Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[LessinSF]

"Recent polls show Bush ahead of Kerry by 9 points (CBS-NYT), 6 points (Gallup) or 3 points (Zogby)."

Which is why I continue to like Kerry to win at 2-1 odds. Unless Zogby goes over 9 points, Kerry is the likely winner. Zogby is the only pollster who got 2000 right and is basing its figures on higher voter turnout than the others (which I agree with) and which favors Democrats. Although Zogby is increasingly hedging its bets and as the race gets closer, it has the Electoral College numbers at 297-241 for Kerry as of 9/20 - http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...04-an0920.html . I am not increasing my bet on Kerry, though, until after the debates.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore


From Amazon

Americans were shocked when French president Jacques Chirac played a leading role in opposing America’s position during the Iraq crisis. In OUR OLDEST ENEMY, the authors demonstrate that France has never been our friend, has always been our rival, and has often been our enemy.

Miller and Molesky return to America’s earliest history, relating the little-known story of the Deerfield Massacre of 1704, when a group of French and Indians massacred settlers in northern Massachusetts. They show that the French came to America’s aid only at the end of the Revolution and then with the interest of harming the British; during the Civil War, they supported the Confederacy. In the twentieth century, French demands at the Versailles Peace Conference paved the way for the rise of fascism in Germany and eventually required America to rescue France during World War II. The postwar period was also rife with disastrous actions on the part of the French, including Charles de Gaulle’s decision to pull out of NATO and his obstruction of American efforts to turn back Soviet expansion. French imperialism left troubling legacies as well: America’s involvement in Vietnam followed decades of conflict between the French and the Vietnamese; the genocidal Cambodian dictator Pol Pot was a product of French higher education; even the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq can be traced to French influences.

Candid and absorbing, OUR OLDEST ENEMY provides an authoritative explanation for the explosive anger toward France that has swept across America and continues to shape debates about our foreign policy and role in the world

Of course, I'm still bitter about Deerfield, but is France really our oldest enemy? I mean, Deerfield was years after we kicked those Dutch assholes out of New York, and Bilmore was just telling me the other day about back when he was a kid and the Spanish Armada ruled the seas - they were real bastards toward some of our privateers, uh, ships. And, let's not forget, the damn Indians were just waiting to scalp some of our ancestors as they came over.

And then I was talking to Hank and he said that back when he was a kid (this is years before Poiters and Agincourt, where he ran around the battlefield hacking Knights in two and yelling "Canned Frogs Legs, Anyone?") the real enemy wasn't the French but those bastards from up north (no, not the Canadians, the Vikings, you fools).

(Edited to add, look, just so no one thinks I'm soft on the snail-eaters, let me say that if we could drop a bomb on France that would drown anyone who ever disagreed with us -- and by us I mean George W. Bush, his Momma, and me -- in cream sauce I would, and I've even add garlic first)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
There are a number of responses to this, but quickly:


1. In the instant case, how do you think that he would do that and still say anything? Seems that Novak wasn't in the room. How would the source know who to trust? Seems to me like he'd just clam up.

2. Why do you think that less leaking to the press is a good thing?

1. Someone told Novak.

2. I don't. You misunderstand me.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The stuff I quoted from Kinsley wasn't his argument -- it was his caricature or summary of one side of the debate. In the piece I quoted -- which I would link to if I still had it up on my screen -- he was discussing exactly the problem you describe.

My point is that Novak is posing as principled, but isn't. I take it you agree. eta: Club seems to feel that Novak isn't principled. NTTAWWT.

You bet your bippy I agree with you then. Loose lips sink ships and all that. I'm sure its not hard to believe, but I think Novak is another good candidate for execution. The guy is a fucking traitor, and even if there was no immediate harm in his immediate conduct, there would be great long-term harm in excusing him.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure my boy from Illinois is gonna hang him. Safire made it sound like the prosecutor is on a witch hunt.

[sgtclub]

Anybody listening or watching?

[Santorum]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Anybody listening or watching?

I'm watching, although I'm not a regular so maybe you don't give a rat's ass. Given your political viewpoint, I'm interested in how you think it's going. It seems to me like Kerry is debating Will Ferrell, but I'm so partisan that I question my judgment.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Santorum
I'm watching, although I'm not a regular so maybe you don't give a rat's ass. Given your political viewpoint, I'm interested in how you think it's going. It seems to me like Kerry is debating Will Ferrell, but I'm so partisan that I question my judgment.

I'm listening on the radio and it sounds pretty even, but I've talked to GOPers who are watcing on TV and they think Bush is getting beat.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Anybody listening or watching?

Me, but I am working, too, so can't give it my full attention.

I think they are both saying the right things for their bases, but I don't think this will have any effect on the undecideds. Neither has made a fool out of themselves.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm listening on the radio and it sounds pretty even, but I've talked to GOPers who are watcing on TV and they think Bush is getting beat.

Hmm, not my take on it, but I am thinking about how this appeals to the undecideds who are the only people who matter in this election. I think this is a wash with them. They are both just saying the same things that they always say. There is nothing new here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm listening on the radio and it sounds pretty even, but I've talked to GOPers who are watcing on TV and they think Bush is getting beat.

I've seen bits. Bush could be doing much better. Last time I thought he honestly answered questions. On Iraq at least, this time, he seems to be defensively mouthing talking points. See Gore 2000. He is doing better away from Iraq, and there are 2 more to go so.........

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Hmm, not my take on it, but I am thinking about how this appeals to the undecideds who are the only people who matter in this election. I think this is a wash with them. They are both just saying the same things that they always say. There is nothing new here.

I'm worried that if the major media believes Kerry won big, it could cause a shift in momentum.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm worried that if the major media believes Kerry won big, it could cause a shift in momentum.

Good thing that Fox News is around to tell the truth.

BTW - I think that the manicure and the spray-on tan did more damage to JFKs credibility than the Dems realize.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
I'm listening on the radio and it sounds pretty even, but I've talked to GOPers who are watcing on TV and they think Bush is getting beat.

NRO seems to think Bush is angry and kicking it up.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Me
BTW - I think that the manicure and the spray-on tan did more damage to JFKs credibility than the Dems realize.

Big time.

Eta: Citing Charles de Galle in an anecdote is not going to win Kerry any votes he wasn’t going to get already.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I've seen bits. Bush could be doing much better. Last time I thought he honestly answered questions. On Iraq at least, this time, he seems to be defensively mouthing talking points. See Gore 2000. He is doing better away from Iraq, and there are 2 more to go so.........

I'm thinking so far Kerry is handing Bush his ass. It was like he laid a trap. Bush just keeps saying over and over, Iraq was the right thing to do, it was the right thing to do, Kerry can say he would have done something else but it was the right thing to do, then BAM! Kerry comes out with outsourcing capturing Bin Laden to a couple of Afgan warlords while the US shifts focus and goes to Iraq. I'm not sure it was fair, but it was a strong move.