Continue reading "Explaining Why We Fight To Our Children, Part I" »
Continue reading "Explaining Why We Fight To Our Children, Part V" »
Ed Morrissey has blogged at Captain's Quarters since 2003, and has a daily radio show at BlogTalkRadio, where he serves as Political Director. Called "Captain Ed" by his readers, Ed is a father and grandfather living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, a native Californian who moved to the North Star State because of the weather.
Kerry Flip-Flops On Foreign Leader Endorsements
After maintaining that he had met with several foreign leaders who told him that they want him elected, John Kerry's campaign suddenly has shifted positions on overseas endoresements:
An adviser to US presidential challenger John Kerryhas criticised Australian Prime Minister John Howard over "inappropriate" public comments wishing for President George W. Bush to be reelected.Australians had complained when Bush and his aides publicly commented on Australian politics and had told Bush to steer clear of US politics, adviser Kurt Campbell told The Sydney Morning Herald.
"I would remind Australians that the same applies at home. Such comments about our politics are a little inappropriate," he said, reacting to Howard's comment last month about Bush, saying: "I hope he wins."
It's a far cry from Kerry's strategy in March, when he told everyone that foreign leaders had told him how important it was for him to win the election. He had no problem with heads of state weighing in on our election, as long as they endorsed ... John Kerry. Let's not forget that Kerry's sister Diana made quite a splash in the run-up to the Australian elections, ostensibly to campaign among American ex-patriates but also criticizing Howard's policy of alliance with George Bush.
Besides, Kerry can hardly complain about John Howard publicly indicating a preference for George Bush when the other choice publicly called him "bribed" and "coerced". This is the result of John Kerry's vaunted diplomacy; first the Polish president scolds Kerry for slandering his country's alliance with the US, and now the Australian PM gets his own payback, post-election. Instead of broadening our alliances, John Kerry has only demonstrated a talent for pissing off our friends.
Final Gallup Poll A Muddle
Gallup announced the results of its final presidential poll, but its odd report and jumble of state results make it easily the most bizarre and forgettable poll of the bunch. Even its attempt to call the race looks transparently laughable:
Bush gets 49% and Kerry gets 47% among likely voters in the poll, which was conducted Friday-Sunday. Three percent offered no opinion. The poll has a margin of error of 2 percentage points, meaning Bush does not have a clear lead. Ralph Nader failed to break the 1% threshold, as all other candidates as a group drew a single percentage point of support.The poll used a sample of 2,014 national adults — a larger sample than past polls, which reduces the margin of error. In addition, in this final poll, Gallup used a statistical model to allocate undecided voters to the candidates. Using that model, the race is in a 49%-49% tie, with Nader getting 1% and all other candidates also receiving 1%.
We can stop there for a moment. Their poll shows Bush up 49-47, but when they attempt to divvy up the undecideds, Bush gets none of them? How exactly did that methodology work out? Gallup cannot be seriously predicting that almost every single undecided voter will go Democratic. If so, they need a new computer model.
Their state results look equally unusual:
• Florida: Kerry with 49%, Bush with 46%.• Ohio: Kerry 50%, Bush 46%.
• Pennsylvania: Bush 50%, Kerry 46%.
• Iowa: Bush 48%, Kerry 46%.
• Minnesota: Kerry leading Bush, 52%-44%.
• Wisconsin: Bush leading Kerry, 52%-44%.
Bush has consistently led in Florida and lately by a significant margin. Kerry has led consistently in Pennsylvania, but by a much smaller margin. Ohio has been a tossup, of course, and may wind up in Kerry's column, although I find it unlikely. But even if this falls out exactly as shown, Bush wins the election. All he needs is one of the three big eastern states and a conversion of a significant Midwestern state.
I'd say this is a Hail Mary pass, designed to differentiate itself from other pollsters and gamble on a big scoop. It's a disappointing finish to an otherwise respectable campaign effort by Gallup.
Cheney Zings Kerry For Polling On Osama Tape
I first saw the report on Drudge that the Democrats took a poll to see how the Osama bin Laden tape played with the American electorate immediately after it aired. I thought at the time, "I'm not going to link to this ... even the Democrats aren't that foolish." Apparently I must stand corrected, as the Kerry campaign admitted their party conducted the poll, only after Dick Cheney slammed Kerry for not knowing what to do without sticking his finger in the air:
"The thing that I find amazing about it is that John Kerry's first response was to go conduct a poll," Cheney told supporters in Fort Dodge, Iowa. "He went into the field ... to find out what he should say about this tape of Osama bin Laden.""It's as though he doesn't know what he believes until he has to go and check the polls, his finger in the air, to see which way the wind is blowing and then he'll make a decision," said the vice president, who offered no evidence to back up his claim. "George Bush doesn't need a poll to know what he believes, especially about Osama bin Laden."
"I don't think that's a man who is up to the task of being commander in chief," Cheney said of Kerry.
Joe Lockhart, the Clintonista serving as spokesman for the Kerry campaign, shot back that the GOP did the same thing, a charge which Matthew Down strongly denied. Lockhart then tried to pass it off as a poll taken by a group unaffiliated with the Kerry campaign, but the AP reports that the conference call announcing the poll results to the press included a number of Kerry staffers. That demonstrates a high level of coordination with the campaign, and at the least, the poll results were available for Kerry's use very quickly.
So I was wrong. The Democrats really are that stupid. Didn't any of the grown-ups at the DNC or the Kerry campaign realize that a dozen or more media-based pollsters would do that work for them? Perhaps there may not be any grown-ups at the DNC or Kerry campaign.
NBC Covering Up Kerry's Admission On Records
Alert CQ reader Gracias Deo noticed that NBC has edited the transcript of the interview Tom Brokaw did with John Kerry three days ago. As I reported then, Brokaw's questioning of Kerry about his IQ caused the Senator to bristle (emphasis mine):
Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.
However, in the transcript for the interview based on tonight's Dateline segment for the interview, the answer has been edited to remove Kerry's admission:
Brokaw: "Someone has analyzed the president's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do."Kerry: "That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it."
What happened to the rest of the answer? NBC must have decided to cut it off, but its excision appears to make NBC look complicit in an attempt to cover up an embarrassing admission -- that despite months of assertions to the contrary, John Kerry knows full well that he has not released his full service records. Unfortunately for NBC, they haven't realized yet that the original transcript still exists on their servers.
NBC needs to explain to their viewers why they felt the need to edit John Kerry's response, and who made the decision to do so. In an electoral cycle that has seen the mainstream media burn its credibility time and again, it looks like NBC is the next in line to self-immolate.
CQ Flashback: A Great Example Of The Left's Hypocrisy On Race (5/15/04)
The Left tosses another double standard at the Republicans today in an op-ed piece in today's Los Angeles Times. Lawrence Weschler, author and academic, writes a smirking, breathless piece on the audacity of George Bush to include pictures of black people on his website. Oh, the scandal! Of course, the lack of minorities in John Kerry's inner circle never quite comes up:
Quick. Before they take it down. Go to your computer, log on to http://www.georgewbush.com — the official Bush/Cheney '04 reelection website. ...Nice big picture of Bush merrily shooting the breeze with two black teenage girls. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll find a quadrant labeled Compassion Photos, with the invitation, "Click here for the Compassion Photo Album." Do so.
And let's see, what have we got? First one up: short-sleeved Bush, holding a black kid in his arms, a bleacher full of black kids behind him, and he's merrily waving to the crowd. Click "next." And it's Bush at a Waco Habitat for Humanity building site, his arm draped around a black woman, his other hand tapping the shoulder of another of the black construction volunteers. Next: Bush waving to the Urban League. Next: Bush working a crowd, a black — or maybe, in this case, South Indian — kid prominently featured in the foreground, gazing on in amazement. Bush in an African thatch-roofed schoolroom.
This goes on for quite a while, with Weschler finding it incredible that George Bush could actually be photographed with African-Americans. But why exactly does this show of diversity -- isn't that a worthy goal? -- bother Weschler so greatly? Here's part of his explanation, such as it is:
I mean, bracket for a moment some of the actual facts concerning the fate of blacks and other people of color across the years of the Bush administration. How, for instance, tax cuts massively skewed toward the wealthy favor whites, while the huge resultant deficits necessitate service cuts massively disfavoring the poor, a group that includes proportionally more blacks.My question is, for whom is this photo gallery intended? Does anybody seriously think blacks are going to be swayed by one staged photo op after another, in which time and again their confederates are cast as the pitiable recipients of an ostentatious display of kingly compassion?
Ah, I see -- Bush has not followed Weschler's prescription for domestic policy, which means higher taxes and increased social spending, so he's not allowed to be photographed with minorities. But in answering Weschler's challenge on the last question, Bush rightly points to his track record in placing people of color (and women) in positions of power, especially in non-traditional roles. Instead of having a woman head Health and Human Services, he has women of color running the national security and Department of Labor. He selected Colin Powell to be Secretary of State and Rod Paige as Secretary of Education, and so on. Weschler, after having asked what Bush has done for blacks, then derides him for having the poor taste to answer:
Although in this context it's worth recalling Bush's own reply to a journalist in 2001 who, citing the new president's highly unusual refusal to address the annual meeting of the NAACP, had asked how he might respond to critics who said his "civil rights record was less than stellar." Smirking, the president replied: "Let's see. There I was sitting around the table with foreign leaders looking at Colin Powell and Condi Rice." End of discussion.
In the first place, it's not terribly unusual for people to avoid groups who spent most of the previous year slandering them, which the NAACP did by running ads suggesting that George Bush was responsible for the car-lynching of James Byrd, whose murderers were sentenced to death in Texas, and for running ads with Bush's face superimposed on a Confederate flag. Beyond that irrelevancy, Bush's answer to critics of his civil-rights approach was to show his own commitment to diversity. Weschler loves the question, I suppose, but hates the answer, because it shoots down his entire, and yes, bigoted notion of Republicans.
Let's take a look at the approach used by a Democrat, shall we? John Kerry, a rich Boston Brahmin who has been in politics for over thirty years as a water-carrier for liberals, has managed to create a miniscandal in his own campaign by surrounding himself with a monochromatic group of inner-circle advisors -- and that single color isn't blue. As the New York Times reported just two weeks ago, traditional constituencies of the Democrats are none too happy about it, perhaps a reason for Weschler to attack Bush for his commitment to real diversity:
For weeks, Senator John Kerry savored a Democratic Party that was unified in rallying behind his presidential candidacy. But in recent days, influential black and Hispanic political leaders whom the campaign had counted on for support have been openly complaining that Mr. Kerry's organization lacks diversity and is failing to appeal directly to minority voters.Even as Mr. Kerry spoke here on Thursday to the National Conference of Black Mayors — an appearance his community outreach team viewed as critical to building a network of minority support — two influential Latino leaders circulated harsh letters expressing concern about the campaign's dealings with minorities.
And in interviews over the last week, more than a dozen minority elected officials and political strategists voiced concerns about what they said was the dearth of representation in Mr. Kerry's inner circle and worried that he was taking black and Hispanic votes for granted.
So what we have here is a transparent attempt to shift attention from the growing realization that minorities will only get token representation, as usual, from the Democrats in Kerry's campaign (and by extension, his administration if elected) by counting the black people in pictures on George Bush's website. You can bet that if Weschler had counted too few, this column would still have appeared, arguing that a lack of such images portended some evil, master plot to propose "Dixie" as the national anthem.
As usual, the Left targets appearance above substance, and perhaps those constituencies that have traditionally supported Democrats will realize that Bush offers a real voice in policy matters to people of all colors -- while the Left continues to count faces in the picture to demonstrate their commitment to diversity.
CQ Flashback: Kerry Obstructed POW/MIA Investigation -- Village Voice (5/22/04)
John Kerry released new advertisements this month designed to shore up his credentials on foreign policy and veterans' affairs. Among the statements made in the advertisements made in his support promoted Kerry's efforts in investigating the POW/MIA issue, along with John McCain, whose partnership Kerry's ads also promote. As Kerry says on his campaign blog:
John Kerry and Senator John McCain chaired the country's most thorough investigation into the fate of POW/MIAs in Southeast Asia. Kerry has personally pressed Vietnamese officials to cooperate in ongoing efforts to get answers for families. And he also sponsored POW/MIA Recognition Day. Kerry's Senate committee pressed for unparalleled declassification of documents, increased excavation work in Vietnam, and gathering of testimony from 144 witnesses. According to the Boston Globe, "the effort produced real answers for the some 120 families who had lived for decades without knowing whether a loved one was still alive in Southeast Asia."
However, the Village Voice reported back in February that Kerry did more to obstruct that investigation than to pursue evidence indicating that Vietnam deliberately withheld captured American servicement after our withdrawal. Sydney Schanberg wrote this devastating exposé for the Village Voice -- neither of which could ever be confused as Republican shills -- just as Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination in late February:
Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago— shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final report—when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.
Schanberg details the malfeasance of this investigation with plenty of blame to spread around. However, Schanberg makes clear that he holds Kerry in particular contempt for his actions in tubing the investigation:
Here are details of a few of the specific steps Kerry took to hide evidence about these P.O.W.'s.* He gave orders to his committee staff to shred crucial intelligence documents. The shredding stopped only when some intelligence staffers staged a protest. Some wrote internal memos calling for a criminal investigation. One such memo—from John F. McCreary, a lawyer and staff intelligence analyst—reported that the committee's chief counsel, J. William Codinha, a longtime Kerry friend, "ridiculed the staff members" and said, "Who's the injured party?" When staffers cited "the 2,494 families of the unaccounted-for U.S. servicemen, among others," the McCreary memo continued, Codinha said: "Who's going to tell them? It's classified."
Kerry defended the shredding by saying the documents weren't originals, only copies—but the staff's fear was that with the destruction of the copies, the information would never get into the public domain, which it didn't. Kerry had promised the staff that all documents acquired and prepared by the committee would be turned over to the National Archives at the committee's expiration. This didn't happen. Both the staff and independent researchers reported that many critical documents were withheld.
* Another protest memo from the staff reported: "An internal Department of Defense Memorandum identifies Frances Zwenig [Kerry's staff director] as the conduit to the Department of Defense for the acquisition of sensitive and restricted information from this Committee . . . lines of investigation have been seriously compromised by leaks" to the Pentagon and "other agencies of the executive branch." It also said the Zwenig leaks were "endangering the lives and livelihood of two witnesses."
* A number of staffers became increasingly upset about Kerry's close relationship with the Department of Defense, which was supposed to be under examination. (Dick Cheney was then defense secretary.) It had become clear that Kerry, Zwenig, and others close to the chairman, such as Senator John McCain of Arizona, a dominant committee member, had gotten cozy with the officials and agencies supposedly being probed for obscuring P.O.W. information over the years. Committee hearings, for example, were being orchestrated to suit the examinees, who were receiving lists of potential questions in advance. Another internal memo from the period, by a staffer who requested anonymity, said: "Speaking for the other investigators, I can say we are sick and tired of this investigation being controlled by those we are supposedly investigating."
Be sure to read the entire article. Kerry may wish to rethink campaign allusions to his participation in this investigation. (Via Mitch Berg)
CBS Also Shows Bush Up By Three
The latest CBS poll mirrors that of the Pew result mentioned below -- George Bush is maintaining a three-point lead over John Kerry as the presidential race winds up:
In a CBS News/New York Times poll out Sunday, President Bush has the support of 49 percent of likely voters to 46 percent for John Kerry.Forty-nine percent of likely voters think Mr. Bush will win, to 33 percent who bet on Kerry. More voters see the president as strong, a man in tune with their priorities, someone who says what he thinks. Fifty-five percent approve of the president's handling of the war on terrorism.
The new result shows a two-point gain for Bush and a one-point gain for Kerry as the undecideds finally start making up their minds. CBS notes that the percentage of undecided has dropped below 10% now. For those who have already decided -- and voted -- CBS finds an opposite result from Pew: Bush leads, 51-43, among early voters.
CBS notes that the last day of polling was yesterday, the day after the new Osama tape aired. After reviewing the answers given, the pollsters report that Osama's video missive had no effect on the amount of concern given to national security. Voters have already incorporated OBL into their electoral calculations, it seems, or they're determined not to let the Islamofascist lunatic decide their vote for them. It's one of the few points in this campaign that makes me proud to be an American.
Matthew Dowd, the man in charge of GOP polling, told CBS that their polling mirrors that of CBS and that they feel Bush will wind up with that margin on Election Day. Chief Kerry pollster Mark Mellman insists that with Bush still below 50%, he's in real trouble. However, in order for that to matter, the remaining undecideds would have to break almost 2-1 for Kerry in order to make up the three-point gap, which seems rather unlikely.
Final 48 Hours -- CQ Essays Redux
I will be reviewing my archives on John Kerry and reposting my favorite essays on the upcoming election. Instead of simply advancing the date, I will repost them as new in order to restart discussions on these topics.
Keep checking back over the next few days. The headers on the reprints will say "CQ Flashback" as part of the title. I will, of course, continue to post new thoughts on developments as they arise.
Note: Some links may no longer be valid. I'm copying these posts in their entirety from my blogging software and am not checking their validity.
Also, this is a great way to blog while handling Halloween door duty!
UPDATE AND BUMP: Speaking of Halloween door duty, the Little Admiral made a cameo appearance aboard ship tonight!
Her Aunt Cindy bought her this cute outfit for her birthday earlier this year, and I managed to get a quick photo of her while she bounded through our living room. She had already sampled some of the Halloween candy before she arrived, I presume ...
Pew Poll: Bush Holds Slight Edge Over Kerry
It's down to the final polling reports before Election Day. Yesterday, Mason-Dixon published its final battleground-state results showing Bush ahead in most, some by significant margins. Zogby came out early this morning, trumpeted by the ever-vigilant Truck in one of the comment threads, showing the exact opposite -- but Zogby has earned its reputation as one of the least reliable pollsters in the business.
Now Pew Research, which enjoys a somewhat better reputation than Zogby, has issued its presumably last look at the election, and finds George Bush holding onto a three-point lead over John Kerry among likely voters in its largest polling sample of the season:
President George W. Bush holds a slight edge over Senator John Kerry in the final days of Campaign 2004. The Pew Research Center's final pre-election poll of 1,925 likely voters, conducted Oct. 27-30, finds Bush with a three-point edge (48% to 45% for Kerry); Ralph Nader draws 1%, and 6% are undecided.
Bush gained a point since the last Pew poll, while Kerry dropped two points and now sits at 45%. Pew also estimates that Kerry may attract slightly more than half of the undecideds, but when the turnout rate is considered, Pew projects that Bush will take 51% of the popular vote -- maintaining the three-point margin of victory. (Nader wins a single percentage point.)
Reviewing the demographics, Pew found that men still heavily favor Bush (52-43), but Kerry lost the significant edge that Gore held among women (48-44 Kerry). Pew shows black voters only giving Bush 7% support, which would be even worse than in 2000, while 86% support Kerry and 7% are undecided. That's disappointing, of course, but the Hispanic vote appears almost evenly split, 49-47 Kerry, which helps Bush tremendously.
The age and religion categories show some of the most interesting results. Kerry only wins among voters in age ranges of 18-24 and over 75. In every other age band, Bush wins, and he wins decisively among voters age 25-34, 58-39. Kerry narrowly edges Bush among Catholics, 49-46, while Bush predictably blows Kerry out of the water among evangelicals by twenty points. Kerry owns the "secular" vote by forty-three points, 67-24. For those who attend church once a month or more, Bush wins big, regardless of denomination.
As has been mentioned before, the real difference appears to be the marriage gap:
Marital Status..Bush....Kerry....Nader.....Und
Married..........56......39.......*..........5
Men............61......35.......*..........4
Women..........51......43.......*..........6
Unmarried........36......56.......1..........7
Men............35......58.......2..........5
Women..........36......54.......1..........9
The poll was conducted between October 27-30, which means the Osama videotape had been seen before a portion of the voters had been questioned. It looks as if it made little difference, as I predicted earlier.
CQ Flashback: Kerry's Dukakis Moment? (6/23/04)
The Kerry campaign will scramble this afternoon with this AP report that one of their critical support groups has hired convicted felons -- in some cases, sex offenders -- to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives:
A Democratic group crucial to John Kerry's presidential campaign has paid felons — some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary — to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states.America Coming Together, contending that convicted criminals deserve a second chance in society, employs felons as voter canvassers in major metropolitan areas in Missouri, Florida, Ohio and perhaps in other states among the 17 it is targeting in its drive. Some of the felons lived in halfway houses, and at least four returned to prison. ...
Although it works against the re-election of President Bush, ACT is an independent group not affiliated with the Kerry campaign — federal law forbids such coordination. Yet ACT is stocked with veteran Democratic political operatives, many with past ties to Kerry and his advisers.
ACT responded by expressing its belief that convicted felons deserve a second chance in society and that former armed robbers and sex offenders present no extraordinary risk if they show up at your door:
ACT does not believe the felons it sends door to door pose a threat to the public, said Mo Elleithee, a Washington-based spokesman for the group. "We believe it's important to give people a second chance," Elleithee said. "The fact that they are willing to do this work is a fairly serious indication that they want to become productive members of society."
I want to believe that I'm writing this as a satire, but I'm not. Apparently, the Democrats feel very comfortable sending sex offenders, burglars, and drug dealers to the door of your house to get such information from you as your telephone number, Social Security number, and driver's license number. I agree that someone who has served their time deserves another chance, but that doesn't mean I want my kids or my granddaughter meeting them at the door, nor do I want my private information in their hands.
What could ACT be thinking? They have $100 million in funding -- apparently they must be a 527 -- which means they can afford to hire people who haven't been convicted of violent crimes to approach houses looking to register new voters. ACT instead acts with callous disregard for the safety of the public, offering us as a sacrifice on the altar of political correctness. The Kerry campaign has to answer for this breach of common sense. Is this how Kerry plans on "protecting America"? Next he'll be hiring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to run the Department of Homeland Security.
Now that I know this, I plan on bolting my door whenever anyone knocks on my door and identifies themselves as working to register Democrats. I suggest that you do the same. Your safety and your family's safety may be at risk.
UPDATE: Longtime reader Pennywit, who often provides intelligent counterpoint in the comments section, agrees with me in principle but feels I am being a bit of an alarmist. I don't think so, but then again, I'm telling y'all to bolt the doors, so ... Pennywit has sent an e-mail to ACT asking them seven questions to clarify the issue, and has promised to let me know if/when they respond.
Here's my problem with ACT. First, they act as though this presents no problem whatsoever, and uses as proof the desire of the felons to do the work to demonstrate their rehabilitation. No one at ACT seems to realize the attraction a legitimate excuse to approach peoples' homes holds for those who later may want to burglarize them (gives them a great opportunity to case the place, doesn't it?), or for sexual offenders to identify potential future victims. The personal data given for voter registrations can easily be used for identity theft as well, a non-violent but highly destructive crime, as its victims can attest.
The AP article makes clear that ACT hires these former felons to do the actual canvassing and to handle the information gleaned from the effort. To what extent felons do the actual work is anyone's guess; ACT wouldn't answer that question for the AP reporter. In the absence of such hard data, and with the $100 million in funding that ACT plans on using this year, it's a safe guess that their efforts will drive most of the voter registration efforts of the Democrats, and I suppose it's up to us to guess the danger.
In other words, since I live in Minnesota, and since my wife is visually impaired and home alone for parts of the day, I'd say locking the door and putting up the NO SOLICITORS sign is hardly being alarmist. In fact, it's good policy.
CQ Flashback: Kerry's Analysis Paralysis (7/14/04)
The proverb, "Too many cooks spoil the broth" comes to mind while reading the Washington Post article on the Kerry campaign's policy structure. While intending on casting a broad net to display inclusiveness, the nominee instead teeters on the edge of an unmanageable mess:
From a tightknit group of experienced advisers, John F. Kerry's presidential campaign has grown exponentially in recent months to include a cast literally of thousands, making it difficult to manage an increasingly unwieldy policy apparatus.The campaign now includes 37 separate domestic policy councils and 27 foreign policy groups, each with scores of members. The justice policy task force alone includes 195 members. The environmental group is roughly the same size, as is the agriculture and rural development council. Kerry counts more than 200 economists as his advisers.
In contrast, President Bush's campaign policy shop is a no-frills affair. Policy director Tim Adams directs about a dozen experts who make sure the campaign is in sync with the vast executive branch that is formulating policy. Adams's group also analyzes Kerry's proposals and voting record. Fewer than a dozen outside task forces, with five to 10 members, also help out on education, veterans' issues, the economy, and energy, environment and natural resources, said campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel.
Perhaps it is this structure more than any other external factor which accounts for the notorious Kerry "nuance" displayed time and again during this campaign. When you have thousands of voices, each with their own pet causes and projects, coming together to develop coherent policies, you will wind up with either no product at all or long-winded and self-contradictory policies that look more like legal papers instead. Early on in our history, we were wise enough to limit the House of Representatives to 435 members for this very reason. Any body much larger than that increases policy inertia to a point where it is too difficult to overcome.
While the entire article is interesting, it fails to ask one key question: why does John Kerry, after having spent over 30 years in public office -- the last twenty at the federal level -- need thousands of people to decide what he thinks? One of the selling points of his campaign is supposed to be his long experience in government and foreign policy. Shouldn't that mean that Kerry has his core principles already staked out, and if so, shouldn't a smaller group of people be able to use them to build policy papers?
This overgrown and unwieldy organization not only looks like a throwback to Great Society-level bureaucratism but also demonstrates that Kerry has few core principles on which to build his policy. We already know that John Edwards is pretty much an empty suit from his legislative track record during his only term in office, but Kerry was supposed to be ready to take the reins right now. Candidates choose staff carefully to ensure that they match up with their already-expressed beliefs and principles, making large numbers of people for policy development unnecessary.
If Kerry needs a cast of thousands to make up his mind what he thinks at this late stage in his career, why should anyone vote for him?
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt has some good thoughts on this article (and you should buy his book, If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat), and also points to another Post article that dovetails with the above:
Democratic Party leaders said yesterday they plan to make their nominating convention in Boston later this month a four-day reintroduction of Sen. John F. Kerry, enlisting his wife, children and former war comrades in Vietnam to make the case for a man they acknowledge remains an opaque figure for millions of Americans."Stronger at Home, Respected in the World," is the theme of the Boston event, said Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe. The phrase is designed to underscore the centrist and forward-looking image Kerry wants to present to voters -- an implicit attack on President Bush and a rebuttal to Bush's argument that Kerry would be a weak and irresolute commander in chief.
Not that there's anything weak or irresolute about needing a few thousand sign-offs on your policy statements.
Kerry's Profession Of Faith "Morally And Intellectually Incoherent"
In a book review of The American Catholic Voter: 200 Years of Political Impact, Philadelphia Inquirer editor Frank Wilson dissects John Kerry's repeated assertions of belief in Catholicism and his insistence that it informs his public life. In his analysis, Wilson correctly spotlights the hypocrisy and betrayal at the heart of Kerry's rhetoric:
In July, in an article in the Washington Post, Kerry was quoted as saying, "I oppose abortion... . I believe life does begin at conception." But, he added, "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist."That's morally and intellectually incoherent. "Every time you cast a vote on the floor of the United States Senate," Marlin says, "you're voting to impose your beliefs on somebody else. If you vote for higher taxes, you're voting to impose them."
He has a point. The Catholic view that life begins at conception is not put forward as a mere gynecological factoid. The church draws a moral conclusion from it: If human life begins at conception, then abortion - the direct and intentional termination of a fetus' life signs - amounts to the taking of innocent human life. It is hard to see how one could accept this as an article of religious faith, as Kerry says he does, and feel no obligation to act on it - in fact, to feel obliged not to.
Indeed, he seems to have done everything he could on behalf of those who espouse the opposite view. At this year's annual NARAL Pro-Choice America dinner, he pledged "no overturning Roe v. Wade, no packing of the courts with judges hostile to choice, no denial of choice to poor women." ... Kerry voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Act and has voted against bills requiring parental notification in the case of teens seeking abortion.
Most offensive to Catholics is Kerry's rationalization on his faith. He treats it like a tote board, justifying his blank-check support of abortion by pointing to his opposition to the death penalty and his anti-war activism. First, Catholicism doesn't work on a points system; you don't get merits and demerits. Second, the Catechism does not preclude either the death penalty or war, contrary to popular belief. In fact, the Church allows for both under very limited circumstances, a fact which a short perusal of the Catechism demonstrates. An entire philosophy exists within the Church on the nature of "just war", and execution can be supported if it surely saves other innocent lives. Abortion, on the other hand, is expressly called a "grave sin" in the Catechism and no mitigating circumstances are countenanced, either in the doctrine or the Magisterium, the two-millenia body of teaching and philosophy.
I point to this article because I had the privilege of corresponding with Frank Wilson and Father Gregory Lockwood (a CQ reader) while Frank researched this piece. I won't republish Frank's correspondence (because I haven't asked his permission), but I can report that this article must not have come easy from his pen. Frank has, as I also do, a strong libertarian streak which makes the abortion question difficult for him. I wrote this to Frank, and I used part of it in an earlier post:
It sounds like you are torn between a desire to be a good Catholic and some strong libertarian impulses -- a position for which I am very sympathetic. However, a preference for non-involvement on the part of the state is not a neutral position, it's at least a de facto legalization of abortion. There may be a good political argument for that, but I don't think it satisfies the responsibility that a Catholic politician would have to protect the life of the unborn (again, if one is concerned about being a "good Catholic" and a legislator concurrently). It's the Catholic definition of life that causes the intellectual hurdle.Taking Kerry as an example, if he stated an ambivalence about the beginning of life or a clear belief that it doesn't start until birth, then votes to legalize abortion or take a laissez-faire approach to it would be consistent and understandable. It wouldn't be Catholic, but it would be logical. However, Kerry professes to believe that life begins at conception and that he is a faithful Catholic, a combination which would require him to use his votes to protect life. Refusing to do so is sinful, according to the Church, especially if one professes to believe in the Church.
Father Lockwood wrote in detail about the issues surrounding the abortion issue and Kerry's contradiction in his political standing. He not only addresses Kerry's hypocrisy on his faith and abortion, but also Kerry's demagoguery on embryonic stem-cell research:
It is manifestly unjust and never licit to intentionally kill the innocent, for whatever great end, and this applies also to other things such as the embryonic stem cell/cloning research phenomenon. The use of embryos for research, and possible production of treatments, could, potentially, dwarf the present death toll from abortion in this country. ...A candidate who has shown himself in manifold ways over many years to support, and give material, legal support for the indefensible practice of killing children in utero (crowing about it during each successive speech to the Planned Parenthood/NARAL “celebrations” each year) is not eligible for the votes of faithful Catholics (my personal opinion, not stated this way anywhere in official church documents); his public record is clear, and consistent, on this matter, at least. I find it personally depressing that a Texas Methodist proudly holds moral positions on life issues in line with Catholic teachings, over against a Catholic who holds to a classic secularist morality that, in practice, would not differentiate him from most atheist thinkers on the left.
A voter who supports a candidate such as this for the reason of his pro-abortion stance would be providing immediate material cooperation for the sin of the politician (which is mortal sin). A voter who supports this same politician in spite of his views and support for abortion still provides at least remote material cooperation, which could be allowed in none-lethal situations, but could never be supported in the violation of one of the foundational issues of life, of which abortion is one, embryonic stem cell research/cloning another (this is my paraphrase of Ratzinger’s letter on the subject to the bishops this past summer). There are no circumstances in which it would be licit for a Catholic to support this politician (again, my own personal view, and I’m not speaking for the church or the bishops).
It was my pleasure and honor to have these two men as correspondents the past couple of weeks. Be sure to read Frank Wilson's entire review in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and if you happen to be in Cincinatti, stop by and say hello to Father Lockwood.
Desperation In Kerry Campaign Leads To Anti-Israel Pandering
The desperation has broken through, loud and clear, from the John Kerry campaign this weekend, underscoring what appears to be a series of favorable battleground-state results for George Bush. First John Kerry scolded America on Friday to "wake up". Now his stepson has decided to accuse Bush of illegal drug use in the final hours of the campaign (via Radio Blogger):
John Kerry's stepson, Chris Heinz, 31, displayed his mother Teresa's famous lack of rhetorical restraint at a recent campaign event with a group of Wharton students. Philadelphia magazine reports: "Heinz accused Kerry's opponents - 'our enemies' - of making the race dirty. 'We didn't start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,' he said, before adding, 'I'll do it now.' Asked later about it, Heinz said, 'I have no evidence. He never sold me anything.'"
In a moment that may portend a Kerry Administration attitude towards Israel and certainly reveals the campaign's dismissal of its Jewish support, Heinz told the crowd that Bush considered Israel as the "51st state":
Heinz also reminded writer Sasha Issenberg of Pat Buchanan by saying, "One of the things I've noticed is the Israel lobby - the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state." Buchanan was blasted as an anti-Semite years ago when he cited Israel's "amen corner" in Congress.
The first quotes reveal nothing except a lack of character on the part of the shallow heir to the ketchup fortune, and by extension that of the entire Kerry campaign. (He officially represented his stepfather's campaign at his Wharton appearance, after all.) The second issue portends more substantive problems with Kerry and his viewpoint on America's strongest Middle East ally. Does the Kerry campaign believe in that alliance, or do they intend on distancing themselves from Israel once in power? How do they think that Israel resembles a "swing state" for anyone?
It sounds like Heinz wanted to send a signal to the anti-Semite conspiracy theorists, and Jewish voters need to ask themselves why Democrats feel the need to pander to that demographic. Ralph Nader couldn't have said it any better, although he's often tried. When candidates and their proxies attempt to scare voters through oblique references to Jewish conspiracies, it never amounts to anything but evil results.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Perhaps Glenn is right -- that may not be all that oblique. At least he didn't come right out and call them all "yahoods", which would have been a complete giveaway.
Osama Not So Cocky After All?
The New York Post reports that Osama's videotape last Friday may have been more than just an attempt to swing the American elections. The full tape, of which Al-Jazeera played only a small part, turns out to be an al-Qaeda State of the Gang speech, and Osama isn't very pleased with its present condition (hat tip: NZ Bear):
Osama bin Laden's newest tape may have thrust him to the forefront of the presidential election, but what was not seen was the cave-dwelling terror lord talking about the setbacks al Qaeda has faced in recent months.Officials said that in the 18-minute long tape — of which only six minutes were aired on the al-Jazeera Arab television network in the Middle East on Friday — bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.
On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border.
If a full transcript ever gets released, this would certainly refute the ludicrous assessments by people like Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who claimed on Friday that George Bush has been "big for [Islamist] business". Those who think that Bush has traded one set of miseries for another might have to grow up and finally admit that our efforts have had a severe impact on the networks of Islamist terrorism.
However, even if the entire tape had been available for American audiences, do you think that our media would have treated it any differently than Al Jazeera? Before you answer, consider the recent track record of the MSM in the run-up to the election. We've had a major broadcaster attempt to use forged documents to smear George Bush and his National Guard service; the same broadcaster team up with the leading American newspaper to issue a last-minute, poorly researched hit piece regarding the loss of 0.019% of the explosive ordinance in Iraq; and the absolute dismissal of testimony by 250 Vietnam veterans regarding the service record of John Kerry.
Al-Jazeera needn't have worried about releasing the entire contents. Their primary objective, after all, remains the same as our media outlets: removing George Bush from the White House.
Final Mason-Dixon Battleground Polls Hint At Bush Win
In what should be the final iteration of the Mason-Dixon polls that have been remarkably stable over the course of this election cycle, George Bush has a significant edge over John Kerry and appears headed to a victory on Tuesday. With a margin of error at 4%, the battleground states stack up like this:
Florida - Bush, 49-45 (27 EV)
Arkansas - Bush, 51-43 (6 EV)
Colorado - Bush, 50-43 (9 EV)
Ohio - Bush, 48-46 (20 EV)
Iowa - Bush, 49-44 (7 EV)
Michigan - Kerry, 47-45 (17 EV)
Missouri - Bush, 49-44 (11 EV)
New Hampshire - Kerry, 47-46 (4 EV)
Nevada - Bush, 50-44 (5 EV)
West Virginia - Bush, 51-43 (5 EV)
Oregon - Kerry, 50-44 (7 EV)
Pennsylvania - Kerry, 48-46 (21 EV)
Wisconsin - Kerry, 48-46 (10 EV)
Minnesota - Bush, 48-47 (10 EV)
New Mexico - Bush, 49-45 (5 EV)
What does this portend for Tuesday? Of the states outside the margin of error, Bush carries 43 electoral votes, while Kerry takes only 7. Add in those at the margin of error, and Bush picks up an additional 32, for a total of seventy-five battleground electoral votes that appear pretty firm. For states too close to call, Bush leaners hold 30 electoral votes as opposed to 52 for Kerry -- meaning that Bush right now is poised to pick up 105 battleground electoral votes while Kerry can only claim 59. Even if the leaners all break to Kerry, Bush has enough of a lead among the solid states that the 75 electoral votes in his pocket will take him to victory -- and these polls don't even include Hawaii and New Jersey, both of which have suddenly become toss-ups.
The GOP has to be happy with these results, but it still will take all of their effort in the remaining 70 hours or so to make sure they get voters out to the polls.
(Mason-Dixon polled 625 likely voters in each state, with the exception of Minnesota, where they polled registered voters instead -- which tends to favor the Democrat, especially here. The polling took place between 10/27 and 10/29, so it represents the freshest look so far in each of these states. No other demographic data was immediately available.)
UPDATE: I didn't link to this earlier, but the Newsweek results seem to dovetail with the Mason-Dixon polls:
After months of the tightest presidential election contest in recent memory, a new NEWSWEEK poll suggests momentum may be moving toward President George W. Bush. As the bitter campaign enters its final days, against the eerie backdrop of a surprise appearance by Osama Bin Laden, Bush’s lead is still within the poll’s margin of error, but larger than last week. If the election were held today, 50 percent of likely voters would cast ballots for Bush and 44 percent for the Democrat, Sen. John Kerry. (Ralph Nader would receive 1 percent.) That compares to a Bush lead last week among likely voters of 48 percent to Kerry's 46 percent.
Newsweek also reports increased support for Bush among independents, the amount of which makes Power Line's Rocket Man skeptical of the overall poll result. I think what happened here is that as the pool of undecideds has gotten smaller, the remainder has grown more volatile.
Captain's Quarters features an authoritative blogroll, listing many websites that feature the top political thinking on the Internet. In order to make the list easier to navigate, it has been divided into a number of sections.
Click on the section title to expand the list.