33 Comments

1. flenser:

The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation — even if none exists,

I have to admit that I’m not shocked by this, and I believe that few people will be. That in itself is rather shocking when you think about it; in a very short period, maybe ten years, everyone has become so cynical about our political process that vote fraud (by the Democrats) is just not considered a very big deal.

I’m not sure what you mean by staying independant Roger. As I understand it, you are voting for the Republican candidate.

“Evil” vs “stupid” is crude, but disturbingly accurate. The Republicans seem to be forever surprised that the Democrats won’t play by the rules. You have to be rather dim not to learn from experience.

Oct 14, 2004 - 8:48 am 2. jhuck:

His mother said three words to him before her death. She said the word “Integrity” three times. What are the other two words?

Oct 14, 2004 - 8:54 am 3. jerry:

What makes anybody think that the Democrats are for “gay rights?” Gay rights, which really means Homosexual exceptionalism, are used by the Democrats and other elements of the left to intimidate their opposition and suppress civil liberties. Kedwards thinks that Bush voters will sit home because the veep’s daughter is a lesbian. That says more about the Dems then it does about evangelicals. As soon as the Democrats decide that homosexuality is no longer useful they will become as anti-gay as they suppose their opponents are. Remember, just because someone raises religious objections to the practice, nature and public affirmation of homosexuality doesn’t mean that they hate someone because they are gay.

Oct 14, 2004 - 9:06 am 4. Lola:

How stupid do these Kerry operatives think we are? The fact that this doc was leaked indicates that some people in the campaign think this is pretty much over the top. Okay, maybe it was a mole. But still, it’s going to be all over and the effect this plan would have caused will be diluted so much as to make it worthless.

Oct 14, 2004 - 9:19 am 5. rastajenk:

jhuck, my guess is: “Don’t run”

Oct 14, 2004 - 9:23 am 6. Jamie Irons:

Where does one turn if he is both evil and stupid?

(Having started life as a Presbyterian, I know I am fallen (evil); turning Jewish in later life cannot, unfortunately, erase that imprinting. And I have never been very impressed by my own intelligence!)

Even if I have no party, I’m voting for Bush.

Jamie Irons

Oct 14, 2004 - 9:48 am 7. Cap'n Billy:

I hope those who know more about these things than I, such as Samuel and others, are right in their prognostications, but I’m becoming pessimistic about this election. Besides what Roger mentions, I read that thousands of lawyers have already been retained to dispute close elections and massive voter registration drives, which I am sure have registered large numbers of unqualified voters. If the Democrats win under such circumstances, we will be well on out way to third world standards.

I’m experiencing deja vu right now, recalling 1964. The result of that election, when LBJ won in a landslide over Barry Goldwater, caused me to become disgusted and leave the military after 12 years service, where I was serving as a pilot, and take employment as an airline pilot for a lot more money, a lot less risk, and much better working conditions. Afterwards if I would have seen LBJ, to paraphrase Geo. S. Patton, Jr., I’d have kissed the SOB.

Oct 14, 2004 - 10:01 am 8. asher:

Jamie,

Despair not. Some people claim studying Talmud actually raises your IQ. (Or is it eating pickled herring? I can’t remember.)

Oct 14, 2004 - 10:08 am 9. asher:

Roger,

It was the Dems’ “entitlement mentality” that I noticed during my seven years with the Green Party. Instead of simply confronting Nader, or responding to his campaign, they resorted to bullying voters and then crying that Nader “stole” their votes. In other words, the Dems’ presumption is that they are ENTITLED to those votes.

The Republicans, by contrast, see the election in the classic “free market” model. They get their votes the old-fashioned way and earn them.

Oct 14, 2004 - 10:12 am 10. gb_in_ga:

jerry:

“Remember, just because someone raises religious objections to the practice, nature and public affirmation of homosexuality doesn’t mean that they hate someone because they are gay.”

My stance exactly. Being a conservative Christian reasonably well versed in the book, I am bound to oppose the practice of it, it is one of those unambiguous topics. But being classically liberal in politics (which is quite related to being “conservative”), I recognize that I have no grounds in forcing the homosexual’s hand on this. I can’t support forbiding the practice via secular law. I just recognize that they will have to answer to a higher authority on that matter, and if I fail to warn them of this then I will be answerable to that authority, too. Hate doesn’t enter into the equation.

Oct 14, 2004 - 10:16 am 11. gb_in_ga:

“Where does one turn if he is both evil and stupid?”

Where does one go if he is neither of the 2?

Oct 14, 2004 - 10:20 am 12. gb_in_ga:

Jamie Irons:

“Having started life as a Presbyterian, I know I am fallen (evil)”

Heading OT on a theological thing:

Ah, this is one big difference between the Presbetyrians and the C of C, of which I am. What you cite is one of the main tenets of Calvinism, which we reject. We hold that we are not born evil, but are instead born fallible. We make mistakes, and are capable of evil. We are weak in that we are prone to being tempted into doing evil. It turns out that everybody gives in to that eventually, but we aren’t born with that evil inherent. Evil behavior is a choice. In other words, we aren’t condemned just by being born, we are condemned for what we actually think and do. We consider that to be a vitally important point of contention.

Oct 14, 2004 - 10:30 am 13. gb_in_ga:

asher:

I’d say that the Pubs general outlook on that is that it is better to play by the rules, with honor, than to do otherwise. The Dems have become the party of “Win at ANY Cost”. They and their supporters will do ANYTHING to win.

Therein is the difference. The ‘Pubs will tend towards the mindset of it is better to lose in honor than to win in dishonor, and I don’t see that mindset in the Dems. It is the “dead lion vs live jackal” mindset. Pubs would tend to rather be a dead lion than a live jackal. Dems would rather be a live jackal than a dead lion.

Oct 14, 2004 - 10:39 am 14. penwil:

I think this kind of politics has the potential to backfire big time on the Democrats. Who in their right mind would want to revisit the nightmare that was the 2000 election in Florida, let alone in state after state across the country? The run-up to this election has been ugly and tiresome, and by now we all just want it over with. If the Democratic party starts pissing and moaning about the results and drags it into the courtrooms on November 3rd, they risk driving independents and their own moderates away in droves.

Oct 14, 2004 - 10:52 am 15. gb_in_ga:

penwil:

I’d say that happened in ‘00 as well, and was part of the reason for the Dem’s change in fortune in ‘02. I guess is that they think that the average voter will forget all about it by the time of the next election, especially if enough distracting mud is thrown in the process. They think that the populance in general are stupid sheep who can’t remember from one election cycle to the next what happened. IMHO, that underestimation will come back to hurt them, big time.

Oct 14, 2004 - 11:01 am 16. Rick Ballard:

It’s interesting that the Dems are starting the “We wuz robbed” meme so early. The private polling must be truly disastrous.

There is a truly remarkable level of tone deafness in this campaign.

Where is the appeal to women that Clinton mastered?

Where is the skill and deftness used by Gore (through the brilliant Donna Brazile) in firing up the black vote? Hauling the not very revered Rev.’s to a black church three Sundays before the election won’t cut it.

Where is the appeal to Catholic’s? Does Kerry think that saying he’s a Catholic is enough when there are diocesan letters going out that openly declare that his stands on abortion and stem cell research make it a sin to vote for him?

Where is his declaration that he would reinstitute the union rules reversed in creating Homeland Security? How is he buying off the unions to the extent necessary to overcome W’s appeal to the workingman?

Finally, where is the clear message that will actually fire up the anti-war people and moveon morons? It’s all just a wink and a nod to this point.

One might wish to answer a few of the questions posed above prior to becoming concerned about the outcome of the election. When the opposition is working on the explanation as to why they lost three weeks before the election it’s not a signal of confidence.

Oct 14, 2004 - 11:02 am 17. Teresa:

“I don’t know who will win the election….”

Here’s an interesting site:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Oct 14, 2004 - 11:12 am 18. vegetius:

Jhuck: re: last three words

“Integrity,Rosebud,Marry-up”

Oct 14, 2004 - 11:18 am 19. gb_in_ga:

Theresa:

Interesting that they rate the 3 Left Coast states as being weak Kerry. I’d have expected strong Kerry. Things are looking up!

Oct 14, 2004 - 11:36 am 20. Old Grouch:

I’ve come to the conclusion that the “unknown unknowns” are going to determine this election:How many people get missed in the polls because pollsters don’t call cell phones or unlisted numbers? How will these “unpolled” vote? (My feeling: (1) Lots, (2) Who knows. Probably a wash as far as results are concerned, but I’m not comfortable with that conclusion.)How many people who respond to the polls aren’t telling the truth? (My feeling: A small but significant percentage. IMO, many are Reagan Democrats and shocked-by-911 liberals who are closet Bush voters. These folks are under a lot of pressure to conceal their preference.)How much fraud to expect? In whose favor? (My feeling: (1) Massive, Chicago-style, just about everywhere. (2) Almost all, but not totally, Democrat. (They’ve had more chance to practice, and are better at it.))The party-operated internal pollsters must have some way to take these factors into account, but I’m not aware that the public ones do. My nightmare scenario (as far as integrity of process is concerned) is that the actual popular vote will show a massive, surprising shift to the Republicans driven almost totally by the WOT issue, with Bush clearly winning it. However, Democrat-driven cheating and obfuscation in critical states (Florida again, anyone?) will leave us with a much closer, possibly stolen Electoral College total. It’s going to be a long night.

Oct 14, 2004 - 12:15 pm 21. RandMan:

Great thoughts everyone. Stephen Green has his take on this at Vodkapundit. Great essay by Stephen. Everyone should take a look.

Oct 14, 2004 - 12:16 pm 22. Rick Ballard:

Vodkapundit post mentioned by RandMan – I second the “great essay” vote.

Oct 14, 2004 - 12:22 pm 23. Terrye:

Speaking of stupid, I got a call from a “pollster” who said, “Considering the fact that this president has lost more jobs than any president since Herbert Hoover would you still”….

That is where I hung up.

I don’t trust the polls. I definitely don’t trust the snap and flash polls. The president did well last night and Kerry seemed ill at ease. That is not partisan, it is fact. The polls did not bear that out, so who are these people?

Oct 14, 2004 - 1:16 pm 24. Fausta:

Roger, you’re on Best Of The Web!

Congratulations!

Oct 14, 2004 - 2:05 pm 25. TmjUtah:

Rick Ballard -

Thanks for the link to VP. I complimented Stephen and then ended up extending it on my own blog – much to long for a comment.

The “party” knows this is a loser fight; they intended it to be that way from the get go. That’s not important. Setting the stage for 2008 is.

Oct 14, 2004 - 3:05 pm 26. Otter:

Today’s news that some Kerry operatives plan on launching a “preemptive strike,” charging the other side with voter intimidation even when it doesn’t exist, is scarcely amazing. [Where do they think they are? Afghanistan?-ed.]

Actually, you’re doing a grave injustice here to the Afghans. The opposition candidates agreed that the ink issue was a minor glitch that didn’t invalidate the recognition of the official result. And no one seems to realize how remarkable that is! These people are voting in a real election for the first time in (almost all of their) lives and they’re showing an understanding and respect for the process that the Democrats have entirely abandoned.

I read the Afghanistan coverage and all I could think about was what a wretched example Terry McAuliffe are setting for the rest of the world.

Oct 14, 2004 - 3:37 pm 27. Old Grouch:

Terrye

That call was a “push poll”:

push poll, noun or verb: A scientific method of opinion polling in which a candidate’s campaign (or more likely, unnamed surrogates) contacts potential voters and asks questions such as “Are you aware that [insert candidate's opponent's name here] is a three-time convicted child molester with kleptomaniac tendencies?” and “Does that fact that [insert candidate's opponent's name here] beat his wife regularly make you (a) more likely to vote for him (b) less likely to vote for him (c) throw up?”–somewhat tongue-in-cheek definition from evote.com

The idea is to change your mind under the guise of getting your opinion. You were right to blow it off.

Oct 14, 2004 - 6:37 pm 28. richard mcenroe:

Jhuck ó The third word was “integrity” ó The first two, I believe, were “F___ your…”

Oct 14, 2004 - 7:04 pm 29. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ó If polls start getting you down, read this

Oct 14, 2004 - 7:07 pm 30. zadig:

“Today’s news that some Kerry operatives plan on launching a “preemptive strike,” charging the other side with voter intimidation even when it doesn’t exist”

Did you even read the document on Drudge’s site? Conveniently, your link is broken so none of your other readers can see that you’re making stuff up.

The plan is to take actions ahead of time to counteract the expected interference with legitimately-registered voters trying to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Because yes, that’s been interfered with before, by Republican operatives. (You’re not really a convicted felon? Tough. You still can’t vote, ’cause you’re on the list. That’s not your middle initial or address? Tough. Next.)

There’s nothing dishonest or underhanded about Democratic operatives, say, helping people verify their voter registration ahead of time (because there are news reports of Republican groups shredding registrations). There’s nothing wrong with stationing people near (but not too near!) polling places so that anyone turned away will have an educated, informed advocate who can double-check whether they really are not allowed to vote.

The memo doesn’t say to make up charges — that would be illegal and dishonest. The memo says to preempt underhanded attempts to disenfranchise voters. Seems wise to me.

Oct 15, 2004 - 7:55 am 31. Catherine:

ditto Rick B on all of it

It’s interesting that the Dems are starting the “We wuz robbed” meme so early. The private polling must be truly disastrous.

There is a truly remarkable level of tone deafness in this campaign.

KerrySpot posts the list of campaign events:

Other than Condi Rice and John Edwards in Ohio, almost every event today is in a Blue State. (And Edwards is in Maryland? What’s with that?)

Oct 15, 2004 - 8:38 am 32. Catherine:

And here’s Rasmussen:

Friday October 15, 2004–The Presidential debates are over and the election is just two-and-a-half weeks away. The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows President George W. Bush with 49% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 46%. The Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern.

Voters surveyed last night declared the third and final debate a tie, with fans of each candidate thinking their man won. The number of voters who prefer Bush over Kerry on both national defense and the economy has returned to the levels that existed before the first debate.

Oct 15, 2004 - 8:40 am 33. Catherine:

October 15, 2004-The latest Rasmussen Reports survey found that voters trust President Bush more than Senator Kerry on national defense and the War on Terror by a 53% to 42% margin. A week ago, the President held an 8 pointÔøΩ advantage on this question, 52% to 44%.

The President’s advantage on national defense and the War on Terror is identical to the advantage he had when the Presidential debates began.

[snip]

The Rasmussen Reports survey also found that forty-nine percent (49%) of voters trust George Bush more than John Kerry when it comes to managing the economy while forty-five percent (45%) now prefer Kerry.ÔøΩ

These numbers are unchanged from a week ago and have changed little recently.ÔøΩ Looking at the past five weeks the President has been steady in the 48% – 50% range while the Senator has held at 45% or 46% during the same period.

I’m thinking this may be evidence for Tom Holsinger’s observation that you don’t know who “won” the debates until after the election.

Oct 15, 2004 - 8:44 am

Write a Comment

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