QandO

Ok, but I'd add an addendum to this pledge: I will basically demand my republicans in congress engage in the same exact scorched earth tactics against Kerry as the Dems have. Fair is fair you know.

PS- Why do you think Kerry will be elected? That speech? Woopee. He'll need more than that to get elected

Posted by: shark at July 30, 2004 09:18 AM

Frankly, while I don't see the Democrats really excited about Kerry, I do see them excited about defeating Bush. And, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what excites the base, it only matters that they are motivated enough to vote. The Democratic base is going to vote this cycle, and they're going to vote in droves. (and no, the low voter turnout at the primaries is not predictive)

Bush, on the other hand, just isn't exciting to many people. Libertarians are aghast at his policies, and even conservatives are saying "well, he's better than Kerry".

So, I'm just not sure Bush can motivate his base, or the middle, to vote. The Democrats--whatever their reason--can.

Of course, I could be wrong. We'll see.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 30, 2004 09:23 AM

I dunno. Democrats aren't going to be able to motivate swing voters to vote based on their hatred of Bush. It may drive them towards Bush frankly.

Posted by: shark at July 30, 2004 09:48 AM

My point is that the swing voters are also tired of--if not outright opposed to--Bush. They may not be motivated by the base's anger, but they're more and more likely to vote for Kerry, even if just as a vote against Bush. (at least, that's the impression I've been getting)

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 30, 2004 09:54 AM

Jon, I think the negative voter you describe is actually less likely to vote than a positive voter. In other words, those supporting Kerry not because they like Kerry but rather because they want to beat Bush will be far more likely to abstain come November.

The reason for that is simple. If Bush doesn't do anything more to anger them, then they won't be any more fired up than they are now. And unless Kerry does something huge to win their favor, they still won't end up liking Kerry. But if Kerry manages to upset them somehow, then they won't vote for Kerry, either.

Right now, the race is pretty even if you look at state-by-state polling. And if you look even deeper, Kerry's support is a mile wide and an inch deep: many of the states he's leading in are statistical toss-ups. We'll see what kind of bounce he gets from the convention, but then Bush will get his convention bounce, too.

Right now, Bush is leading Kerry on both economic and War on Terrorism leadership questions. I can't see how Kerry will end up beating Bush unless he can reverse one of those two.

Posted by: Steverino at July 30, 2004 10:26 AM

Steverino has a good point. Not to mention Bush job approval moved back to up to 50% for the first time in awhile. But I gotta say this election looks too hard to judge. There's currents, undercurrents, shifting voting blocs, who knows. I stand by my prediction of Bush winning a squeaker.

Posted by: shark at July 30, 2004 11:31 AM

Shark: Incumbent elections have a track record of big winners or big losers. Not many won in tight races. I'm sticking by my prediction that in the end, barring unforeseen disasters or problems, Bush wins in a walk.

Posted by: McQ at July 30, 2004 11:35 AM

As I said on WOC on this same topic yesterday:

I have not shrunk away from reaming a new one in Mr. Bush when I thought him wrong on a point. Similarly, Mr. Reagan, or any other Republican for that matter.

Explain the virtue of giving greater consideration to Mr. Kerry than I would Mr. Bush, when I disagree with him, please. Does being from the opposite party require the provision of a 'get out of jail free' card?

I have a world of respect for Dean, make no mistake. But I find the basis of the point he raises questionable.

Posted by: Bithead at July 30, 2004 12:12 PM

"Explain the virtue of giving greater consideration to Mr. Kerry than I would Mr. Bush"

- - -I think I covered that when I wrote "I will try to give him the same benefit of the doubt that I give to President Bush".

To do anything less would be dishonest.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 30, 2004 12:35 PM

Here's the problem, however; Whenever one, even with that consideration you demand, comes up with the end result of being against the actions of Mr. Kerry, the charge comes of being partisan.

Posted by: Bithead at July 30, 2004 12:54 PM

Second consideration:

Perhaps the biggest issue here is that in both cases, we understand, based on their records, the purpose under their statements.

Kerry, whose basic lean I distrust, desrves less trust than Bush... less benefit of the doubt as you put it, on *any* given issue.... BECAUSE of their relative base positioning, which in turn is based on their record.

Posted by: Bithead at July 30, 2004 12:58 PM

I don't think I implied that being intellectually honest meant you had to conclude he was right on any specific issue--though, honesty should force you to point out when he is right, and he will be sometimes.

But when you oppose him, do so for policy reasons. If you're against his health care plan, it's important that we not do so because he's secretly trying to (fill in the blank with some sinister plan). There is a legitimate disagreement there on priorities, costs, and benefits. It's important that the debate remain there.

Mostly, though, it's the myriad little details. For example, if TNR had written an article claiming the Gore administration was conspiring with Pakistan to announce the capture of a HVT on the night the GOP candidate was going to accept the nomination, the right would be up in arms. I mean, the outcry would be positively through the damned roof.

Instead, the right is waiting patiently for more information, or simply dismissing it out of hand. (and there are decent reasons to do both). Honesty would require an equivalent reaction, regardless of who is in office.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 30, 2004 01:34 PM

....which again, asks me to ignore the track record of each; I can't do that because of alittle thing called integrity. And tghat's my biggest problem here. Does not the basic stand of each, as reflected by their record, count?

Example...Garafalo complains Bush Lied about Iraq, and the 9/11 commission was a white wash. Based on her record, do we take her seriously, or based on her record do we consider the fruitbat source she is?

On the same level...Do we take Rotundo Moore seriously?

Comon, this ain't rocket science, here.

Posted by: Bithead at July 30, 2004 01:45 PM

"....which again, asks me to ignore the track record of each;"

- - -Well, you have to evaluate each issue on its merits. If Kerry says something, will you distrust it, because he's John Kerry? That's the way much of the left is evaluating Bush right now, and its wrong.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 30, 2004 02:44 PM

I find liberals' incessant attacks on Pres. Bush to be repugnant not because those kind of criticisms are inherently wrong. Rather, I find them repugnant because they have been almost entirely false. If there were substance to the charges that he lied, went to war to help Haliburton make money or pressured intelligence analysts etc. I would have made those same charges myself. Since they are baseless, however, I have not.

Therefore, I will not promise not to question Pres. Kerry's motives. He has a long track record of doing the politically expedient thing. For example, I don't think any reasonable person could deny that Kerry's vote against the $87 billion Iraq funding bill was pure politics. He voted for the war and told Tim Russert that, in the event that his version of the funding bill was voted down, a no vote would be irresponsible. Then, when he was getting creamed by Dean in the Dem. primary, he decides to do what he himself said was irresponsible. Is it unfair to question his motives in that case? I don't think so. When Bill Clinton's White House intervened on behalf of Loral Space Corporation with the Justice and State Departments after Mr. Schwartz made an $800,000 donation to the DNC, I questioned Clinton's motivation. I think that the criticism was twell founded in that case as well.

Just because liberals have falsely accused Pres. Bush of malfeasance doesn't mean that criticism of that nature should never occur. There is nothing wrong with accusing someone of base motives if there is evidence to support the charge. I don't trust Democrats. That is why I am voting for Bush. I intend to criticize Pres. Kerry (God forbid that should happen) when it is warranted and substantiated by facts.

Posted by: jt007 at July 30, 2004 02:49 PM

- - -Well, you have to evaluate each issue on its merits

Yes, Jon, you do... with the additional caveat being the small matter of trust.

Given that Kerry has been on both sides of every important issue of our time... and despite his trying to paint himself as a conservative hawk these last few weeks, that he is in fact, by the liberal's own yardstick his voting record, the most liberal Senator ever... one must needs ask: Do the issues include questions about his actually meaning what he says?

/Bit
PS; Hey,Jon... don't mind me; I'm just responding to Deans call to "Disagree with a blogger that you respect today. And do so at least once a week."

Posted by: Bithead at July 30, 2004 02:57 PM

More direct answer:
No, Jon, my mistrust is not rooted in his being jon kerry... my distrust is rooted in him demonstrably lying in the past, and on him being on both sides of every important issue of our time... inclduing ones involving our very survival.

Clear?

Posted by: Bithead at July 30, 2004 02:59 PM

Given that Kerry has been on both sides of every important issue of our time... [...] by the liberal's own yardstick his voting record, the most liberal Senator ever

- - -Well, that's certainly been the Republican spin on his record. I disagree with it--to some degree, and in some specifics--profoundly. I agree that Kerry has "flip-flopped" in some areas, and has been willing to play both sides of the fence.

But, that's what politicians do. Yes, even Bush.

Some of the specifics that Republicans point out--especially the $87b vote--are examples of a simplistic view of a complex issue. And that's politics....dumb it down enough, and you can sell it. Fact is, just like Bush, Kerry supported one $87b bill to fund the troops, and didn't support another. He voted against it to protest an aspect of it, but he absolutely, undeniably would have supported funding them with $87b.

And the National Journal cite that has him as the "most liberal" senator? Well, that is, frankly, just ridiculous. Worse, it's nigh on dishonest. The ONLY way that Republicans can say Kerry and Edwards are 1st and 4th most liberal is by only citing the 2003 year, in which they missed almost every vote. Go back a year or further, and you'll see that they were much closer to the middle...or even the far right side of the Democrats, in some instances.

Most of all....above all else...it's important that we don't evaluate issues after looking out the talking points from the people with whom we tend to agree. If we do, we won't learn the other side, and that leads to tendentious arguments like that.

Posted by: Jon Henke at July 30, 2004 03:13 PM

His record doesn't need spinning to defeat him, Jon.

And I find it amusing that you use a DNC spin site to back your point.

Most of all....above all else...it's important that we don't evaluate issues after looking out the talking points from the people with whom we tend to agree. If we do, we won't learn the other side, and that leads to tendentious arguments like that.

You're making the assumption htat I would disagree with htem without having read or understanding their ideas. To the contrary; and this s what gets them madder than anything else... we disagree precisely because we DO understand them.

As an example:

And the National Journal cite that has him as the "most liberal" senator? Well, that is, frankly, just ridiculous. Worse, it's nigh on dishonest. The ONLY way that Republicans can say Kerry and Edwards are 1st and 4th most liberal is by only citing the 2003 year, in which they missed almost every vote. Go back a year or further, and you'll see that they were much closer to the middle...or even the far right side of the Democrats, in some instances.

Perhaps. But if so, it touches on an issue of trust again, thus;

The Democrats are caught in their own lies. Theyre the ones who put out that spin. Had they integrity... there's that word again....they'd either agree with it now that he IS the most liberal which of course loses them votes from the undecideds, rather like Dukakas' ALCU comments... or else they admit they were spinning furiously when the release was originally made to gather votes from their base.

Either way, they're admitting they lied. At which point the first issue when discussing any other issues with them is discecting if we can trust what they say.

Like I say... I DO understand.... Tell well, I think.

Posted by: Bithead at July 30, 2004 03:45 PM

Arrgggh... Preview is my freind...Preview is my freind...Preview is my freind...Preview is my freind...

Posted by: Bithead at July 30, 2004 06:05 PM

If anyone has links to Republican sites that are fact based please post them.

As far as the first part of the entry: I say you have to call a fish a fish.

It is important to show respect to your fellow human beings, but I don't see what is gained by not always looking for better solutions than what is currently available.

If Bush lied, he lied and that shows his character, just as Clinton lied and it reflects. But I think that we all get too wrapped up in the person and not wrapped up in the results.

I don't think that anyone's station in life should give them special treatment. If someone leads us to war and we don't agree we should blame the person who took us there.

I could really go off here, but just to say that when the executives of Enron destroy the retirement of so many people they deserve to go down the river. If a president gets the children of thousands of Americans killed for no reason (I don't mean Bush here, I just mean in general) that president should pay for it.

It is a tuff call, but we should treat people equally regardless.

Posted by: Heath Weaver at August 3, 2004 06:05 AM

Iraqi sanctions were killing millions of Iraqi children a year.
President Bush hated those unnecessary deaths, and removed Saddam so the sanctions could be discontinued.
Now all those millions of chilren are alive and attending school.
John Kerry has close ties to the mullahs in Iran. The mullahs have expressed the hope that Kerry will win in November.

Posted by: Fleming at August 3, 2004 11:14 AM