Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Slave, help me. The anti-bush guys said all that matters is Zogby, and he has Kerry up. Then, last poll, Zogby has Bush up, so now its not Zogby that matters anymore?

Per Zogby, Bush doesn't win the elctoral college unless he wins the popular vote by at least 6%, and more like 9%, and he's only at 4%. It will be rather delicious irony.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Per Zogby, Bush doesn't win the elctoral college unless he wins the popular vote by at least 6%, and more like 9%, and he's only at 4%. It will be rather delicious irony.

Five days ago, Zogby's tracking poll had Kerry up 3. Now Bush is up 4. (More here.) I have a hard time believing that things have been that volatile in that time. In the same time that Zogby has seen Bush gain 7, Rasmussen has had Kerry gain 1.5, and the WaPo (LV) has had Kerry gain 6 (through yesterday -- check that site in two hours for today's numbers). It's just all very strange. The polls are really all over the place.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Summoning an efficient market theory update: Kerry down to +115.

This guy thinks they are being manipulated: http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_10...93770288631266

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Five days ago, Zogby's tracking poll had Kerry up 3. Now Bush is up 4. (More here.) I have a hard time believing that things have been that volatile in that time. In the same time that Zogby has seen Bush gain 7, Rasmussen has had Kerry gain 1.5, and the WaPo (LV) has had Kerry gain 6 (through yesterday -- check that site in two hours for today's numbers). It's just all very strange. The polls are really all over the place.

so you're saying by Friday Bush'll be up 11? sell short Less!

[sgtclub]

The NYT suggests that importation from Canada will have a negligible effect on drug prices in the states.

Even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that allowing Canadian drug imports would have a "negligible" impact on drug spending.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/bu...er=rssuserland

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
This guy thinks they are being manipulated: http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_10...93770288631266

Luskin is a bit more of a markets expert than calling him "this guy" may suggest.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Luskin is a bit more of a markets expert than calling him "this guy" may suggest.

I know. But being that he's tied by a degree with a Bush Administrative Cabinent Secretary, I didn't want to taint the debate.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The NYT suggests that importation from Canada will have a negligible effect on drug prices in the states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/bu...er=rssuserland

I heard a lot of concerns from pharma lawyers this week about this stuff. How did we get to the point where our companies are selling stuff overseas at a lower profit than they sell it here? Was this negotiated by our administration and, if so, did our allies threaten to otherwise copy the drugs if we didn't sell it on the cheap? I'm serious, as I don't know the answer. To restate the question, what was Canada and Europe's negotiating position in this?

If they took the position that they would copy and/or ignore intellectual property, than along with defense spending, I think we've been given more than enough reason to start fighting back against the socialists and other freeloaders. But I may be wrong insofar as I don't know how we got to this point...

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

How incredibly ironic that the rought treatment at Gitmo exposed by the NYT includes listening to Rage Against The Machine played loudly. What a delicious Sunday this is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/po...rtner=homepage

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I recommend, especially to my Republican friends, the editorial from the Winston-Salem Journal .

I've been noting on this board that I wasn't sure why conservatives were so solidly behind Bush, given his record. The Winston-Salem Journal, which has been endorsing nothing but Republican presidential candidates for over 30 years, decided it was time to sit out an election on the endorsement front. It's interesting reading.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I recommend, especially to my Republican friends, the editorial from the Winston-Salem Journal .

I've been noting on this board that I wasn't sure why conservatives were so solidly behind Bush, given his record. The Winston-Salem Journal, which has been endorsing nothing but Republican presidential candidates for over 30 years, decided it was time to sit out an election on the endorsement front. It's interesting reading.

In this vein, here's a conservative case for Kerry, by Clyde Prestowitz, an evangelical Christian who served in the Reagan Administration:

• As a former Reagan-administration official, registered Republican, born-again Christian, and traditional conservative, I am going to vote for John Kerry. So are many other old-line Republicans. Here's why.
  
  While the Bush administration calls itself "conservative," its use of the term is frankly Orwellian. It not only deprives the word of meaning, but also presents the administration's philosophy as the opposite of what it actually is.
  
  Conservatives have always believed in fiscal responsibility: in being sure you could pay your way and in providing for the future. Conservatives pay down debt, rather than adding to it. This doesn't necessarily mean balancing the budget every year, but at a minimum it means striving toward balance as a top priority.
  
  The Bush approach is completely at odds with such thinking. If any proof were needed, it was amply provided in the president's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. With Congressional Budget Office projections showing oceans of red ink for the indefinite future, President Bush promised more tax cuts. His audience cheered.
  
  Conservatives are often well off, but they understand that the best way to preserve the society in which they are doing so well is to ensure that all its members can survive at a reasonable standard of living. It was the conservative Otto von Bismarck, after all, who first introduced social-security programs in 19th Century Germany for just that reason.
  
  Conservatives do not loot the Treasury or bet the future health of their society on the chance that the best-case scenario will actually materialize. They provide for the worst case. So a conservative would have expected that the president's tax cuts and promises of more to come would at least have been accompanied by plans for cutting expenditures.
  
  That expectation would have been disappointed, however, as the president promised about $1 trillion of new spending programs that, given his tax cuts, can be paid for only with red ink.
  
  Which brings us to a second fundamental principle of conservatism: small government. From the founding of the Republic until now, conservatives have feared the threat to liberty posed by big government.
  Conservative icon Ronald Reagan came to power primarily by focusing on big government as the source of most of the country's problems. But the Bush administration has presided over a steady increase in the size of government, as federal expenditure has risen as a percentage of gross domestic product, after declining in the late 1990s.
  
  Conservatives have never been enthusiastic about foreign adventures or about messianic undertakings. John Adams made the point early in our history when he emphasized that "America does not go abroad to slay dragons."
  
  It was the liberal Democrats Woodrow Wilson and John Kennedy who committed the United States to making the world safe for democracy and to "bearing any burden and paying any price to assure the success of liberty." These are fine-sounding words, but they are not the words of conservatives. Thus, when President Bush promises to democratize the Mideast, conservatives cringe. So much so, in fact, that several former high-ranking officials of the Reagan and first Bush administrations have told me that they are not supporting the president for re-election.
  
  This is because they know that, administration rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, we are not safer today than we were three years ago. Far from destroying al-Qaida and cutting its alleged links with Saddam Hussein, we have made Iraq into a magnet for terrorists. Worse, there is a real possibility that Osama bin Laden could gain control of our ally Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons and operational long-range missiles. Safe? Not on your life.
  
  Nor are we freer. Conservatives are nothing if not steadfast defenders of individual rights, rule of law, and due process. Yet the Patriot Act and the procedures at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere have visibly infringed on all of these. It is ironic that even as it preaches about widening the circle of freedom abroad, the administration is reducing it at home.
  
  Before the current campaign, it might have been argued that at least in affirming the importance of faith and respecting those who profess it the administration had embraced traditional conservative views. But in the wake of the Swift Boat ads attacking John Kerry, even this argument can no longer be maintained. As an elder of the Presbyterian Church, I found that those ads were not at all in the Christian tradition. John McCain rightly condemned them as dishonest and dishonorable. The president should have, too. That he did not undermines his credibility on questions of faith.
  
  Some say it's just politics. But that's the whole point. More is expected of people of faith than "just politics."
  
  The fact is that the Bush administration might better be called radical or romantic or adventurist than conservative. And that's why real conservatives are leaning toward Kerry.

via Steve Clemons

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
While the Bush administration calls itself "conservative," its use of the term is frankly Orwellian. -- Clyde Prestowitz

Board Motto (Hi Hank!)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In this vein, here's a conservative case for Kerry, by Clyde Prestowitz, an evangelical Christian who served in the Reagan Administration:
...

And that's why real conservatives are leaning toward Kerry.[/list][/size]

via Steve Clemons

1.) Who?
2.) That last sentence should say that's why I'm voting against Bush. Its one thing to point to principles of conservatism that are allegedly being violated by Bush (I say allegedly because conservatives are not opposed to bringing Democracy anywhere feasible where it serves our interests... see his magnet-for-terrorists comment), and it would be something entirely different if he could point to even a single redeeming quality of Kerry. You guys got a Republican equivalent of Zell Miller (i.e., someone relevant) who supports Kerry, or are we going to hear from the son of Reagan's milkman in the '30s as the election gets closer.

Have a good day my good man.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
1.) Who?
2.) That last sentence should say that's why I'm voting against Bush. Its one thing to point to principles of conservatism that are allegedly being violated by Bush (I say allegedly because conservatives are not opposed to bringing Democracy anywhere feasible where it serves our interests... see his magnet-for-terrorists comment), and it would be something entirely different if he could point to even a single redeeming quality of Kerry. You guys got a Republican equivalent of Zell Miller (i.e., someone relevant) who supports Kerry, or are we going to hear from the son of Reagan's milkman in the '30s as the election gets closer.

Have a good day my good man.

Hello

As far I understand it, the opposition to Kerry is based largely on the idea that Kerry and the Democrats are not serious about the war on terrorism. This is more on the order of a Happy Bed Time Tale for Young Republicans than it is based on anything, but, whatever.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
1.) Who?
2.) That last sentence should say that's why I'm voting against Bush. Its one thing to point to principles of conservatism that are allegedly being violated by Bush (I say allegedly because conservatives are not opposed to bringing Democracy anywhere feasible where it serves our interests... see his magnet-for-terrorists comment), and it would be something entirely different if he could point to even a single redeeming quality of Kerry. You guys got a Republican equivalent of Zell Miller (i.e., someone relevant) who supports Kerry, or are we going to hear from the son of Reagan's milkman in the '30s as the election gets closer.

Have a good day my good man.

Hello

I haven't gone looking for prominent names, but I'm more interested in logic than names anyway.

A friend of mine who describes himself as conservative and who was a staunch Romney backer in the last gubernatorial election here phrased it pretty succinctly recently when he said that he would rather elect someone he disagrees with who is competant than someone he agrees with who is incompetant. His view was that when someone fails a 4 year job interview, you take your chance on the next acceptable candidate even if they graduated from the wrong school. He's one of the people who has convinced me that George Bush is no conservative.

Take it for what it is worth.