0
   

Kerry v Bush: The Facts, the Campaigns and the Spin...

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2004 07:54 pm
Watch out folks, or you'll get finned by a boated Republican thrashing about on the deck of the USS Cognitive Dissonance...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 04:54 am
Sofia wrote:
Here is your great reasoning behind the Edwards pick... Sickening, but in this pop culture, a factor.

After winning (barely) his first campaign, he is knighted The Democrats' Golden Boy by Time Magazine---and possibly more important to the electorate-- America's Sexiest Politician, by that hard-hitting political handbook--People Magazine.

So, I guess Soz was right when she warned me about one further thing Republicans would be using to try to discredit Edwards:

Sozobe wrote:
You missed three more important words in McG's post; "trial lawyer" Craven already mentioned, but "pretty", too. "Pretty" is a potent one; emasculating, disempowering, untrustworthy, unintelligent, all kindsa good stuff.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 06:17 am
Ad hominem is all they got.

"a friend to trial lawyers" is an insult? Rolling Eyes

(Meaning Republicans can only respect corporate lawyers....?)

This makes as much sense as using 'liberal' as an epithet.

(Everyone knows that 'conservative' is the real slur...)

Really, the GOP just ought to take Cheney's lead and stick to the universal curse words.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 07:04 am
pdiddie writes
Quote:
"a friend to trial lawyers" is an insult?


It seems that Edwards probably made his millions--his net worth is considerably more than Bush and Cheney combined--as a personal injury attorney, most notably successfully convincing gullible juries that cerebral palsy victims were the fault of doctors and thereby meriting millions in malpractice damages. Of course he took at 30+% cut of the amounts awarded.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200401260836.asp

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html

An attorney profiting from junk science is perfectly legal. But it is hardly commendable.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 07:16 am
Foxfyre wrote:
It seems that Edwards probably made his millions--his net worth is considerably more than Bush and Cheney combined--


Not according to Forbes it isn't. Cheney alone is worth as much as Edwards.

"Edwards, a successful trial lawyer, has a net worth between $12 million and $60 million, according to his financial disclosure forms as a U.S. senator. [..]

When Dick Cheney joined the Republican ticket four years ago, we estimated his personal fortune from his stock options and salary at Halliburton at $50 million.

President George W. Bush also ranks among the richest U.S. presidents on the strength of the roughly $15 million he made selling his share of the Texas Rangers."

According to the same article, the richest Presidents of the 20th century were Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover and FDR.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 07:19 am
Okay, if your numbers are correct Nimh then he is worth approximately what Bush and Cheney are worth together. Now shall we add Kerry into the mix. Smile
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2004 07:22 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay, if your numbers are correct Nimh then he is worth approximately what Bush and Cheney are worth together.

Err, almost.

Edwards: somewhere between 12 and 60 million.
Bush+Cheney: some 65 million.

So yeah, only if you take the very top mark of that 48-million spread in the estimation are you right. He might as well be only worth a fifth of that.

Foxfyre wrote:
Now shall we add Kerry into the mix. Smile

Eh, no thanks ;-)
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 10:51 pm
Wonder what made D'Amato float the idea of Bush dropping Cheney...? Was it just Al, or is there an agenda afoot? I doubt Bush has anything to do with it--as he is a loyal type guy-- (Witness him hanging on to Tenet, which I think was a mistake...and questionable, to me.)

I think there may be a plan to try to convince Cheney to step aside. I don't know if he will, but it appears he will be getting big, public hints, and private pressure.

I do think Cheney is a liability, and seems more mussed by Iraq than Bush.

MSNBC has Bush still slightly ahead, despite Edwards. I would love to know what this means. I thought for sure there would be an appreciable, sustainable (for at least a few weeks) bump. Kerry seems unable to make any headway.

Possibly, the 'devil you know' scenario rearing its' head. Kerry hasn't really come on the scene with anything people will either A) believe, or B)consider different than what Bush is doing.

Partisan Dems will vote for Kerry just to get Bush out of office. They account for about 30% of the electorate (right?). You've got your 30% of GOPs. But, the Indies aren't ABBs. They will need a reason to vote for Kerry.

Kerry can't seem to come up with one.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 11:13 pm
I don't know Sofia. I received emails from both the RNC and the ACU both expecting Kerry to get as much as a temporary 15 point bounce with Edwards, but it just didn't happen. I'm a dedicated trend watcher and Rasumussem reports a 5 point bounce putting Kerry 4 points ahead of Bush. With the margin of error at + or - 3, it could stilll essentially be a statistical dead heat.

I am torn re Cheney. I believe he is such a good man and a virtual fountain of knowledge and experience, but I tend to agree he is currently something of an albatross around Bush's neck. Bush's favorables are well over Kerry's on most issues, but Edwards' favorables are over Cheneys.

I think about a Bush/Powell or a Bush/McCain or a Bush/Rice ticket and think how much easier that might be to sell. But if Chency steps down, you know they'll be accusing Bush of desperation and abandonment of his friend and ally.

So I'm leaving this one to fate with hopes that good will prevail and the right decisions will be made.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 07:54 am
You ladies need to expand your reading list, because you're missing a few things...

Quote:
BETHESDA, Md. - Anne Patterson is a registered Republican who voted for President Bush and isn't especially fond of Democrat John Kerry. But as she hopped out of her green Honda minivan during a blitz of errands last week, she said she has qualms about the war in Iraq and the president's religious zeal.

And thanks to last week's selection of Sen. John Edwards as Kerry's running mate, she might now vote for the Democratic ticket. Edwards "at least makes Kerry palatable," said Patterson, a mother of three school-age children. "He just seems more moderate and reasonable."

<snip>

Historically, the vice presidential selection hasn't held much sway in determining the outcome. The major exception was Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson in 1960, who was instrumental in winning the South for John F. Kennedy. But in a race as tight as this one, especially in states such as Florida and Ohio, a tiny edge with a key group can make the difference.

Interviews with more than two dozen suburban women last week revealed strong support for Edwards, 51, a telegenic father who coached his children's soccer and basketball teams. While some derided him as a liberal trial lawyer or inexperienced with foreign policy - precisely the image the Bush campaign hopes to paint - most said they like his vibrancy, and many believed he understands the pressures of parenthood and the rush of suburban life better than Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney. Or Kerry, for that matter.


The Edwards effect
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 08:11 am
I just love anecdotal evidence to support trends Pdiddie Smile

Edwards didn't win his own county and it is highly speculated he wouldn't win re-election next time round. His state is tilted pretty strongly Bush/Cheney. I don't doubt there are silly women out there who vote for 'charisma' instead of substance however. But I am soooo glad we Conservatives set the bar higher than that.
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 08:19 am
Kerry v Bush: The Facts, the Campaigns and the Spin...
Kerry is boring and has the appeal Lurch on the Addams Family. Sort of like Al Gore was (before he lost his mind) on Valium.
Edwards is a New Clinton, with even better hair (at least according to Kerry)
And I voted for Gore and Clinton, before I voted against them.

Clinton makes you wonder if shook his hand if perhaps you might contract some unmentionable disease.
Al Gore has gone stark raving mad.
So, let's see, Kerry is incapable of going "EEEEEEeeeeeeyahhh!!!" and Edwards is not humping (as far as we know) strange women.
Sounds like the Democratic Dream Team.

That's my Spin, and I'm stickin' to it. Laughing
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 08:38 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I just love anecdotal evidence to support trends Pdiddie Smile


My source above isn't anecdotal, dear.

Reporters interviewing potential voters is not an anecdote.

An anecdote would be if you said:

Quote:
"My mother and father, who have voted Republican all of their lives, told me they can't stand Bush and won't for him."


If you were a reporter, and wrote those very same words above in your column which was published in a metro daily newspaper, as Joan Ryan does here, then that would be still be anecdotal.

I think it is important that you get the difference.

But I do so hope you continue to discount these reports. :wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 10:46 am
Sofia wrote:
MSNBC has Bush still slightly ahead, despite Edwards. I would love to know what this means. I thought for sure there would be an appreciable, sustainable (for at least a few weeks) bump. Kerry seems unable to make any headway.

Oh, there's been a bounce. Nothing like the expectations the RNC was understandably trying to float about 15% - but there's been one.

And I'm not talking anecdotal evidence. Looking at the polls that appeared since Edwards was selected (the two-way ones, because I dont think Nader will be on all those ballots):

Rasmussen (comparing today with 2 July) - 3% bounce for Kerry/Edwards
Newsweek - 5% bounce for Kerry/Edwards, compared to the last poll in mid-May
Time - 5% bounce for Kerry/Edwards, compared to early-June
Zogby - 0% bounce
AP/Ipsos - 7% bounce for Bush/Cheney, compared to early-June (in the 3-way race, the last 2-way race was back in January)
CBS - 4% bounce for Kerry/Edwards, compared to late-June
NBC/WSJ - 11% bounce for Kerry/Edwards, compared to late-June

As I summarized it here:

nimh wrote:
6 of the 7 polls that appeared in July thus far (not counting the daily Rasmussen ones) have Kerry-Edwards in the lead - by anything between 2% and 11%.

Perhaps it should also be noted that for the past two months, not a single poll except for the last Fox one has had Bush up by more than 2%.

RealClearPolitics' average of the last six polls now shows a 5,4% Kerry lead, whereas the six before would have shown one of less than 1%.

Hey, things are looking up just a little bit after all!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 11:05 am
nimh, I look at long term trends in politics and the stock market, and it's pretty reliable. Wink
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 11:22 am
Here's my latest graphs on those polls (n.b., they cover only two-way races). The average of polls in July thus far shows a 5,2% bounce compared to the average of polls in the last 10 days of June.

(Mind you, "outlying" polls like the overnight NBC/WSJ one this week and the Fox one in late June do really pull the numbers apart ...)

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/bush-kerry.gif

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/bush-kerry_average.gif
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 04:33 pm
Thanks, nimh. Since the third week of January, it looks like a pretty good sweep for Kerry. The 1.0 and 1.3 plus for Bush vs. the behind of 4.3 and 4.0 made my weekend a pleasant one.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 05:27 pm
Well don't get too comfortable C.I. The weird part of these polls is that on almost every single issue, most are preferring Bush over Kerry and in most of the polls, voters still think Bush is the likely winner in November.

It's too close to call, and my gut feeling is it will stay that way all the way into November.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 05:47 pm
I think that can be said about you and Bush. Don't get too comfortable. It ain't over until the fat lady sings.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2004 11:17 am
For those not involved in the "remove Bush" debate.
********
. . Mr. DeLay, who, in the debate over gun control after the
Columbine shootings, insisted that juvenile violence is the result
of day care, birth control and the teaching of evolution.
Machine at Work

July 13, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN

From a business point of view, Enron is a smoking ruin. But
there's important evidence in the rubble.

If Enron hadn't collapsed, we might still have only
circumstantial evidence that energy companies artificially
drove up prices during California's electricity crisis.
Because of that collapse, we have direct evidence in the
form of the now-infamous Enron tapes - although the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and the Justice Department
tried to prevent their release.

Now, e-mail and other Enron documents are revealing why Tom
DeLay, the House majority leader, is one of the most
powerful men in America.

A little background: at the Republican convention, most
featured speakers will be social moderates like Rudy
Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger. A moderate facade is
necessary to win elections in a generally tolerant nation.
But real power in the party rests with hard-line social
conservatives like Mr. DeLay, who, in the debate over gun
control after the Columbine shootings, insisted that
juvenile violence is the result of day care, birth control
and the teaching of evolution.

Here's the puzzle: if Mr. DeLay's brand of conservatism is
so unpopular that it must be kept in the closet during the
convention, how can people like him really run the party?

In Mr. DeLay's case, a large part of the answer is his
control over corporate cash. As far back as 1996, one
analyst described Mr. DeLay as the "chief enforcer of
company contributions to Republicans." Some of that cash
has flowed through Americans for a Republican Majority,
called Armpac, a political action committee Mr. DeLay
founded in 1994. By dispensing that money to other
legislators, he gains their allegiance; this, in turn,
allows him to deliver favors to his corporate contributors.
Four of the five Republicans on the House ethics committee,
where a complaint has been filed against Mr. DeLay, are
past recipients of Armpac money.

The complaint, filed by Representative Chris Bell of Texas,
contends, among other things, that Mr. DeLay laundered
illegal corporate contributions for use in Texas elections.
And that's where Enron enters the picture.

In May 2001, according to yesterday's Washington Post,
Enron lobbyists in Washington informed Ken Lay via e-mail
that Mr. DeLay was seeking $100,000 in additional donations
to his political action committee, with the understanding
that it would be partly spent on "the redistricting effort
in Texas." The Post says it has "at least a dozen"
documents showing that Mr. DeLay and his associates
directed money from corporate donors and lobbyists to an
effort to win control of the Texas Legislature so the
Republican Party could redraw the state's political
districts.

Enron, which helped launch Armpac, was happy to oblige,
especially because Mr. DeLay was helping the firm's effort
to secure energy deregulation legislation, even as its
traders boasted to one another about how they were rigging
California's deregulated market and stealing millions each
day from "Grandma Millie."

The Texas redistricting, like many of Mr. DeLay's actions,
broke all the usual rules of political fair play. But when
you believe, as Mr. DeLay does, that God is using you to
promote a "biblical worldview" in politics, the usual rules
don't apply. And the redistricting worked - it is a major
reason why anything short of a Democratic tidal wave in
November is likely to leave the House in Republican hands.

There is, however, one problem: a 100-year-old Texas law
bars corporate financing of State Legislature campaigns. An
inquiry is under way, and Mr. DeLay has hired two criminal
defense lawyers. Stay tuned.

But you shouldn't conclude that the system is working. Mr.
DeLay's current predicament is an accident. The party
machine that he has done so much to create has eliminated
most of the checks and balances in our government. Again
and again, Republicans in Congress have closed ranks to
block or emasculate politically inconvenient
investigations. If Enron hadn't collapsed, and if Texas
didn't still have a campaign finance law that is a relic of
its populist past, Mr. DeLay would be in no danger at all.

The larger picture is this: Mr. DeLay and his fellow
hard-liners, whose values are far from the American
mainstream, have forged an immensely effective alliance
with corporate interests. And they may be just one election
away from achieving a long-term lock on power.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/13/opinion/13KRUG.html?ex=1090720241&ei=1&en=ab2752f8734a1336

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 11:12:52