::.centre for public opinion and democracy.::
What candidate would you vote for in the 2004 U.S presidential election?
John Kerry (D) 47%
George W. Bush (R) 43%
Ralph Nader (I) 2%
Michael Badnarik (L) 1%
David Cobb (G) 0.2%
Michael Peroutka (C) 0.2%
Other 0.8%
Undecided 7%
NewMexiKen: Presidential debates
First presidential debate:
Thursday, September 30
University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
Jim Lehrer
Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 5
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
Gwen Ifill
Second presidential debate:
Friday, October 8
Washington University, St. Louis, MO
Charles Gibson
Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 13
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Bob Schieffer
Bush’s two biggest burdens By David Broder
The factors that make President Bush a vulnerable incumbent have almost nothing to do with his opponent, John Kerry. They stem directly from two closely linked high-stakes policy gambles that Bush chose on his own. Neither has worked out as he hoped.
The first gamble was the decision to attack Iraq; the second, to avoid paying for the war. …
If Bush can win re-election despite the failure of his two most consequential — and truly radical — decisions, he will truly be a political miracle man. But as his own nominating convention approaches, the odds are against him. …
Bush finds himself defending the loss of more than 1 million jobs during his tenure — the first president, as Democrats love to point out, since Herbert Hoover to suffer an actual job loss in office. The 32,000 jobs added to the economy in July were the smallest number this year, raising fears that the recovery proclaimed last spring may be losing steam. …
The president has suffered other blows to his credibility…. But they pale in importance compared to Iraq and the economy. In The Washington Post’s polls every month since January, more voters have voiced disapproval of his performance on those two issues than approval.
Time is short for changing people’s minds. Bush is dragging two huge weights – and he has no one to blame but himself.
Left and Right, seen as polarized, in same sorry rut by David Boaz
And the No.
1 way liberals and conservatives are alike: Both think they can run your life better than you can.
Liberals want to raise taxes
because they can spend your money better than you can. They don’t believe in school choice because you’re not capable of choosing a
school for your children. They think they can handle your healthcare, your retirement and your charitable contributions better than you
can.
—
David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of ”Libertarianism: A Primer” (Free Press,
1997). This article first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
Bullshit, Boaz. I don’t speak for anyone but myself.
However, as a liberal, I have no interest in running anyone else’s life. I do believe there are some things best done by government and
that everyone who can should pay some share of those costs. I believe in the commonwealth. I’m certain that Duhbya has disproven the
trickle-down, rising tide, piss-on-you-Jack theory.
You may want to read the rest of Boaz’s column. He is very balanced in
discrediting liberals and conservatives; only he knows and speaks the truth. mjh
What is this about?
I said Far From Balanced and Cheap Shots (the two entries just before this one), then he said and the last word (which unfortunately was‘reflexively’)..
Careful, John, your tone may be closer to Lush’s than Jefferson’s (”fallacious,” ”anything
useful,” ‘something to say’). Perhaps we’re all products of our time.
You may be shocked to learn I was raised on the scientific
method and enjoy logical discourse. When someone turns to you and says, ”gee, it’s hot today,” do you respond with, ”not
really, in the context of the last 100 years” or, more simply, ”prove it!” Or should I ask about your average reaction is to a
statistically significant sampling of people commenting on the weather — the anecdotal being meaningless?
I honestly don’t know what
to say at this point (gasp!). Do I have to conduct a rigorous study of anything I want to comment on? Do I have to present my views
weakly to be credible? Did I overlook the Blog Standards of Ethical Conduct? Understand, I’m not flaming you for your blog entry (I
almost made the blogroll!). I do feel weirdly singled out and ill to be in the company in which you put me — and I’m wise enough to
allow you may be right.
Just so you know, I’ve cut out the withering half of my reply. Lush would never do that.
peace,
mjh
For anyone listening in (and wondering ”what’s wrong with these boys?”): I do recommend John Fleck’s
writings, including his blog. I especially liked his piece on the
first big rain of the summer.
A Republican Adrift in Ohio
By Harold Meyerson
ELYRIA, Ohio — In theory, Dan Imbrogno shouldn’t be a voter George W. Bush has to worry about. Imbrogno, a lifelong Republican, Ohioan and business executive, looks like central casting’s idea of the model Bush voter. …
Imbrogno is a tried-and-true Republican, too, but even so, he says, “I won’t vote for Bush. I won’t necessarily vote for Kerry; I have trouble with his positions on some issues other than economics.” But he supports John Kerry’s proposal to end tax breaks for companies that have moved their jobs overseas.
Imbrogno is not alone. He’s active in the Northeast Ohio Coalition for American Manufacturing (NEOCAM), a group of corporate executives who Imbrogno estimates to be roughly 80 percent Republican. And among his fellow NEOCAM members, he says, “I know I’m not exceptional” in breaking with Bush.
The Democratic presidential candidate is probably
oblivious to the inconvenience and expense visited on hapless citizens. [S]ince the mistake was committed on Kerry’s
behalf [mjh: in an effort to protect his life], his campaign ought to reimburse passengers who were railroaded into paying tow
fee. — The Mighty Albuquerque Journal
”Oblivious”? How do you even spell that without a duhbya?
I’m puzzled by the Journal’s outrage on behalf of 6 citizens who were inconvenienced by the Secret Service’s decision to tow their
vehicles. I’m more puzzled still how the Journal hangs this on John Kerry (on the front page, no less, and, days later, the editorial
page). Is it possible that more than 6 people have been inconvenienced by the frequent visits of Dick Cheney and George Bush? Is it
possible that more than 6 people have paid a steep price in terms of loss of freedom, especially free speech and free association? We’ll
never know from the Journal, which isn’t about to investigate such matters. mjh
[published 8/24/04]