I think 9/11 is the trump card that causes many people to overlook the poor decision making that has characterized Bush’s presidency. Some people perceived Bush as strong and decisive in that crisis and are extremely reluctant to let go of that impression, even when his policies are contradictory to their values.
By the way, I have never called Bush evil. Just deluded, excessively partisan, recklessly stubborn, arrogant, and a poor decision maker.
What John Mace said.
I thought the first tax cut was a good idea for the time, and I thought and still think the dividend tax cut was great, because of corporate governance issues.
These are things that can be reasonably discussed and reasonably agreed/disagreed with.
He pissed it all away on Iraq.
I used my wife earlier as an anecdotal example, and I happen to think she’s a good one. We’re over 40, and she has never voted in her life. She absolutely despises politicians, and she is not open to debate on that subject. Still, when I asked her to register, she didn’t even put up a fight. Basically, she just asked me where she should sign.
At the moment when that happened, you could have knocked me over with a feather. I still can’t believe she’s going into a voting booth. Just yesterday, she presented me with a sample ballot, on her own, and asked me to tell her exactly how to work the voting machine.
There is simply no way to describe the magnitude of this turnabout. She may never again vote in her life, but she’s voting in this election. For Kerry. And believe me, it’s not because she likes him.
“Bring it on”
At Tradesports, Bush is leading Kerry 53-47. Pretty close, but a Bush lead.
On the Iowa Electronic Markets, Bush is leading by a similar margin. However if you look at this graph, you can see what was a significant momentum shift for Kerry a few days ago, but what looks like a shift back towards Bush in the last day or two. Still, the Iowa Markets show the race closing back to where it was before the Republican convention - essentially a toss-up.
The big question is how the Bin Laden tape affects things. I think it’s going to push people towards Bush big time. Everyone knows that a Bush re-election would be a kick in the teeth of Bin laden, and that if Kerry wins Bin Laden will be triumphant. As will the insurgents in Iraq. There will be ululating in the streets for sure.
Bin Laden’s tape has reminded people just how much that would suck. IMO, this tape was good for at least 2 points for Bush.
Bin Laden was supposed to be dead three years ago. A reddish stain of abstract art on the wall of a cave in Tora Bora.
Instead, he’s alive and well, and making videotapes taunting Americans. How exactly, Sam Stone, is this tape supposed to be good for Bush? And how would Bush’s re-election be “a kick in the teeth” to Bin Laden, who seems to be doing just fine, thank you, during the Bush Administration?
I think what Sam Stone is saying is that, even though it is hard to imagine any administration being nicer to Bin Laden than the Bush administration, looking the other way when he attacks our country and letting him continue his terrorist operations while we inexplicably go attack one of his enemies, and even though the timing of the video is likely an attempt to prevent the election of someone who might actually come after him (Bush has even admitted Bin Laden is not important to him), the public will only see what is on the surface: Bin Laden mocking Bush. Thus, they will vote for Bush reflexively out of hatred for Bin Laden.
What I’m saying is regardless of what you think Bush has or hasn’t done right in the war on terror, Bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, and the other militants will see a Bush defeat as a victory for them. Count on it. There will be cheering and gloating and statements about the defeat of the evil Bush and how America’s policies have been repudiated. Hell, when Bush 41 lost his re-election, Saddam gloated about it, and delighted in pointing out that he was still in power when the mighty George Bush was defeated.
That’s just what’s going to happen. If the people aren’t thinking about the war on terror, Kerry benefits. Bin Laden gets in their face, and they’re going to think, “Damn, I hate Bush, but I really want to stick it to that bearded lunatic. I’m not going to give him the satisfaction of thinking he won a battle in the war.”
I’m not sayin this is a lot of people. It’s the swing voters. If they’re truly undecided between two bad choices, they’re likely to pick the choice that pisses off Bin Laden the most.
Now I understand the nuanced argument that perhaps Bin Laden is trying to engineer the result he wants, because he needs Bush as a foil to whip up his people. I think there’s even some logic in that. But I don’t think that argument is going to have much penetration into that demographic. They’re going to make decisions based on their emotions.
I just can’t see this helping Kerry. Pointing out that this highlights that Bush hasn’t gotten him? The public already knows that. And I think they understand that it’s very hard to find a single individual who could be in any of two or three countries. That’s why American policy has never been do define success in terms that require the capture or killing of a specific individual.
Since when do we care what the hell these people think about our elections? Do you now care what France thinks about, well, anything? :dubious:
Well, I think you’re wrong, but what’s funny to me is that you expect the American public to be on one hand emotional and uninformed, and on the other rational and reasonable. WTF?
Bush once said he wanted OBL “dead or alive.” WTF happened to that? Fucking flip-flopper.
I agree with Kerry. Nabbing OBL should always have been a higher priority that Saddam Hussein, especially since it is clear that the latter never represented a threat to the US, or even to the weakest of Iraq’s neighbors.
Gosh, I don’t see how that’s true. Bin Laden has managed to stay alive throughout Bush’s administration, because Bush hasn’t put much effort into catching him. Wouldn’t bin Laden want that to continue, rather than risking a new President who might actually concentrate U.S. force of arms on fighting terrorism?
I’ve often wondered about that. Why American policy has never defined success as the killing or capture of a single individual. Many’s the time I’ve pondered that very question. But Sam has lain that issue to rest. Because its too difficult. That’s why American policy has never defined success that way.
Yep…Learn sumthin’ every day.
Yes, it’s hard…really really hard work. Really. Hard Work.
Look! Duckies!
Bush will win and the dem’s will cry for the next four years and not get anything accomplished.
Quoth bin Laden:
Bin Laden openly mocks Bush regarding his supposed “War on Terror”, and more of the same, should Bush be re-elected, would consititute a “kick in the teeth”?
Personally, I’m he guessing won’t be needing the services of his dentist any time soon…
The election is closer than that. It occurs to me that these betting sites represent more men than women. Of course Bush would lead there.
bin Laden is an evil bastard, but he’s not stupid. He wants the tape to push people toward Bush. He likes having Bush as president - it’s great for fueling worldwide Muslim hatred of America.
If Bush gets re-elected, I’ll spend the next four years getting rich selling bumper stickers saying, “I told you so!”
OK, time to weigh in.
Popular vote: Kerry 50%, Bush 48%, Nader, Badnarik, Cobb, etc. split the rest.
Electoral vote: Kerry 322, Bush 216.
I’m surprised none of our conservatives have gotcha’d ya yet. 
What ‘everyone knows’ aside, I’ll be damned if I can figure out how Bush’s winning a new term would bother bin Laden in the least.
Well of course the insurgents will rejoice if Bush loses. He’s fucked up their country big time; do you think they wish him well?
I doubt it. If Kerry wins, they will know that they’re up against an opponent who won’t get distracted by a pre-9/11 agenda like the last President did.
If I’d been Saddam, I would have too. And the connection is…?
[quote]
Yeah, but that fact hadn’t been in their face until yesterday. They also know things are going badly in Iraq, but it doesn’t help Bush when a specific event reminds them of that fact.
My prediction: Kerry will be declared the winner with exactly 270 electoral votes – but even that may take a little while. At that time, Florida will still be undetermined, but Kerry will eventually be awarded Florida’s electoral votes also.
Bush will take Iowa, Virginia, Arkansas and Missouri. (He starts the elections with more states and electors that are solidly behind him.) Kerry will take Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, West Virginia, New Mexico, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, Michigan and Hawaii. I don’t know that the other states that I haven’t mentioned are all that contested although Mississippi and Tennessee won’t give Bush the strong mandate he assumes that he will get from them. (Too bad that it is all or nothing at all.)
Bush won’t want to concede, but Laura knows this trick that she can do with her fingers and his earlobe.
I really like Teresa, but I’m going to miss Laura.
Laura Bush knows oomox?