Posted on 10/12/2004 9:05:47 PM PDT by WarrenC
Tuesday, October 12, 2004 Posted at 4:00 PM, and updated thereafter.
Bush-Cheney '04 senior strategist Matthew Dowd on CNN's Inside Politics earlier today:
"I think fundamentally, this is going to be a race that is a choice, and I think what you see even in the Gallup poll, your poll, when you ask them on the important issues "Who do you trust more, who do you trust more to deal with Iraq?" the public trusts the president more; "Who do you trust more on the war on terror?" the public trusts the president more; even on the economy which has been a signature issue of the Kerry campaign, it is almost dead even. So I think still, fundamentally, this is a race where the public is going to decide who has better plans, better vision, on these issues. And right now, on two of the three biggest issues, we have an advantage, and on the other one it is basically tied."
I put the question to my callers: What is the choice on 11/2. here's a list of their responses:
Churchill v. Chamberlain
Reagan v. Carter
offense v. defense
advance v. retreat
resolve v. dithering
blunt talk v. nuance
England and Australia v. France and Germany
Allawi in power v. Saddam in power
post 9/11 v. post-Cole
values of America at its founding v. the values of Europe today
leader v. talker
lightning v. lightning bug
White House v. waffle house
Noah's Ark v. Titanic
Lincoln v. McClellan
limits on abortion v. no limits on abortion and taxpayer-funded abortions
parental notification v. no parental notification of teens seeking abortion
tax cut v. tax hike
private sector growth v. public sector growth
cheeseburger v. escargot
honest humility v. prideful arrogance
"Let's roll" v. roll over
Thanksgiving in Baghdad v. Christmas Eve in Cambodia
F-102 v. hot air balloon
September 12 v. September 10
reality v. make believe
big fish v. big fish story
Patton v. Peter Pan
Popeye v. Wimpy
Iceberg v. crushed ice
Battle Hymn of the Republic v. Kumbaya
Pat Tillman v. Michael Moore
D-Day v. Dunkirk
Brit Hume v. Chris Matthews
G-suit v. stuffed suit
national identity v. international anonymity
to be v. not to be
G-man v. g-string
tastes great v. less filling
Gary Cooper v. Inspector Clouseau
Red Dawn v. Reds
007 v. Austin Powers
Osama running from us v. Osama coming at us
adult v. adolescent
Henry V v. Dauphin
Braveheart v. Chickenheart
Jim Brown v. Ricky Williams
hard blow v. blow hard
Heart of America v. Le Car
steak v. pate (Lileks)
hard sharp cheddar v. runny brie (Lileks)
red, white, blue v. tie die
10 gallon stetson v. the magic hat
Saving Private Ryan v. Gigle
rock v. hard face
world series v. world cup
eagle v. magpie
cowboy hat v. blue helmet (radioblogger.com)
bulldog v. poodle
Laura v. Theresa
John Wayne v. Jane Fonda
Ray Lewis v. Jerry Lewis
filet mignon v. ground turkey
safety blitz v. prevent defense
"nuculur" and nuisance (radioblogger.com)
body armor v. body bag
global freedom v. global test
we the people v. we are the world
adverb v. adjective (Adam Youngman)
big rocks v. botox
Toby Keith v. Milli Vanilli
bazooka v. oompaloompa
Bring it on v. time out
backbone v. back flip
Thor v. Loki
action v. a plan
character v. caricature
stars and stripes v. smoke and mirrors
Arnold v. Gray
Hannibal v. Varro
marriage v. same sex marriage
Dirty Harry v. Barney Fife
Alexander v. Darius
"Blood, sweat, toil, and tears" v. "Peace in our time."
"Never, never, never, never, never give up" v. "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"
Charge of the Light Brigade v. Electric Light Parade (Adam Youngman)
a Bradley v. a Yugo
hard hat v. beret
Lambeau Field v. Lambert Field
101rst Airborne v. 101 Dalmatians
Old Glory v. white flag
road warrior v. road kill
Mr. T v. mystery
logical v. pathological
Jaws v. Flipper
men v. boys
Zorro v.zero
Secretariat v. Frances the Talking Mule
mini skirt v. burkah
victory v. Vichy
God Bless America v. God-less America
compass v. windsock
Predator v. prey
tough calls v. pratt falls
The Star Spangled Banner v. The Internationale
composure v. poser
boots on the ground v. hands in the air
"I'm the greatest!" v. "No mas."
Captain Kirk v. Colonel Klink
safer shores v. manicures
a grand slam v. french toast
tough in the trenches v. courting the frenches
sanity v. vanity
"bring it on" v. "Not in the face! Not in the face."
Spanky v. Alfalfa
fire power v. flower power
bunker busters v. spit balls
Baghdad '03 v. Dien Bien Phu '54
iron v. irony
Navy SEALs v. navy beans
high and inside v. intentional walk
shock and awe v. hem and haw
Semper Fi v. simpering
I will add more entries as I make my way through a flood of e-mail on the subject, but this caller-generated list tells me that John Kerry hasn't got a chance. He's branded himself, with help from Bush-Cheney '04 for sure, as weak and vacillating, a brand that cannot be sold in the post 9/11 America, with the echoes of that day that sounded in Bali, Madrid, Beslan, Taba and a hundred other places of terror and tragedy. "The choice," as Matthew Dowd put it, and as all these callers and e-mailers amplified it, could not be more stark.
Lileks pointed out that if Al Franker were to hold such an invitational --and assuming someone lent him an audience for the day-- those callers would key off of Bush's alleged lack of intelligence or eloquence, or perhaps his faith in God. He's correct, of course, but I think the fact that there could be a list doesn't detract from the significance of this list. Look at the semiotics of Kerry as displayed on this list: French, failure, weak, defeat, effete, elite. And the choice before the ocountry is for president in wartime.
Bush wins 40 states. Maybe more.
Not a chance in hell.
I hope President Bush's team already has the list.
Interesting. I'm hoping this election turns out like 2002 when we were pleasantly surprised at the pickup in the Senate by the Republicans. The polls were all gloom and doom, and then the wins came.
I think the election will be close, which is troubling since there is massive fraud going on. Three more weeks....
You're sniffing glue pal.
Take your obnoxious post and stick it in your ear.
hell.....isnt that another word for DU ?
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10550
Well, if you are going with the literal meaning, I would have to agree with you. But in my statement, it means there are at least 11 states that will vote for Kerry, including the one I live in. Kerry will get at least 200 EVs. I just hope that the Bush campaign is going to spend $100,000,000+ in ads the last few weeks, otherwise, Kerry may gain enough momentum to hit 270 EVs.
Either people are lying about to the pollsters or the pollsters or "adjusting" the numbers. Many polls adjust their numbers in order to "balance" for various factors. Usually this means moving some votes over to Kerry's side.
Based on several polls, I'm thinking that Democrats are now identifying themselves as Republicans/conservatives but claiming they're going to vote for Kerry. (Heck, the DNC is sending out orders to screw with polls as much as possible.) A poll I saw a few days ago said that 20% of "conservatives" were going to vote for Kerry. Maybe the 1% that make up the Buchananites will just to try and spite Bush, but no way it is near 20%.
I tried to call in to Hugh Hewitt with my contributions but the lines were jammed. They are...
The Little Red Hen vs. Chicken Little
kicking ass vs. kissing ass
"Boots or flip-flops?"
I wonder if there is any way for these pollsters to prove that who they are talking to belongs to the political party they state? If the RATs are indeed doing this, then Bush could very well be comfortably in the lead.
I think the poll you're referring to was the USA Today/Gallup poll which had some curious data. It had 24% of the conservatives voting for Kerry, and that Bush only had a 5 point lead overall in the southern states. What a boatload of crap! That's why I'm telling all of you that if you obsess over every single poll out there it's gonna drive you crazy.
It was even more curious than that. Kerry led with those with post graduate degrees. Bush had a lead in every other category of education and Bush was behind overall by a point. Lot of pinheads in that poll. :-}
It was even more curious than that. Kerry led with those with post graduate degrees. Bush had a lead in every other category of education and Bush was behind overall by a point. Lot of pinheads in that poll. :-}
Amen to that. Poll fatigue is getting bad.
Not only do I think Gallup is playing with their numbers a bit, probably in response to the Moveon.org attack, but like I said earlier, Rats are claiming to be Republican/Conservative and then saying they're going to vote for Kerry.
Pinheads like articulate lawyer types who seem to absorb and thrive on detail. They also don't like violence or bible toting types much. Just why Kerry'a pathological lying doesn't bother them much I am not sure. Maybe it is relativism gone bad. Or maybe because they think a liar is better than a dunce, or like my brother, both a dunce and as much as a liar as Kerry. Or maybe a disproportionate number of them have their heads up their asses, although you will never catch me subscribing to that theory, in public at least. It's too populist and too well whatever, for me to go there.
Read the WaPost tonight or tomorrow. Something going on there. A couple of articles that are definitely helpful to Bush. Weird.
Without reading the articles whatever they are, I have been alone on this board in saying the Washington Post is a splendid newspaper, and to lump it in with some of the liberal rags is a silly conflation.
Are you accusing me of lumping silly conflations? :-}
Just jumping in here to ask a question... Where are these 100,000 new voters in Fl. and somewhere else.. can't remember.. coming from. I mean, are they Democrats or Republicans? What stirred them up? I'm getting worried that there are a lot of voters signed up that we have no idea why they're voting. Did someone just round them all up and bus them in? Show them a number and tell them to punch it? That did happen once a few years ago. But they just kept on punching other numbers. Maybe these are the same type of voters. It's really really bothering me. They said they have more people registering now that they've ever had.
Perhaps the Dems are "seminar pollees", lying to the Polsters just as "seminar callers" try to worm their way into Rush and Hannity talk shows. We've all heard them...."I've been a long term Republican/Conservative, but my mind has been changed since Bush has been in office, blah, blah, blah....". It may be a massive ploy to skew the polls by the DNC. Perhaps just another technique developed since Florida 2000.
I suspect that accusation might have traction, but I can't prove it, so I assume a position of modest patience on that one. :) All I know, is that only Torie that I know of has said good things about the Washington Post, and that I think the rag is fair and balanced these days. It probably is because Woodward is running things, and he is a Rockefeller type Pubbie. I know the type, and the species is not wholly foreign to me.
Following the second debate the first MSNBC flashpoll had Kerry winning 77% to 23% when most objective observers thought it was a Bush win or draw. I may be wrong on the exact numbers, but I do remember that Kerry had a huge margin. Don't think people aren't influenced by the numbers game, and the Dems know it. I have no doubt they are rigging the polls with a huge misinformation campaign to convince the duped out there of Kerry's comeback. We all know now what levels the Dems will go to win this election, so it shouldn't surprise any of us.
Already that's suspect--there's NO way Bush is anywhere near up only a 5 point average in the South (would be just like saying Kerry is up on average 5 points in the NE and Western Seaboard). As for the conservatives, that # is hogwash--W's base is rock solid, he has well over 90% of it intact.
"Pinheads like articulate lawyer types who seem to absorb and thrive on detail."
Don't give lawyers that much credit. The field is overburdened with some whomping morons and mediocre thinkers, and lots wind up in Congress!
The reason we have problems in this country is that lawyers thrive on sophistry while those in business, engineering, and the solid sciences rely on sets of facts and theories that actually arrive at an outcome which may have variables, but if the premise is not correct, the product or result will fail.
GWB is trained as an businessman. He has an MBA from Harvard. He isn't trained in sophistry or equivocation. I have little respect for lawyers at this juncture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.