Bush v. Kerry: The Official Elections 2004 Thread

Mr44, local elections in France today, voting not over and voter turnout estimated at 61%
Last presidential elections : respectively 75% and 82% voter turnout

 

Growing doubts about the War on Terror? Well, lets look at this CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll which is actually from December, but I think as little has changed it would be pretty accurate for now as well. 71% approve, 25% disapprove. Actually, I am dissapointed in that 25% of Americans and am suprised it is that large, but as you can see the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of current actions in Afghanistan.

 

Too many already...

 

"71% approve, 25% disapprove...in favor of current actions in Afghanistan. "

What was the poll question, a specific question about Afghanistan? That's not what I'm talking about, although as you point out the fact that 25% disapprove is disturbing. But how about a poll question like this:

Do you feel the U.S. should continue its aggressive worldwide campaign, or should it lie low for a while and see if things settle down?

I'd like to see the numbers from that poll. Or I should say, I wouldn't like to see them.

Look, I hope I wrong, I'm just telling you what I'm hearing and sensing around me (Mr. 44, I'm in a strongly Republican county, btw). I admit I'm just going by personal perception and a very small sample size, but also consider Bush's job approval ratings, and the polls where the economy and social issues rate as higher concerns than terrorism.

Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I hope I am, but for now I maintain that the general population has moved on to other things.

 

More on Kerry's flip flops, this time from ABCNEWS.COM

Reckless? And ?Irresponsible??



2003 Tape Shows Kerry Seemingly Backing $87 Billion In Iraq Funding He Voted Against
From ABCNEWS.com


By Jake Tapper
March 19, 2004



In an interview several weeks before he voted against $87 billion in funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., seemed to argue that such a vote would be reckless, irresponsible, and tantamount to abandoning U.S. troops.

On the Sept. 14, 2003, edition of CBS's Face the Nation, Kerry spoke at length about an amendment he and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., were offering which would have paid for the $87 billion by delaying some of the recent tax cuts.

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote." ?

"John Kerry has years and years of public statements ? including recent ones ? that the Republicans seem to have more thoroughly catalogued and at-the-ready than the Kerry campaign does," observed ABC News political director Mark Halperin. ?

At the time of the CBS interview, Kerry was facing a strong challenge in the Democratic presidential contest at the time from former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean ? who rose in polls partly because of his strong stance against the Iraq war. When the matter finally came up for a vote on October 17, it passed the House by a vote of 303-125, and the Senate by 87 to 12.

Kerry was one of the 12 who voted against the funding. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., also voted against the funding. Dean at the time seemed to support the Kerry approach, saying "if the president doesn't have a sufficient commitment to this operation to get rid of the $87 billion in tax cuts then we should vote no."

But Senate Democrats overwhelmingly took the other side of the issue. Biden, the co-sponsor of Kerry's amendment and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voted for the funding, saying, "the cost of failure in Iraq would far exceed the price of peace." In a Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who also voted for the funding, said, "I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they supported the war but then opposed the funding for the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized." ?

Not surprisingly, Republicans expressed shock at the Face the Nation transcript; Bush-Cheney campaign spokesperson Terry Holt called the quote "stunning." "'I don't think any United States senator should abandon the troops'?" Holt asked, quoting Kerry. "That is exactly what he voted to do." He called the quote "another example of John Kerry living in a parallel universe where he thinks he can take two mutually exclusive positions on one issue. I would love for these two Kerrys to meet some day."

"John Kerry's own words seem to be making the most powerful case about his own vote against funding our troops," said Jim Dyke, spokesman for the Republican National Committee, which is exploring ways to get the Face the Nation clip out to the public. ?

In the interview, Kerry never clearly stated whether he would or would not vote for the $87 billion funding bill, a fact that may offer him some sort of exculpation. But one of the few press outlets to cover his remarks on the subject, the Washington

 

Hmm... actually I agree with that. While I think its a good thing that people have moved on to an extent, it is unfortunate that people have begun to minimize the threat. I don't want to see people wanting to nuke the entire Middle East, but it is too bad that people have let their guard down. It will, unfortunately, take another terrorist attack for people to face the threat that we face.

 

While we are posting articles, here's a good one:

Kerry and Bush urged to tone down election attacks frenzy

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and Democratic rival John Kerry (news - web sites) were warned tone down their presidential election attacks or risk a vote boycott by alienated Americans.


With a new poll showing Bush and Kerry neck-and-neck in the race, senior members of the Republican and Democratic parties appealed to the rivals to change tactics.


"Let's keep it civil so we don't get so nasty that we discourage people from coming out and voting in a very important election," said Senator Joseph Lieberman, who was a contender against Kerry for the Democratic nomination.


"This nation is almost evenly divided politically. And there are strategists in both parties who are urging both candidates to go for victory by whipping up into a frenzy the partisan, ideological base of both parties," Lieberman told Fox News channel.


Senator John McCain, who challenged Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000, said opinion poll verdicts on the campaign of attack adverts and political mudslinging would force them to change tactics.


"If they start getting polling numbers like I think they will of people who will say: 'A pox on both your houses,' then I think it will change. And I hope that it does," he told Fox.


McCain said he was hearing from people in his home state of Arizona who are saying: "Look, I'm not even going to vote if this is the way the campaign's going to be conducted."


With the election months away on November 2, Bush and Kerry are already entrenched in what has become the longest White House campaign ever.


Kerry launched aggressive attacks on the Republican president during his battle for the Democratic nomination. Bush is now fighting back with a series of television adverts decrying the Democrat as "wrong on taxes" and "wrong on defence".


Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) have made strong assaults on Kerry and his policies and voting record in recent speeches.


A Newsweek magazine survey released Saturday said Bush and Kerry were even on 48 percent of voter support. A poll by the magazine one month ago put the Massachusetts senator ahead of the president 48-45 percent.


The survey said that if veteran liberal consumer advocate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) maintains his candidacy, Bush would lead by 48-45 percent.


Meanwhile, Bush encroached on Kerry's home turf Sunday when he called Massachusetts politicians who were attending an annual Saint Patrick's day breakfast in Boston.


One local politicans jokingly asked Bush to dump Cheney and consider Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, as his new running mate.


"Look, you're lucky to have the guy. Here's the way I like to put it about Massachusetts: I know there's a lot of talk about a Massachusetts politician who has his eye on the presidency," Bush responded.


"But tell Mitt it's not open until 2008," he said, referring to the year that would mark the end of his second term if he were re-elected to a second four-year term.


On the more serious side, one other prominent Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel, was also critical of the Bush campaign's attacks on Kerry's Senate voting record.


"The facts just don't measure the rhetoric," he told ABC television.

He said campaigns could take the voting record of any longstanding senator "pick out different votes, and then try to manufacture something around that."

All the senators warned that a vicious election campaign risked undermining what should be a common aim to win the war on terror and make a success of attempts to restore order in Iraq (news - web sites).

Hagel said: "Kerry and Bush must conduct themselves in a way that when November 2 comes, whoever wins, they are going to have to be able to have legitimacy and the authority to govern this country and keep this coalition together."

He warned: "We may find ourselves over th

 

QuanarReg's Weekly Campaign Breakdown

Winner This Week: President Bush


Week Number III, ahh, seems weird that it's been three weeks already. Well another interesting week in the election. We had the President going on attack, releasing more ads, and using Vice President Cheney to also throw some punches. Senator Kerry suffered probably his worst week. Some mishaps on the campiagn trail had him reeling and walking backwards to try and clarify what he had said, and then eventually used half the week to take some much needed vacation time. Let's look at how it went.

The Good

PRESIDENT BUSH:

Well, I'd have to say he didn't have too bad of a week. Many polls I've seen recently show him slightly ahead of Senator Kerry, and a few show him just slightly behind. He really didn't get any real bad press this week, and certianly the Madrid bombings and the year aniversery in Iraq and the hunt for Al Quaeda shifted the subject away from the economy and back to national security. The President cannot be complaining about that. Personally, I think he should continue doing what he is doing: Defining John Kerry before John Kerry has a chance to define himself.

SENATOR KERRY:

Well, truthfully, I'd have to say his vacation might be the biggest help to him this week. After months of constant compaigning the guy must be worn out, and I think the beginning of the week was showing that pretty well. Plus, he has enough representatives to get his message out there while he is gone. And I think next week the Kerry camp is going to start aggressivly raising more money, which of course is something he needs to help get his message out there. He has to get his message out there, BEFORE the President's ads against him start to take affect. At length, he had a rough week, but I think he will rebound.

The Bad

PRESIDENT BUSH:

Well, like I said, he had a pretty good week, but there were some problems. Mainly, the whole year aniversery of Iraq didn't go as well as I think he had hoped. The insurgents carried out several deadly attacks which provided even more bad press of the situation over there. And of course the elections in Spain weren't exactly good for the President either. Now I don't think they effect him politically, but policy wise, yes. Actually I think the new PM of Spain, might hurt Kerry worse, because he is endorsing the Senator.

SENATOR KERRY:

Well, again, the biggest problem for Kerry so far is when he opens his mouth. First it was the liars and crooks comment, and now this week the foreign leaders comment and the "I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it". The Bush campaign wasted no time putting these into thier ads already. If Kerry continues making these comments he will only worsen his image as a flip flopper. He is beating himself right now, and he needs to back up and be more disiplined. Howard Dean already was a good example of how a candidate can beat themselves. Kerry does not want to follow in those steps.

The Ugly

Umm, I don't think I have anything to ad here. But, in the "Unexpected" catagory, I'd say, who would guess Kerry is so good at snow boarding?

What Will Happen Next Week?

Not sure. But it should be interesting.



So that's it for this week.

 

I agree with your sentiments on the money issue, V03.

However, there are a few things that can bite Bush in the arse in the end: gasoline prices, if the jobless rate goes up, and the ramifications of the WMD debacle.

In the end though, Bush has millions and millions to define Kerry over the next 3 months. The ads will only get tougher and tougher.

Having Ted Kennedy as Kerry's mouthpiece (e.g., Meet the Press this Sunday) doesn't help either.

Bush needs to get out there and be accessable to the people, and I have a bit of a problem with his tendency to seem detached.

 

Interesting QR.

I'd add that McCain's compliments of Kerry had an effect in muting some of the attacks.

It'll be interesting to see what transpires when Kerry returns from vacation on Tuesday.

 

I don't think I posted this earlier, so click here for the Daily Show on the Fake News from the White House.

 

Here's one for you,

Source:

Do you believe President Bush has been more focused on Iraq than al Qaeda?
Yes: 75%
No: 25%
Total Votes: 193,474

 

Whats the source Shinjo?

Even if thats so, Iraq is a much bigger operation than Al Queda. Much of the effort in looking for OBL and Al-Queda is behind the scenes and intelligence gathering. While many in the US feel OBL is more important I think the simple logistics of the operations actually require more effort for Iraq.

 

That must be the CNN.com QuickVote poll - a competely unscientific source.

I know your game, shinjo_jedi.

 

Must be? You know his game? Hm? Hm? Hm? Hm? Hm?!


Glad to see you're your clairvoyant self today, DM.

 

Ok here's the link F_I_D:

CNN Poll asks: Do you believe President Bush has been more focused on Iraq than al Qaeda?

There are more votes in it now, but it is the exact same question with the exact same wording with the same percentages.

Go down to the Quick Vote at the bottom right of the page.

Got anything else to say F_I_D?

I didn't think so.

 

I'm back! Here's a decent article by Cronkite, fodder for both sides. Man I still wish the classic thread was still open! I wonder how many days it is till the election.

walter cronkite
Dear Senator Kerry ...
By Walter Cronkite


Dear Sen. Kerry:

In the interests of your campaign and your party's desire to unseat George W. Bush, you have some explaining to do. During the primary campaign, your Democratic opponents accused you of flip-flopping on several important issues, such as your vote in favor of the Iraq War resolution.

Certainly your sensitivity to nuance, your ability to see shades of gray where George Bush sees only black and white, explains some of your difficulty. Shades of gray don't do well in political campaigns, where primary colors are the rule. And your long and distinguished service in the Senate has no doubt led to genuine changes in some positions. But the denial that you are a liberal is almost impossible to reconcile.

When the National Journal said your Senate record makes you one of the most liberal members of the Senate, you called that "a laughable characterization" and "the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life." Wow! Liberals, who make up a substantial portion of the Democratic Party and a significant portion of the independent vote, are entitled to ask, "What gives?"

It isn't just the National Journal that has branded you as a liberal. So has the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action. Senator, check your own website. It says you are for rolling back tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, for tax credits to both save and create jobs, for real investment in our schools. You've voted, in the words of your own campaign, for "every major piece of civil rights legislation to come before Congress since 1985, as well as the Equal Rights Amendment." You count yourself (and are considered by others) a leader on environmental protection issues.

You are committed to saving Medicare and Social Security, and you are an internationalist in foreign policy.

WANT MORE?

Click here for "Campaign 2004," DenverPost.com's exclusive online resource for political news and information, with videos and interactives, candidate profiles and data, an archive of The Denver Post's political coverage and more.

And for more news from DenverPost.com, The Denver Post's 24-hour news and information source, click here.



What are you ashamed of? Are you afflicted with the Dukakis syndrome - that loss of nerve that has allowed conservatives both to define and to demonize liberalism for the past decade and more? You remember, of course, that it was during the 1988 presidential campaign that George Bush I attacked Democrat Michael Dukakis both for opposing the Vietnam War and for stating he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Both proved, Bush said, that Dukakis was a liberal. Dukakis responded to that as an attack on his patriotism. He defended neither liberalism nor the ACLU.

Dukakis might have responded by saying: "I am surprised, Mr. Bush, that you are not a member of the ACLU. We do not have to agree on all the positions that the ACLU may take on this issue or that, but we should applaud its effort to protect the rights of Americans, even those charged with heinous crimes." Dukakis might have defended liberalism as the legacy of FDR and Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy - none of whom were anything like 100 percent liberals but all of whom advanced the cause of a truly liberal democracy.

But by ducking the issue, Dukakis opened the way for the far right to make "L" for liberal a scarlet letter with which to brand all who oppose them. In the course of that 1988 exchange, Bush offered a telling observation, saying, in effect, that liberals don't like being called liberal. You seem to have reaffirmed that analysis.

If 1988 taught us anything, it is that a candidate who lacks the courage of his convictions cannot hope to convince the nation that he should be given its leadership. So, senator, some detailed explanat

 

Yes, in fact I do. If you're going to post something about a poll, do it with that smarmy, "I know your game" post. Don't do it when confronted. Another thing, if you're not really worried about polls and the scientific aspects of it, don't post other polls that show Bush in the lead. We all know that you're betting on the moron from Tex-ass. So give it up. That is all.

 

I could quote Han Solo about dragging up such an old fossil as Walter Cronkite - a liberal bastion, but it would be unnecessary. He and Andy Rooney make quite a pair.

I would also encourage Kerry to tout the ACLU, OWM.

Bush and the GOP would as well.

 

I don't really think that Bush has much to offer the ACLU at the moment, DM, given the actions of his Attorney General (under the mantra of "fighting terrorism").

.

Peace,

V-03

 

OWM Cronkite is exactly right!

If you're a liberal, why run away from it?

Stand up and say you're proud to be one.

Even Ted Kennedy dodged the "Is Kerry more liberal than you?" question posed by Russert on Meet the Press yesterday.

Just say you are and move on.

 

Go ahead, V03, tout the ACLU.

I'm begging you!

John Ashcroft is doing a much better job than Reno ever did. She was one of the most inept Attorney Generals this nation has ever had, for reasons I have already posted.

Tell me, who's been persecuted as a result of the Patriot Act or had their freedoms taken away - name some names for me, please, or post some evidence (besides the usual rhetorical paranoia).

 

John Ashcroft is doing a much better job than Reno ever did.

Yeah, a better job of destroying everything this country stands for in the name of protecting it . He has also used law enforcement inappropriately in true "if you question anything the administration does you are unpatriotic" fashion, such as going after private medical records to enforce the deplorable so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Act (wrong thread).


She was one of the most inept Attorney Generals this nation has ever had, for reasons I have already posted.

Or you could say that she respected the both the spirit and the letter of US law. Mr. Ashcroft is much more Machiavellian in his approach, which, while within his rights to do so, makes me suspicious of his motives. Also, I have a hard time trusting his impartiality.

Tell me, who's been persecuted as a result of the Patriot Act or had their freedoms taken away - name some names for me, please, or post some evidence (besides the usual rhetorical paranoia).

I know a host of muslim worshippers whose services have been invaded by the FBI (not to mention some rather surly librarians) who would be happy to oblige you . As far as individual citizens go, well, it's hard to protest the actions of the government when they can search your home without your ever even knowing, isn't it ?

Peace,

V-03

 

Before derailing the thread, perhaps both sides could just agree to the joint statement that 'Janet Reno and John Ashcroft have been poor Attorney Generals, and generally unfriendly to issues of personal liberty during their tenures'.

Reno oversaw some really dodgy times with the FBI, and she definitely did not aquit herself well during her tenure. Ashcroft, though loved by some, clearly has gone into dangerous territory, as a result of dealing with terrorism. Whether it is justified or effective is highly questionable, and that the Patriot Act has been used outside of the scope of terrorism is undeniable. Trying to play 'which one was worse' isn't going to do anything but serve to identify the party affliliation of the poster making the argument.

 

know a host of muslim worshippers whose services have been invaded by the FBI (not to mention some rather surly librarians) who would be happy to oblige you

The FBI should be allowed to do undercover operations within mosques, et cetera. I don't see a problem with that, nor should anyone that's serious about fighting terrorism. I'm Catholic, and I wouldn't see a problem with the FBI doing such in Catholic Churches against these pedophile priests. We're talking about investigation, not about telling the people how to worship or telling them they can't worship.

There is no evidence for such baseless claims about Ashcroft - it's just rhetorical paranoia and demonizing of the man by the left.

Oh, and let's talk about this issue you brought up:

better job of destroying everything this country stands for in the name of protecting it

That's nonsense. Simple as I can say it, V03 (with all due respect).

He has also used law enforcement inappropriately in true "if you question anything the administration does you are unpatriotic" fashion,

Nonsense.

..such as going after private medical records to enforce the deplorable so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Act

Deplorable Partial Birth Abortion Act?

Any society that condones the killing of viable unborn children is barbaric and reminiscent of Nazis.

If you think that clinics are doing partial birth abortions for the reasons you say they are, why shouldn't they have to prove that they were medically necessary as the clinic said they were? They want the statistical data, not the patient names.