 pm 44. richard mcenroe:

More Good News for Kerry from Captain Ed

Sep 6, 2004 - 7:44 pm 45. richard mcenroe:

From PoliPundit via Instapundit ( I can’t get a direct link, sorry):

Reader Russ Vaughn, a Vietnam vet, sent me his poem, titled “Veterans’ Day”:

PoliPundit

You gotta read this.

Sep 6, 2004 - 8:57 pm 46. DerekCA:

Roger,

I agree with your take on Mr. Dukakis.

This is my first comment to your blog and I wanted to address some of the other commentators who appear to dispair of our world being run by the witless, clueless, uneducated idiots who eat the MSM spoon-fed slant-o-vision.

We are not a democracy, and, never have been one.

We are a Republic designed to thwart the will of the mob. In the old days the smart people were afraid of a quaint notion called the “passions” of the people.

It’s why we have W when more people voted for gorbot.

It’s why senatorial races are really important, read Daschle vs. Thune.

It’s why we have a growing economy when the EU is stuck with welfare economies where the people simply vote themselves more money.

The brilliance of our system is stunning IMHO.

Derek

Sep 6, 2004 - 10:42 pm 47. DennisThePeasant:

Catherine-

My ability as a lyric diplomatist is the stuff of legend.

Sep 7, 2004 - 5:01 am 48. Mike Silverman:

If things continues roughly the way they are, I can conceive of no possible scenario in which Kerry wins the election. Kerry’s only hope is that some type of external event happens to change the dynamics of the election, such as a drastic change in foreign affairs, or a gaffe of historic proportions by the Bush campaign.

The fundamental issue comes down to this — there is nothing more that Kerry can do to Bush; no way Bush can be attacked that has not already been done. Thus, where Bush is now is where he is staying — right at 50% or so, maybe a point or two more. Yet Kerry is still ripe for fresh attacks and there is a lot of yet-unused material for the Bush campaign to use to drive up Kerry’s negatives. This will counteract the natural tendency for undecideds to go for the challenger and basically keep the race’s numbers locked where they are.

Sep 7, 2004 - 8:10 am 49. Silicon valley Jim:

Michael Dukakis is the son of immigrants, and a self-made man. John Kerry was born to money (his middle name, Forbes, is his mother’s maiden name – she was (is?) a member of the Forbes family that made a fortune importing tea from China in the nineteenth century – no relation to the folks in the magazine business) and married more money – twice. That’s not always a determinative difference, but I think that it is here. John Kerry has never had to stand for anything, never had to think about who he is, never had to work (nor has he worked all that hard, if his attendance record as a Senator is any evidence)). It shows.

Sep 7, 2004 - 8:26 am 50. flenser:

Mike Silverman

“there is nothing more that Kerry can do to Bush; no way Bush can be attacked that has not already been done.”

Ah, but you’re wrong! Even as we speak the Dem’s are sewer diving for anything they can find. A gossip columnist is their next Great White Hope. I never thought I’d see the day when Lyndon LaRouche came across as saner and more mainstream than the Democratic party

How soon before the stories about Cheney’s enormous member hit the AP wire? (Maybe I’ll suggest it to them. The poor guys are having a hard time lately)

Sep 7, 2004 - 8:31 am 51. Charlie (Colorado):

My ability as a lyric diplomatist is the stuff of legend.

But then so are Frost Giants and Grendel.

Sep 7, 2004 - 10:12 am 52. Charlie (Colorado):

How soon before the stories about Cheney’s enormous member hit the AP wire? (Maybe I’ll suggest it to them. The poor guys are having a hard time lately)

Hah, flenser, you’re behind — those are the Kerry stories already. Check out Wonkette.

On the other hand, the “party hearty Bush” stories seem to have sold Ana Marie on him. If they’d have only mentioned that Bush likes anal sex (with women) she’s be signing on to Blogs for Bush.

Sep 7, 2004 - 10:15 am 53. bkw:

We are a Republic designed to thwart the will of the mob.

Even republics can be subverted.

Example. Lots of Democrats in California. California starts becoming a lousy place to live, or just becomes downright unaffordable. People leave California. They move to, say, Maricopa County in Arizona. Arizona used to be staunchly Republican.

The governor elected last year … is a Democrat.

The concept of a Republic and the Electora college does well when there are pockets of influence — the EC does prevent Los Angeles, New York and Chicago from dictating the entire direction of the rest of the USA.

The problem is when people start leaving those areas, infiltrate the rest of the nation, like mold through blue cheese

I kid, I kid.

But seriously. I think they should institute standardized tests at the polling place. The percentage you score on the test is the percentage your vote counts. (Yes, I can hear the “racism!” screams already). But I’m talking very basic knowledge skills.

- how many states are in the United States of America?

A. 13

C. 50

D. 52, including Iraq and Puerto Rico

- what are the three branches of government?

A. Newspapers, Television, Radio

B. Executive, Legistative, Judicial

C. Executive, Military, Media

- what are the names of your senators?

A. Ernest goes to the Senate

B. Lawrence Welk, Marsha Clark

C.

- how many senators are there in the senate?

A. 50

B. 462

C. Too Many

- what does “bicameral” mean?

A. Half chocolate, have caramel

B. Two Houses

C. Two Camels

- what is the law of supply and demand?

A. If you supply it, someone will demand it.

B. If you demand it, someone will supply it.

C. They never have what you need at the store.

- how many eggs do you have, if you have five dozen eggs?

A. a chicken

B. 60

C. I like scrambled eggs.

- if all blorps are blue, and all gorps are blorps, then what color is this gorp?

A. puce!

B. WTF is a gorp?

C. blue

…. but anyway.

Sep 7, 2004 - 10:21 am 54. bkw:

Oops. Forgot the right answer to the numSenators q. Egh.

Sep 7, 2004 - 10:22 am 55. Occam's Beard:

I think they should institute standardized tests at the polling place.

We kind of had that already, with the butterfly ballot.

If someone can’t trace from a candidate’s name to punch the corresponding hole, well…it’s appropriate that that person’s vote should count toward the contrary political position.

Sep 7, 2004 - 11:02 am 56. Terrye:

bkw:

I have not laughed that hard sense I saw Kerry shaking his fanny while wind surfing. really.

Sep 7, 2004 - 12:47 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: