|
Visitors Since 2/15/03
|
|||||||||
BlogRoll
Recent Entries
A Question
I Can Tell I am Going to Tire of this Clarke Story Rather Quickly What a Shame Status Firefox Site Info Wowie Sistani Causing More Problems Colombian President to Visit DC More on Clarke, Iraq, Rumsfeld and the Administration Get Ready for the Clarke Fall-Out -or- This Isn't as New a Revelation as it May Seem Adios PoliColumn The More Things Change... It's All Dean's Fault!
Look Who's Linking to PoliBlog:
Absinthe and Cookies
Admiral Quixote's Roundtable All Day Permanent Red The American Mind Arguing with signposts Asymmeterical Information Attaboy B-Town Blog Boys Backcountry Conservative Balloon Juice Bananas and Such Begging to Differ The Bemusement Park Bewtween the Coasts Betsy's Page The Big Picture BipolarBBSBlog Blogs for Bush BoiFromTroy brykMantra BushBlog The Bully Pulpit Caffeinated Musing California Yankee Captain's Quarters Chicago Report Chicagoland of Confusion Citizen Smash The Command Post Common Sense and Wonder Confessions Of A Political Junkie Cranial Cavity The Daily Lemon DANEgerus Weblog Dart Frog on a Cactus Brad DeLong DiVERSiONZ The Disagreeable Conservative Curmudgeon Drink this... Earthly Passions the evangelical outpost exvigilare Feste Filtrat The Flying Space Monkey Chronicles The Friendly Ghost FringeBlog G-Blog.net The Galvin Opinion Haight Speech The Hedgehog Report Heh. Indeed. Hellblazer Hennessy's View High Desert Skeptic Robert Holcomb I love Jet Noise Idlewild South Incommunicado Insults Unpunished Interested-Participant Internet Ronin Ipse Dixit It Can't Rain All The Time... The Jay Blog Jen Speaks Joefish's Freshwater Blog John Lemon Judicious Asininity The Kudzu Files LibertarianJackass.com Liberty Father LittleBugler Locke, or Demosthenes? Gary Manca Mark the Pundit memeorandum Miller's Time Mind of Mog The Modulator Much Ado My opinion counts My Word Naw Neophyte Pundit New England Republican neWs Round-Up Nobody asked me, but... Obsidian Wings Occam's Toothbrush On the Fritz On the Third Hand One Fine Jay Outside the Beltway Parablemania John Pierce The Politburo Diktat Political Annotation Political Blog For The Politically Incorrect Possumblog Priorities & Frivolities ProfessorBainbridge.com PunditFilter Pundit Heads QandO Random Acts of Kindness Random Nuclear Strikes Ranting Rationalist Jay Reding.com A Republican's Blog Right Wing News Right Voices Rightward Reasonings robwestcott Rooftop Report The Sake of Argument Scrappleface Secular Sermons Sha Ka Ree The Skeptician The Skewed Slant/Point. small dead animals Sneakeasy's Joint SoCal Law Blog Solomonia Southern Musings Matthew J. Stinson The Strange Political Road Trip of Jane Q. Public SwimFinsSF The Temporal Globe think about it... Tiger Tobacco Road Fogey Tony Talks Tech Use The Forks!! VodkaPundit Wall of Sleep Who Knew? The Window Manager WizBang! WizBang Tech The World Around You The Yin Blog Zygote-Design |
March 22, 2004
A QuestionWhy does it have to be the case (with both the O’Neil and Clarke stories, just to name two), that the only possible explanation that Bush went to war with Iraq because of some deranged reaction to 911, and that further that from the moment of the attack he was scheming and planning o how to get Saddam? Why is it not a reasonable position that Bush, after 911, began to formulate a foreign policy view of the world in which he saw 1) Iraq as a potential threat, and 2) a place where an example could be made and, 3) (hopefully) a secular quasi-democracy which could be built in the Middle East, all for the purpose of fighting terrorism? Now, one can think this a poor, indeed a ridiculous, set of policy choices. One could critique specific elements of the policy. One could say that there were better ways to use our resources. So (and here’s the main question): why don’t we have a public argument about those issues, rather than going on about the President’s “lies” or these stories about how the President simply planned to go to Iraq because of 911, and everything else was just subterfuge? Doesn’t Occam’s Razor dictate that Bush went to war with Iraq essentially for the reasons he said he went to war, rather than these tortured attempts to cast the policy as some delusional fantasy? (Okay, end of rant) Posted by Steven Taylor at 10:05 PM|
Iraq
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (4)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> I Can Tell I am Going to Tire of this Clarke Story Rather QuicklyOK, from this story, News Analysis: An Accuser’s Insider Status Puts the White House on the Defensive, we get: Mr. Clarke has put the White House squarely on the defensive again. He paints a scene that it is easy to imagine turning up with spooky music in a Kerry commercial as evidence of Mr. Bush's determination to invade Iraq. On Sept. 12, 2001, Mr. Clarke writes, Mr. Bush approached him in the White House Situation Room and three times asked him to "look into" whether Iraq had been involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I read a similar quote earlier this afternoon as I glanced at a newspaper, and the following kinds of questions emerge: 1) Is it really all that insane for someone to think, on 9/12/01, that Saddam might have been involved? Indeed, I know people who totally opposed the Iraq war whose initial reaction on 911 was that Iraq might be involved. Didn't we all think that at least once? 2) I suspect that on 9/12/01 Bush was a tad intimidating. He was probably on the angry side. 3) There is one major, gigantic, huge, etc. hole in this argument that Bush was hell-bent on blaming Iraq and attacking Iraq: and that is, we didn't attack Iraq immediately after 911. If Bush was indeed myopically focused on Iraq, and was either too stupid to understand anything else, or was willing to lie to get at Iraq, why didn't we just launch a war on Iraq in 2001? Answer: the President wasn't blindly gunning for Iraq. And a follow-up, while I understand that the administration believed that there were al Qaeda ties to the Saddam regime (a debatable, but not insane notion), we did not launch a war a year ago on the argument that Saddam was responsible for 911. This whole: "see! Bush was just looking for an excuse to attack Iraq and used 911 to do it" simply lack a logical foundation. There are numerous routes by which to argue with the administration's Iraq policy, indeed its entire foreign agenda, but this isn't one of them. Further, in the quote I read this afternoon, Clarke says that he insisted to the President (again, on 9/12) that it was clearly al Qaeda. Now, not only is that a self-serving quote (basically noting how he was the rational one, and the President a raving loon), but how can an intelligence analyst, one day after an attack be rock-solid 100% that he has all the answers? It is ludicrous. Posted by Steven Taylor at 09:37 PM|
Iraq
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (0)
| Trackbacks(1)
Gary Manca linked with The strategic blindness of the Bush administration II show comments right here -> What a ShameAirline Halts Plan for Lip-Shaped Urinals. I'm heartbroken. And is it just me, or do these things more evoke Mick Jagger than anything else? (Yes, that's right--nothing from me for over twleve hours and you get a urinal post...). Posted by Steven Taylor at 08:20 PM|
Pop Culture
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (0)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> StatusNo more blogging until tonight--it is Spring Break and today is a family outing. The rest of the week I will be chained to the desk working on a symposium paper, so blogging will otherwise be normal-ish the rest of the week. Posted by Steven Taylor at 07:48 AM|
Blogging
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (0)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> FirefoxNo, not the 1980 Cold War flick with Clint Eastwood stealing a state-of-the-art fighter jet from the Soviets (yes, in retrospect, the idea that the Russians would have tech that we would want seems a bit quaint, if not silly, but it was a good movie...). No, I am talking about Mozilla Firefox, their new browser, the descendant (kinda) of Netscape. Now, the last time I was impressed with Netscape the year was probably 1995, and while I have tried Opera and the various new version of Netscape over the years, I have always been quite happy with IE. However, the combo of being interested in Mozilla's new mail client, Thunderbird, and the my inner computer-geek need to try new stuff, I tried out Firefox yesterday and have been impressed. I decided to get it a try because of all the security problems with IE and especially with OE. Further, PC Mag was impressed with Thunderbird's spam filter--plus, since most of these e-mail virii and worms mostly target Miscorsoft products, it seemed like may be a change was in order. I have not fooled much with Thunderbird yet--I will give a review of it later. However, I have messed with Firefox, and have been pleased. A lot of other people are impressed as well, it would seem. Forbes is impressed as well, as is the tech writer at the Houston Chronicle. Joel on Software has one of the more glowing reviews. It seems to render pages faster (certainly it loads pages in a differnt order than IE) and I like all the nifty extensions and the tabbed browsing. I also like the pop-up blocking. My main problem are my MT tools. The MT posting window lack the B i u and url buttons, and I also don't know if I can get by without my right-click MT It! tool. Is there anyone out there who knows of Firefox-ready MT tools? I have looked some, but not much. Posted by Steven Taylor at 07:47 AM|
Computer Junk
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (3)
| Trackbacks(1)
Signifying Nothing linked with Firefox Redux show comments right here ->
March 21, 2004
Site InfoI know I owe some folks some links, and said I would do it today, but I simply didn't get to it--but I will update over the next day or so. Also: thanks to Chris Lawrence who figured out the problem with my individual archive template--it is now fixed. Thanks for the tip, Chris! Posted by Steven Taylor at 09:35 PM|
Blogging
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (0)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> WowieOk, Alabama over Stanford was a shocker, but UAB over Kentucky? Unbelievable. Does anyone have a correct bracket at this point? Posted by Steven Taylor at 09:09 PM|
Sports
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (4)
| Trackbacks(2)
Mark the Pundit linked with Beware Number 1 Seeds Signifying Nothing linked with Fubar brackets show comments right here -> Sistani Causing More ProblemsIraq's Sistani Warns UN Not to Back Constitution The United Nations (news - web sites) must not endorse Iraq (news - web sites)'s U.S.-backed interim constitution because it could lead to the break-up of the occupied country, Iraq's most influential Shi'ite Muslim cleric said. Didn't the guy agree to letting the constitution go into force in the first place? While I am not sure what can be done, he is clearly an impediment to progress. Posted by Steven Taylor at 08:15 PM|
Iraq
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (3)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> Colombian President to Visit DCPresident Uribe of Colombia to Visit Washington The President will welcome President Alvaro Uribe to the White House for a meeting on March 23. The President looks forward to discussing with President Uribe the many ways we can work together to further strengthen our partnership and achieve our common goals with respect to security, trade, and justice. Look for a lot of anti-terrorism rhetoric from both Presidents, especially Uribe, who knows that the key to additional funding is strengthening the likage between the FARC and AUC to terrorism. Indeed, terrorism is the new communism: the best way to get the US to support your country's policies is to be part of the war on terror, the same way it used to be the case that to get funding and support one had to be a staucnh anti-communist. Posted by Steven Taylor at 02:50 PM|
Latin America
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (1)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> More on Clarke, Iraq, Rumsfeld and the AdministrationOne more comment on the pasage from the Stahl interview that Brad DeLong quotes: Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke. The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.which Brad thinks shows "the national security side of the Bush administration is an even more disgraceful clown show than the domestic policy side as told by Paul O'Neill to Ron Suskind in The Price of Loyalty." However, I would note the following: So, where's the evidence of this hellbent focus on Iraq exclusively? And also, since Brad wants to impeach Cheney, it seems that even he wasn't on the "we have t get Iraq now" bandwagon, so the argument that the Clarke revelations are some bombshell continues to strike me as a weak proposition. Posted by Steven Taylor at 02:24 PM|
Iraq
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (0)
| Trackbacks(3)
Backcountry Conservative linked with Clarke's Interview Solomonia linked with So Bush had all planned out huh? Wizbang linked with Why I love the blogosphere show comments right here -> Get Ready for the Clarke Fall-Out -or- This Isn't as New a Revelation as it May SeemBoth Brad DeLong and Ogged seem to think that the revelations in the upcoming Clarke book (and the 60 Minutes interview tonight) that Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq not long after 911 are impressive, and dare I say, explosive (pun intended, so shoot me--or bomb me...). However, this passage "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq.... We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the September 11 attacks].'" is nothing radically new. If one consults Bob Woodward's Bush at War, publishes in 2002, one finds similar stuff. Chapter 6 details a meeting at Camp David in which the President asks for options, and Rumsfeld is seen arguing for Iraq as a consideration in terms of retaliation for 911. I would specifically note 84-85, which includes this passage: When the group reconvened, Rumsfeld asked, Is this the time to attack Iraq? He noted that there would be a big buildup of forces in the region and he was still deeply worried about the availability of good targets in Afghanistan. So, Bush-critics may get all excited about the Clarke book, but at least based on the stuff DeLong and Ogged posted, there isn't anything new here. So, aside from any arguments about merit, my question is: what's the startling revelation? And what is the impeachable offense the DeLong (and Ogged) are arguing for here? Where is the bribery, treason or other high crimes or misdemeanors? Brad's a smart guy, and he knows full well you cannot, and do not, impeach Presidents over policy disagreements—rather, you defeat them for re-election (or try to) on those grounds. And for that matter, surely he doesn't believe that the only reason we attacked Iraq was because it had good targets, and he bases that argument on the quote noted above? This strikes me as a rather weak argument. And for that matter, if the President was willing to simply bomb the place with the better targets, why didn't he just do so in the 2001 rather than going after Afghanistan? Clearly the policy process was a tad more complicated than is being argued by my blogging colleagues. Posted by Steven Taylor at 02:05 PM|
Iraq
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (1)
| Trackbacks(6)
Signifying Nothing linked with Clarke Ipse Dixit linked with What's New? Backcountry Conservative linked with Clarke's Interview Solomonia linked with So Bush had all planned out huh? Outside the Beltway linked with Selective Coverage Wizbang linked with Why I love the blogosphere show comments right here -> AdiosCan't say I am sorry to see it go. Posted by Steven Taylor at 10:33 AM|
Sports
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (1)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> PoliColumnThis piece is supposed to have run in today's Mobile Register. However, their web woes continue, and so there is no e-version. So, here's the submitted version in its unedited splendor: Eight. Long. Months. That is how long we have to watch the newest reality TV show that is all the rage on all the nets: Bush v. Kerry. We have a long wait to find out whether President Bush is voted off the island or not, and so can look forward to an ongoing version of political smack-down over the public airwaves. Even hard-core political junkies may grow tired of the contest. This year’s presidential campaign is unique for two reasons. The first is that this year marks the earliest that the opposition party has been able to declare a clear presumptive nominee to face a sitting president. It has been clear since the implosion of Howard Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire in January that Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. The post-Super Tuesday withdrawal of John Edwards from the race made Kerry the presumptive nominee. So, from the first week of the month of March we have known, without any doubt, that the November ballot would pit Kerry against Bush. The second unique aspect of the 2004 campaign is that neither Senator Kerry, nor President Bush, is accepting federal matching funds for small contributions to their campaigns. Under federal law, candidates can receive federal dollars in a one-to-one match for every contribution from an individual who contributes $250.00 or less. The price tag, however, is that a candidate receiving matching funds must agree to spending limits. However, Kerry and Bush have both eschewed the matching funds, and therefore do not have to adhere to caps. They are still bound by the fact that individuals can give each campaign no more than $2000 and Political Action Committees can give no more than $5000. Still, the important element is that they can raise and spend without any strictures, which is the first time there has been such a situation. Indeed, in 2000 the cap on pre-nomination spending was $40.5 million, and the figure would have been similar this year. However, President Bush’s re-election campaign had already raised $145.6 million by the end of January, and Kerry’s campaign $32.9 million in the same time period. Further, the money spigot was turned on for Kerry once he has secured his party’s nomination. Had he accepted the matching fund he would be unable to mount any kind of defense against Bush before the summer, now, however, he can raise and spend with impunity to try and match the fund-raising juggernaut that is the Bush re-election campaign. So, we have here an unprecedented confluence of money and time, and the opportunity for things to get nasty in a hurry. And, already the clashes have begun. The first salvo in this still young campaign between Kerry and Bush came with the release by the Bush campaign of two commercials in the first week of March which featured passing images of the events of 911. This caused a furor in some camps, including the family members of some 911 victims, who accused the President of exploiting the tragedy of that day for political gain. Now, it is rather unlikely that the Bush re-election team will leave 911 out of their campaign. Indeed, one could argue that some of the criticisms aimed at the ads from the Kerry camp were more about trying to neutralize a potential strength of the President’s, i.e., his handling of the 911 aftermath (when his approval ratings soared in the 80s and 90s), than it was the result of a sincere desire not to exploit certain images and events. One thing is for certain: whether one likes it or not, this campaign is going to be, in large measure, about 911: both in terms of how Bush handled it and how Bush or Kerry would handle any future such events. As such, it is hardly surprising that the Bush campaign would use images related to 911 or make specific reference to those events. The interesting issue isn’t really the usage of the images, but rather how the debate was more about the appropriateness of a particular image instead of over policy and governance. This flap has continued this week with criticism of a new Bush ad in which a reference is made to terrorism while the picture of a Middle Eastern-looking individual appears on the screen. This has lead to charges that the Bush campaign is engaging in stereotyping and race-baiting. The remarkable element in both stories is that the public debate ends up being about a one-to-three second image rather than the policy issues that the commercials are supposed to be about. Given the amount of time and money available to each candidate, look for this type of tit-for-tat to continue vis-à-vis the visuals in commercials. Ironically, such controversy is often good for the campaign whose ad is under attack, as the debate over the ad leads to the ad being shown, for free, on the news, often multiple times. Of course, if the public decides that the controversy over an ad is appropriate then such repeated showing could damage the candidate. The remarkable thing about this entire enterprise, however, is that the debate becomes one about the intentions of candidates and their campaigns for choosing a particular image rather than what they might actually do as the occupant of the Oval Office. One saving grace, I suppose, of Alabama being a state that is unlikely to be seriously contested in November, is that we will be spared much of this on-air onslaught. Still, the content and funding of these ads will be part of the news analysis over the next two hundred and forty-ish days. Steven L. Taylor, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Troy State University. Posted by Steven Taylor at 09:40 AM|
My Columns
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (0)
| Trackbacks(1)
Backcountry Conservative linked with Weekend PoliBlogging show comments right here -> The More Things Change...Flashback: The time: October 9, 2003. The place: the pages of WaPo. The line: Kerry, for example, is advised by two pollsters, two media and advertising experts, and two speechwriting consultants. He also has two inner circles: one composed of hired hands in Washington; the other of old friends, family members and longtime loyalists in Boston. And while he seems to have fixed his staffing woes, this joke can now morph into: "How are Kerry's position papers like Noah's Ark? They have two of everything." Or, as a political cartoon noted yesterday, Kerry supports "no position left behind". It will be interesting to see if he can find a way to overcome this problem (I am not sanguine that he can). Otherwise the campaign is going to evolve as Kerry, who doesn't really know what he thinks v. Bush the Resolute. Now, Kerry can try the ol' "nuance" bit, but I have a hard time believing that that will work. Indeed, I maintain something that I have said for a long time now: the main way a Democrat wins in November (perhaps the only way), is for something bad to happen in the economy, in Iraq or in the War on Terror in general (and the latter would have to be something that could be blamed on the administration). side-note: I found the 10/9/03 story combing my archives for info used in the previous post. We all remember October 2003, right? Back when many of us were certain that the candidate we wouldn't be talking about in late March 2004 would be John Kerry? Posted by Steven Taylor at 09:36 AM|
2004 Campaign
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (0)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> It's All Dean's Fault!Ironically, the current heat that John Kerry is feeling regarding his vote on the $87 billion is largely Howard Dean's fault. As LAT columnist Ron Brownstein rightly noted on MTP this morning, the vote last October came as Dean had emerged as "the man", seemingly riding anti-war sentiment to the Democratic nomination. It was at that time that Kerry became more strident in his anti-war stance. In short: the argument is that Kerry voted against the $87 billion to bolster his anti-war bona fides. However, in so doing he created yet another contradiction in his record--in this case voting for the authorization to use force, but being unwilling to fund the continued operations (while simultaneously criticizing the administration on the body armor and related issues). Had there been no Dean factor, then Kerry likely would have voted for the package, I am guessing. So, in one sense, it is Dean's fault that Kerry is an vulnerable as he is on this issue. Of course, in reality, it is really Kerry's own fault for seeking political advantage when he should have been voting his own conscience. And, indeed, this is one of Kerry's main political liabilities: it is difficult to ascertain exactly what his political conscience is. Posted by Steven Taylor at 09:22 AM|
2004 Campaign
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (1)
| Trackbacks(1)
Signifying Nothing linked with Blame Howard! show comments right here ->
March 20, 2004
Hook'EmTexas advances to the Sweet 16. Spiffy. Posted by Steven Taylor at 10:50 PM|
Sports
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (0)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> That's a LetdownPakistan Doubts Al Zawahri Among Those Surrounded Posted by Steven Taylor at 10:48 PM|
War on Terror
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (0)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> Thanks for the LinkageThanks to the following for permanently linking to PoliBlog: Each has been given a a permanent link in the "Look Who's Linking to PoliBlog list on the left hand sidebar. If you have linked to me, but have not been acknowledged with a link, drop me an e-mail. Posted by Steven Taylor at 04:03 PM|
Blogging
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (3)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> Four Structural Weakneses of John KerryKaus points to a The New Republic Online piece by Noam Scheiber, in which the author details Kerry's four strucutral weaknesses: 1) His poor gut-level instincts lead to exploitable gaffes: Bush in his natural state is an anti-intellectual cowboy: heavy on bravado, light on nuance. When he lets slip what he's really thinking--like his ill-advised "bring it on" comment from last year--and that comment gets repeated by political opponents, it probably alienates half the country, but it galvanizes the other half and ends up a wash. Kerry at his most authentic is a committed internationalist--someone who values the stability of alliances over the freedom of unilateral action. There's nothing wrong with this position per se. Except that, when expressed in a single, unguarded comment capable of being distorted by political opponents, it probably alienates considerably more than half the voting public. 2) His rapid-responses tend to focus more on rapidity than on the contents of the responses: The problem is that the point of a rapid response strategy isn't just to offer some response--any response--when the candidate is attacked, so long as it's quick. The point is to offer a response that effectively deadens the issue--a goal sometimes better accomplished without the over-the-top, war-room approach that's been the Kerry campaign's only speed to date. 3) His dual reputations of liberal and flip-flopper: Whatever you do to rebut one charge just confirms the other. Take gay marriage. In the past Kerry has tended to stake out relatively liberal terrain on the issue--for example, he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. This would seem to put him to the left of the average swing voter, a position that could be exploited by the Bush campaign. So how would Kerry insulate himself from this kind of attack? The only way that comes to mind is by moving rightward--which Kerry did earlier this year when he hinted he might support an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution banning gay marriage. In one fell swoop Kerry transformed himself from a liberal on gay marriage to ... a flip-flopper on gay marriage. 4) Money: Bush's buckets of hard money trumps an army of 527s: For all the talk about various Democratic-leaning 527s (that is, independent nonprofits) helping to balance out Bush's huge financial advantage, Tuesday's showdown in West Virginia showed why nothing beats good old-fashioned hard money when it comes to waging a presidential campaign. Before Kerry could touch down in West Virginia, the Bush campaign had saturated the airwaves with the aforementioned weak-on-national-security commercial--which framed the debate for Kerry's West Virginia trip in terms most favorable to Bush. By contrast, because none of the 527s trying to help Kerry can coordinate their message with his campaign (at least not legally), Bush is much less likely to face such focused debate-framing when he touches down in the swing states he's targeting.
Posted by Steven Taylor at 02:54 PM|
2004 Campaign
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (2)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> The 3/20 Toast-O-Meter is Here!
The Toast-O-Meter comes to you Fortified with linkage and Enhanced with bloggage. Sure, the Democratic Primaries continues, but the truth is, it’s two-slicer time: Bush v. Kerry to see who can reduce the other to toast over the next eight month. If you come across a news story, commentary or blog entry that you think would be good for the Toast-O-Meter, please submit it to: toast@poliblogger.com Feeling the Heat? Each week the candidates will have had one of three kinds of weeks: Slicing up this (Totally Insignificant)Week's ContestsThe excitement never stops!! Today, March 20th, we have contests in: Alaska: Hey, Kucinich came to see them, what more do they want? Guam: Well, there's no political news out of Guam, but in case you are jonesin' for Guam news, there's: Guam Guard unit to be deployed and Guam sailors charged in sexual assault case. Wyoming: No political news out of Wyoming either, so here are some fun facts about the state:
Alas, there are no more until April 13th and Colorado… (can we live without meaningless primaries for that long?) At least Colorado will be interesting because it will determine who the Senate candidates will be to replace Nighthorse Campbell.
Who will be toasted first? Will Kerry turn the President into Texas Toast? Or will the President make French Toast out of Kerry?
Among Kerry's proposals were providing more training and equipment to U.S. troops, improving military housing, and increasing military health care subsidies and family separation pay. He also proposed temporarily increasing the size of the active-duty Army by 40,000 troops. That step, which his aides said would cost up to $8 billion a year, would be intended to ease the burden on those deployed for longer than their usual term. All well and good, but aside from the temporary increase in force size, what does any of this have to do with fighting terrorism? Indeed, the only thing he seems to say on that topic is that he will be able to get more foreign help, which is, quite frankly, a dubious proposition. Richard S. Foster, the government's chief analyst of Medicare costs who was threatened with firing last year if he disclosed too much information to Congress, said last night that he believes the White House participated in the decision to withhold analyses that Medicare legislation President Bush sought would be far more expensive than lawmakers knew.For example: Democrats Seek Probe of Medicare Estimates George W. Bush (Dough is on the Rise) Bush had his best week in some time—he is up in many polls and Kerry has been shooting himself in the foot all week. John F. Kerry (The Heat is On) Kerry had his first bad week since winning the nomination. Sen. John F. Kerry is setting the stage to raise as much as $100 million for his presidential campaign by seizing control of his party's fundraising machinery, winning the support of top money people for vanquished rivals, and attracting thousands of new small donors via the Internet, according to officials inside and outside his campaign. The election is not going to be about domestic issues as long as making it about foreign issues is in the overwhelming interests of the Republican Party. Democrats don't need to beat Bush on national security, but they've got to come close enough that it's even possible to change the subject.He's correct: just saying "Bush is wrong and we will do better than he has" won't help the Democrats win anything. VICE-LOAFKerry "I don't want to be vice president of the United States. I do not want to leave the Republican Party. I would not be vice president of the United States on either ticket," McCain told CBS on Thursday. Bush
OTHER LOAVESNader In the three-way race, Republican Bush is supported by 44 percent of the state's voters, compared with 40 percent for Democrat Kerry and 7 percent for Nader, who is running as an independent, according to the poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Eight percent were undecided. Quite frankly, it is far too early to take these polls seriously, and I am certain Nader's numbers will shrink. Still, such polls will, not doubt, give the Kerry people heartburn. Posted by Steven Taylor at 10:51 AM|
2004 Campaign
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (3)
| Trackbacks(7)
Admiral Quixote's Roundtable linked with An Open Letter to the Blogosphere ProfessorBainbridge.com linked with Reading list Backcountry Conservative linked with Weekend PoliBlogging Mark the Pundit linked with Toast Right on the Left Beach linked with PoliBlog Signifying Nothing linked with ToastWeek Outside the Beltway linked with Toast-O-Meter Update show comments right here -> Happy Birthday to the Command PostThe The Command Post - A Newsblog Collective (to which I am an occassional contributor) is now a one year old. Congrats to Alan and Michele for a job well done. Posted by Steven Taylor at 09:12 AM|
Blogging
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (0)
| Trackbacks(0)
show comments right here -> Chen Wins Re-election in TaiwanTaiwan President Wins Election; Opposition Balks Taiwan President Chen Shui- bian won re-election to a second term a day after he was wounded by gunshots while campaigning. He defeated Nationalist Party leader Lien Chan by a quarter of a percentage point. Surely if a dead guy can win a Senate seat in Missouri, then a wounded guy can win re-election without any problems. Still, this could get ugly--and, indeed: The Nationalists' refusal to accept the result of the island's third direct election of a president may cast doubts on the maturity of Taiwan's political institutions. Plus, the referendum, failed, so I guess the sympathy vote only goes so far: A referendum Chen put on the ballot asking voters if the island's defenses should be strengthened in face of Chinese missiles pointed at them was invalidated because it received less than the required 50 percent participation by voters. A companion question about opening dialogue with China also failed to receive enough votes. Lien had urged a boycott of the referendum questions. Posted by Steven Taylor at 08:51 AM|
Global Politics
|Blogroll PoliBlog! |
Comments (0)
| Trackbacks(3)
Kamelian X-Rays linked with A Squeaker in Taiwan Citizen Smash - The Indepundit linked with Disputed Taiwan Election Outside the Beltway linked with What's Korean for 'Hanging Chad' show comments right here -> |
E-Commerce
Categories
2004 Campaign About the Blog Academia/Higher Ed Alabama Politics Blogging Computer Junk Courts/the Judiciary Criminal Justice Global Politics Iraq Kids Latin America Middle East Movies My Columns Not politics Other Blogs Parenting Political Philosophy/Theory Pop Culture Sports The Economy Today's List US Politics War on Drugs War on Terror
Archives
March 2004
February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003
![]() |