Why Bush Will Win

I'm not saying that we'll know on Wednesday morning, and I'm not saying he'll win by how much, but I believe that Bush will win on Tuesday. Here's why, with quotes from the Washington Times today:

Demographics

Some electoral math shows the president leading in 28 out of the 30 states he carried in 2000, trailing only in Ohio and New Hampshire, which would give him a total 254 electoral votes, 16 short of what he needs to clinch a second term. Florida, one of the key states where Mr. Bush maintains a slight lead, is still close enough to be put in the tossup list. But polls show Mr. Bush also has the edge in several additional states that then-Vice President Al Gore won in 2000, including New Mexico (5), Iowa (7) and Minnesota (10), which could put him over the top. "The Electoral College still favors the president because so many things have to break for Kerry for him to win. Kerry has to win Ohio, but if Bush wins Wisconsin and Florida, where does Kerry go?" said Michigan Democratic pollster Ed Sarpolus, who had Mr. Kerry leading in his state. "I'm not saying I'm writing Kerry off, but if you are an oddsmaker, Bush has the shorter odds." Mr. Kerry ended the final week of campaigning ahead in most of the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic states, Illinois in the Midwest, and the West Coast states that give him an electoral base of 171. But polls showed he was trailing or in a virtual dead heat in a number of other Gore states, including Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (15) and Hawaii (4), battlegrounds whose 87 electoral votes would lift his total to 258, still short of what he needs to win. New Hampshire (4), where he leads, but which remains a tossup state, would get him closer, but still eight votes from victory.

That's just a big hill to climb for a really talented candidate, which Kerry is not. Further complicating things is the demographic reality that if Bush holds the same states he won last time, he'll win by a bigger margin (please hold all emails: he won last time and I don't feel like arguing about it anymore). So, Kerry has to pick up something, all the while Bush is chipping into blue state territory. This is simply tough to beat - it would all have to break Kerry's way for him to win, which I just don't think can or will happen.

Unexcited Minority Voters

The election — which has focused largely on Iraq, the war on terrorism, the economy and jobs — is expected, in part, to turn on two key constituencies that have been among the Democrats' most loyal voting blocs: blacks and Hispanics. But there are signs in the final days of the campaign that suggested blacks were not as energized by Mr. Kerry's candidacy and that Mr. Bush would get a larger share of them than the 8 percent he received in 2000. A poll by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a black think tank, found earlier this month that Mr. Kerry has the support of 69 percent of the black vote, while Mr. Bush is netting 18 percent. Bush advisers dismiss that number as unrealistic, saying that they would be happy to boost their share of the black vote to 10 percent to 12 percent. The Bush campaign has gone all-out to woo Hispanic voters this year, as have the Democrats. Mr. Bush won 35 percent of Hispanic voters in 2000, compared with 62 percent for Al Gore, but recent polls suggest that Mr. Kerry's support among Hispanics may have weakened. "Kerry should be concerned that his numbers among Hispanics appear to be anemic. We are finding the same in states like New Mexico," pollster John Zogby said.

Kerry's utter failure to provide more than lip service to minority voters has resulted in a lack of minority enthusiasm about his candidacy. Any democratic candidate needs a monolithic black turnout and vote percentage to win, and Bush's climb in percentage could mean a decline in turnout for Kerry. Also, Bush will do better among Hispanics because he has been reaching out to them for four years. The Bush Administration has been trying a "third way" approach on minority issues. They have been reaching out on common ground issues of values, access to education, and immigration by going around traditional portals to the black and Hispanic communities like ultra-liberal civil rights activists. Also, the fact that Bush has so many minorities in real positions of authority and trust can't help but help him. Kerry's recent efforts to go to black churches, etc. are simply too little, too late.

Union Defections

But union members are not in lockstep with their leadership and the Bush campaign expects to get a larger percentage of the union vote than the 32 percent he got in 2000. Mr. Gore received 63 percent of the union vote.

This isn't really fully discussed in the article I linked to, but they do crunch some numbers on this. The main point is that midwestern union members are classic Reagan democrats and some of them are GOING to vote for Bush.

Of course, there are many substantive arguments to be made about this campaign and why someone will win or not (see the other million posts), but I thought some number crunching of the ground game would be useful. The cumulative effect of all the chipping away at Kerry's base: Bush victory on Tuesday.

RMR

Bin Laden Likes Moore?

What amazed me most about the release of the Bin Laden tape was that the man had seen Fahrenheit 911. After my Dad (hat tip) mentioned the story to me and made the same observation, I got on the old battered PC and looked for myself. Here's what democrat propogandist Dana Milbank said:

On the other hand, the bin Laden appearance may reinforce some of Kerry's arguments. Bin Laden practically quoted Kerry when he said "Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you," and he seemed to be familiar with the liberal filmmaker Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and its mockery of Bush for reading "My Pet Goat" with children while the World Trade Center towers burned. "It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone . . . because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important," bin Laden said.

The most amusing part of that last quotes is the thought that any of that helps Kerry. "He's quoting Kerry talking points so I think I'll vote for Kerry. UBL convinced me, by gum!" or "Well, since the most wanted man alive likes Moore's movie, it must be true!"

Suuuuuuuure, Dana.

I think Podheretz has a great observation:

Usually, bin Laden and his people tend to use the most purple and terrifying language about the damage they're going to do to the United States, as we saw earlier in the week when the American al Qaeda follower "Azzam" said on his videotape that "the streets of America will run red with blood."

Now bin Laden is talking truce.

What's changed, perhaps, is the ferocity of the American response to 9/11. Since then, Osama has been on the run, his Afghanistan safe haven destroyed, his movement under relentless financial and military assault. By offering America a deal, no matter how twisted and pointless the deal might be, the quality that he might be showing us isn't strength, but weakness.

I would have preferred that Mr. Lowest Circle of Hell Already Warmed Up and Ready hadn't stuck his tick-filled nose into our election, but I can't help but think that this helps Bush, the guy people trust on the issue of terrorism and security by a large margin (it's basically everyone who doesn't viscerally hate the president - the rational people). This was why Bush was already going to win and why this will enhance the victory.

RMR

The 377 - 138 - 250 tons of explosives

Let's see now:
IAEA says 377 tons were at the site
IAEA says 138 tons were moved before the last inspection
That leaves 239 tons.
Maj. Austin Pearson says he and his men removed and destroyed 'about 250 tons' of material.

So how many tons are now left unaccounted for?

David

Charles Krauthammer does it again

Cuts through the mud and gets to the key truth:

President Bush put in place a military campaign that did in two months what everyone had said was impossible: defeat an entrenched, fanatical, ruthless regime in a territory that had forced the great British and Soviet empires into ignominious retreat. Bush followed that by creating in less than three years a fledgling pro-American democracy in a land that had no history of democratic culture and was just emerging from 25 years of civil war.

Read the whole thing.

David

Early voting - what does it mean?

This article in the NY Times give some details about the surge in early voting this year across the country. Officials here in Harris County Texas (Houston) reported yesterday morning that more than 230,000 votes had already been cast here, with three days of early voting left. That's one county in a dark red state. If the normal early vote to election day ratio holds, this will be one of the largest turnouts in history. Why?

There is one tax limit proposal on the City of Houston ballot, but I don't think it's drawing the crowd. Most of the house seats are secure. Most of the radio ads are about the city tax proposal and one house race. Nothing very exciting. We rarely see a presidential ad here. No one has called me about voting yet (I always get a call on election day). We haven't seen Bush or Kerry in a long time. The biggest 'event' I know about was a hot dog party for a state house candidate last Friday night.

So I think people are going out to vote for President, even though everyone knows who will win Texas, because they care about the future of this country and they want to have a say in the outcome. I hope that is what is happening across the nation. I believe people who vote out of that kind of motive (not out of hate or self interest, or because someone gave them a bus ride from a rally) will make a wise choice.

My choice is Bush. My vote is cast. Now I have to wait and see if enough people agree with me.

UPDATE: Over 400,000 early votes were cast in Harris County!! WOW.

David

Lost Explosives Story Circling the Drain

It’s starting to look more and more like BombGate is some sort of UN/IAEA effort to hurt Bush before the election. You can read more about it in the Washington Times Editorial Page and The Corner. One great big fact in the Corner piece is this:

an IAEA document shows that in January of 2003 there was just over 3 tons of RDX stored at Al Qaqaa.

Uh…excuse me? It’s only three pounds now? What happened to the big 380 tons that Kerry and Co. are so upset about - you know, that wasn't even there when the troops showed up? Maybe Kerry still has time to change his ad.

RMR

The ABC News 'Tape' - Authentic

Drudge is reporting that the FBI and CIA have authenticated the tape. Now what, ABC?


David

Russians Removed Weapons?

Here is the story David was just addressing:

In a breaking story, the Washington Times has reported that Russian Special Forces were in Iraq removing weapons before the invasion by US Forces. Here are the relevant paragraphs:

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.

The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.

The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.

Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

Can I ask the question? If they removed THIRTY EIGHT TRUCKLOADS OF EXPLOSIVES USED IN NUCLEAR WEAPONS couldn't they have also moved some VX gas or uranium or sarin or anthrax or any number of other things?

Just asking.

RightMakesRight

Danger, Will Robinson!!!

It is very tempting to believe the stories about the Russians and the Iraqi weapons transfers. These revelations do seem to correspond to odd stories about Russian activities in Iraq during the war. BUT...

This is such a huge story and so many powerful people are involved (as a reader on the Corner points out, if this is true it's effect on the US election is just a 'sideshow') that we should all be very careful not to jump toward a conclusion and fall off a cliff.

What is so astonishing is that a NAMED Pentagon official is the source for the WA Times story.

David

What's at Stake: Part 4 - Domestic Issues

If Kerry is elected, every American taxpayer will pay more. All he has to do is veto the Bush tax cut extension and taxes go back to the Clinton levels.

If Kerry is elected, the federal deficit will go UP, not down. Even with the small revenue gain from his tax increase, Federal revenue will go down because of the economic impact. Any program he manages to force into law will cost even more money. The war will NOT go away.

If Kerry is elected, the activist judges he appoints will move the country further away from traditional values. They will find constitutional mandates for everything from gay 'marriage' to taxing churches. Since Bush had little chance to balance the books in this area, the effect will be just as if we had 16 years of liberal rule.

If Kerry is elected, his economic policies will not be overwhelmed by a huge artificial 'dot com' bubble like Clinton's. In 2008 the answer to 'Are you better off now than 4 years ago?' will be a resounding 'No'.

David

ABC Holding Back Tape of New Terror Threat?

Check out this story on Drudge. Here is the important paragraph:

In the last week before the election, ABCNEWS is holding a videotaped message from a purported al Qaeda terrorist warning of a new attack on America, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The terrorist claims on tape the next attack will dwarf 9/11. "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead. Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.

ABCNEWS strongly denies holding the tape back from broadcast over political concerns during the last days of the election.

Sure they deny it. Let's see if this story gets the same coverage as the bogus explosives non-story that CBS tried to foist on us.

RMR

RNC Weighs In On October "NICE TRY"

The RNC has sent out a letter about the recent attempt to smear the President by those in the Partisan Media:

It's October, but it's no surprise. Remember last week, when I highlighted a quote by Newsweek editor Evan Thomas that the media's desire to see John Kerry elected may be worth five-to-twenty million votes, and urged you to be on the look-out for evidence of that desire in articles and news programs?

Well, yesterday the front page of New York Times featured a flawed article asserting, "The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives -- used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons -- are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations. The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday."

CBS News' "60 Minutes" admitted today they were saving the same story to air the Sunday before the election.

John Kerry seized on the New York Times headline to launch a political attack on President Bush, saying U.S. troops "failed to guard those stockpiles" and that is "one of the great blunders" of the war.

Senator Kerry and the New York Times leave the impression that these weapons went missing recently and U.S. troops were derilict in their duty to guard the stockpile--neither of which is true.

Network and cable news programs repeated the incomplete report and Sen. Kerry's attacks more than 100 times on Monday.

But last night NBC "Nightly News" reported that on April 10, 2003, one day after Baghdad fell, U.S. troops entered Al Qaqaa, accompanied by an embedded reporter from NBC, and found no such weapons.

It also turns out that our troops have found and destroyed or are destroying 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives.

There was no mention of either one of these facts in today's New York Times front page story, which regurgitated yesterday's charges and Senator Kerry's attacks based on them.

Liberal groups like MoveOn.org have already blasted out e-mails repeating the discredited report and urging people to vote against President Bush based on the flawed coverage.

We can not count on the media to set the story straight. We have to get the truth out to our friends and neighbors ourselves.

We are counting on YOU to set the record straight. Please forward this e-mail and the attached fact sheet to family and friends, call your local network, call talk radio, write letters to the editor, and post facts on blogs.

I suspect you'll be hearing from me again in the course of the next seven days as Mr. Thomas's prediction proves true again.

Sincerely,

Ed Gillespie Chairman,
Republican National Committee

October Surprise is a Dud (Sorry, John)

In a shocking development today, the partisan media-induced "October Suprise" has been debunked by...the partisan media. MSNBC and CNN are both reporting today that embedded NBC reporters witnessed no discovery of such a stockpile when troops reached the area in question. A full debunking of the story can be read at the great site Truth Laid Bear. Jim Geraghty has a good read on the story as well.

So I guess that answers the question about whether or not we should have had reporters along with the troops, huh? You can read all the relevant info above, but the main point here is that the "October Surprise" was a big dud.

Whoops!

There are several interesting observations that can be made about this story. First, it looks like Jayson Blair et al has finally resulted in a little healthy skepticism when it comes to the Gray Lady. New York Times headlines do not rule the day anymore when it comes to news. The story only lasted one news cycle and will be thoroughly debunked before Mssr. Kerry can even release an ad about it.

Second, Americans can get a full read on this subject at any number of blogs, and the networks know it. This is CBS fallout - they know we're watching now.

Finally, this is their best shot! This is all they have left. With lots of structural issues in the race already favoring Bush, this is their last chance to change the race's dynamics and it didn't work.

So...here's where we are: according to RealClearPolitics, the current electoral count is Bush 234 - Kerry 228, with 270 needed to win. The remaining states not counted are Florida (27), Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20), and Wisconsin (10). With current polling, that adds up to Bush 296 - Kerry 242. Bush can win without Ohio according to current polling with 6 votes to spare. Bush can win Ohio and lose Florida because the House can break a tie.

The thing to remember is that both campaigns are primarily in Gore states this week. That means that we are on offense and they are on defense. These guys know where the polls are, and where the candidates are reflects what both campaigns think about the state of the race. Clinton held a rally for Kerry in PHILADELPHIA yesterday. If they need to campaign in Philly, they are having problems.

So..."October NICE TRY" is more like it.

RightMakesRight

What's at Stake: Part 3 - Politics

If Kerry is elected, the politics of hate and fear will be emboldened to the point that any remaining civil discourse will be drowned out. We are already past the point where the important issues - Social Security, Crime, Medical care, even the war on terror - can be discussed without scare tactics and personal attacks. It will get much worse.

If Kerry is elected, the MSM bias will win an enormous victory. They will have successfully portrayed a decent, moderately conservative, Christian man as a far right wing ogre, and run him out of office. Without the constant bombardment of negative spin in the press, the endless knowing repetition of untruths by the MSM, this race would be a Bush landslide.

David

More on Kerry UN 'Meeting'

At first I thought this was no big deal, and it may not make any difference in the election because the MSM will ignore it. But it is a chilling view of Kerry's mental health.

I think the most telling quote is this one:

John Kerry, speaking to the Boston Globe, 10 December 2003 --

I spent a lot of time before the vote looking at this issue. I went up to the United Nations at the request of some friends. And I met with the entire Security Council in a room just like this at a table like this. I spent two hours with them. (inaudible), just me and the Security Council, asking them questions.

(Emphasis added)

That statement is not about private meetings with individual ambassadors, or small groups. It describes a MEETING with the ENTIRE SECURITY COUNCIL around a TABLE for TWO HOURS. Kerry is relating a memory (a vivid, detailed memory) of A MEETING THAT DID NOT TAKE PLACE. I just don't see any possible spin to avoid that fact. Even if he did speak with the French and the UK and maybe some others, he remembers a two hour meeting with the entire council.

Now, I've known lots of people who get things mixed up. They get the details wrong or the sequence of events mixed up. But this is not a story about where the wife and I went for dinner on our 2nd wedding anniversary. This is an imaginary meeting between a United States Senator and the UN Security Council!!!

The real issue is, he is not lying. No one would deliberately fabricate such an outlandish, easily checked story. He is not lying. He remembers that meeting. He was there. They sat around a table. All of them chatted for two hours. They assured him they were serious about Iraq. It was a good meeting. A very useful exchange of views. He came away convinced that if the US worked within the UN, Iraq would be forced to comply and war would be avoided. That's what he remembers.

Only problem is: It never happened.

This is very similar to his Christmas in Cambodia memory: vivid (seared), detailed, and false. He even has a souvenir hat. But he was never there!!

This man must not become President of the United States.

David

Kerry Met With Diplomats Before He Didn't Meet With Them, Washington Times Reports

The Washington Times today has reported that Mssr. Kerry lied in the following statements:

Second Presidential Debate: "This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable,"

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003: Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

According to the Times (the one without the lies), they were only able to confirm directly that Kerry met directly with France (gasp!), Cameroon, and Singapore. Out of five diplomatic missions that they were able to contact, the Times only found one that recalled meeting with Mssr. Kerry. Colombia, Bulgaria, and Mexico all claim that none of their diplomats met with Kerry. But it gets better, read on.

An official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations remarked: "We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council."

So the US Diplomatic corps didn't know about it either? That seems to be highly unlikely to me.

The Times also addresses Kerry's earlier claim that unspecified "foreign leaders" wanted him to win the presidency.

...a review by The Times showed that Mr. Kerry had made no official foreign trips since the start of 2002, according to Senate records and his own published schedules. An extensive review of Mr. Kerry's domestic travel schedule revealed only one opportunity for him to have met foreign leaders here.

So...not only did Kerry not have the chance to meet them while traveling abroad, he very likely never had the chance to do so here.

Naturally, the Kerry campaign has backed off the Senator's numerous specific claims of meeting with all members of the Security Council. Now they say this:

When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate's previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council.

But after being told late yesterday of the results of The Times investigation, the Kerry campaign issued a statement that read in part, "It was a closed meeting and a private discussion." A Kerry aide refused to identify who participated in the meeting.

The statement did not repeat Mr. Kerry's claims of a lengthy meeting with the entire 15-member Security Council, instead saying the candidate "met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council."

Which means, I think, that Kerry met with the ambassadors before he didn't meet with them. I think.

Let me say it out loud again: Kerry lied about this. In a presidential debate. When it was easily checked. This is not the behavior we want from the leader of the free world, and it's not the first time we've seen it from Mssr. Kerry. That's why the lying about Cambodia stuff matters. When you say something is "seared, SEARED" in your memory, it needs to be true. Otherwise, it looks like you will just say anything to get elected.

Because it will be the truth - you will say anything.

What was it Kerry said his mom told him?

"Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity."

That is, if she actually said it all.

RightMakesRight

What's at Stake: Part 2 - Iraq

If Kerry is elected, he will undermine the war in Iraq to the extent that in the end, outside forces will be removed and a militant Islamic government will be installed in Baghdad. The Saudi royals will see the writing on the wall or be toppled from power, other gulf states will fall one by one, until all are in the hands of the radical mullahs. Result: control of the world oil supply in militant hands. Kerry (or his successor) will send US forces back to the region. This time the war will be about oil, and we may not win.

David

October Surprise??

Note that there is a long line of 'if's in the paragraph above ... it may be totally wrong.

It was. The Washington Times story is about the UN, and not up to the hype.


David

Austin American Statesman Endorses Bush

Via Little Green Footballs

Will the world now end???


David

Attempted Ohio Rip-off Thwarted

The 6th Circuit has overturned the Ohio lower court decision to let people cast provisional ballots even if in the wrong precinct, as long as they were in the same county. By agreeing with the Ohio Sec. of State, the court has prevented a wash of illegally cast ballots by people who could vote literally multiple miles from their home. Cries of disenfranchisement here simply don't wash, as a voter's correct precinct is by definition the one closest to their home. The ruling also makes it likely that the court will rule the same way in a pending Michigan case. You can read the AP wire story here.

Also, Powerline has a line on something bad brewing for camp Kerry. We'll watch to find out what happens on that front. Stay tuned.

RMR

Shame, Shame, Shame (again)

From the Guardian Unlimited:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

(emphasis added)
Read it all if you want.

But it is the Republicans who are the ones being over the top??!!


David

Interesting Internals - Polls Look Good for Bush

A recent Time poll looks very good for the president. Here are a few highlights: The president is up 51-46, which is above the magic 50 percent number (which Clinton never got). Even more importantly, his approval is up to 53%, which is a 4 point upswing in a week.

Beyond the horse race, though, it's the issues that really look strong for Bush. Terrorism ties with the economy as the most important campaign issue, and Bush wins both, with 56% for terror and 46% (one point lead) on the economy. You could argue that the economic number is a statistical tie, but is that really were Mssr. Kerry wants to be?

Also, Kerry only has a four point lead on health care. Let me say that again: Kerry only has a four point lead on health care. This is an unthinkably weak number for any democrat and proves that Bush ads and attacks on health care are resonating.

Finally, from Time, Bush ties Kerry with women, having thoroughly erased the much balley-hooed "gender gap" of the Clinton years. Now the divide is between married and single women, with Bush leading the first group. I submit to you that no Democrat can win the Presidency without winning the female vote. It just isn't going to happen.

Why such good numbers for our home grown hero? Well, Harris may have the answer in a recent survey:

- 90 percent of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein would have made weapons of mass destruction if he could have.
- 76 percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein.
- 63 percent believe that history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.
- 63 percent believe that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a serious threat to U.S. security.
- 62 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (a claim which Vice President Cheney has made more than President Bush).

The simple answer is that Bush has convinced voters that he is right on the issue of Iraq, which is in many ways Kerry's centerpiece complaint about the President. His internal polling may have shown this, since Mssr. Kerry has moved on to other issue in recent days.

In other news, there is a story out today that has unemployment down in 8 of 10 battleground states. This might explain Kerry's slide on this vital Democratic issue this year.
With nothing left to say, Kerry has standard tactics: fear on social security, the draft, racial issues, etc. The big weakness here is that Bush hasn't fire hosed anyone, called a draft, or stolen anyone's check. Whoops. Great article on the Big Lie here.

The all-knowing gurus at National Review have a great endorsement of the President at their site, refer all doubters about the rightness of our cause here.

Finally, I talked about the Kerry Huntin' episode already, but I missed this quote:

Can I get me a hunting license here?

Wow. Are you kidding me? I'm sure the NRA endorsement will move from Bush to Kerry very soon.

In other news: pigs fly.

RightMakesRight

What's at Stake: Part 1 - Nuclear Terror

The Presidential election of 2004 will be the most important election in my lifetime (since WW II).

If Kerry is elected, both North Korea and Iran will become nuclear powers. Anyone think that situation would be safe? The Iranian rulers think they are doing God's work in killing infidels. North Korea's Kim thinks he IS God. A nuclear Iran will not be tolerated by Israel.

If Kerry is elected, appeasement of terrorists will become the policy of the United States. The subsequent increase of terrorist activity will lead to the inevitable use of a nuclear device by the terrorists. The target of that attack will be either the United States or Israel. If Israel, they will retaliate against Arab capitals that very day. If the US, it will take a little longer, but the public will demand and get a nuclear response as well.


David

Does Mssr. Kerry Look Like He's Winning?

Does this guy look like he's winning?

I mean, really?

What Dick Cheney called an October Disguise is really a sign of desperation. Walking around with a gun in a new camo jacket isn't behavior associated with the last two weeks of the campaign. Bush gave speeches and did Presidential things yesterday, and Kerry did this.

Note also that the Kerry campaign is frantically reaching out to African Americans, whose support for the president since last time around has doubled to 18% according to recent polling because of social issues. Read: God. Which brings us to Catholics, who also are not the sure fire vote that Mssr. Kerry was expecting. These are two major constituencies that should be more in Kerry's corner. He's still trying to shore them up two weeks before the election.

He even has problems among some Democrats! Bush's base is fired up, and even the Buchananites are with him.

You can read the numbers for yourself at RealClearPolitics here and here or see the Washington Post tracking poll with Bush up by six. The Washington Post!

"But what about turnout?"

Podhoretz reports that Kerry would need 9 million more new voters than Bush nationwide to make a significant difference (that's Perot excitement, sorry John).

This is a time to get excited about voting and winning, but also to keep our guard up. The Dems will do just about anything to win this time around, including come up with fake charges that can't be checked before the election. Bloggers and citizens must be vigilant to jump on these charges that will be coming soon.

On to victory!

RMR

Mrs. Heinz-Kerry Says Laura Bush "Never Had a Real Job"

When asked how she would be a different first lady than Laura Bush, Teresa Heinz-Kerry-Peron today made the following classy statement:

"Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good," Heinz Kerry said. "But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things."

Heinz Kerry said she sees her age as a benefit — she is 66 and Bush 57. "I'm older, and my validation of what I do is a little bit bigger — because I'm older, and I've had different experiences. And it's not a criticism of her. It's just, you know, what life is about," she said.

I'm sorry, but is "marrying well" a real job? According to AP and every American that can read a newspaper, Laura Bush taught in public schools in Texas from 1968 to 1977, the year she married George W. Bush. Does Ms. Ketchup-Kerry think that being a Mom isn't a job? You know, without a nanny, or a tutor, or a cook, or a personal trainer.

In a later statement, presumably after having a brief chat with Joe Lockhart, the billionaire said the following:

"I had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a school teacher and librarian, and there couldn't be a more important job than teaching our children. As someone who has been both a full time mom and full time in workforce, I know we all have valuable experiences that shape who we are. I appreciate and honor Mrs. Bush's service to the country as First Lady, and am sincerely sorry I had not remembered her important work in the past."

So...since Laura Bush did have a job, she's ok, but stay-at-home mom's aren't? "Valuable experiences" come in many shapes and sizes, Ms. Kerry. Didn't Hillary Clinton say something just like this during the nineties?

I can't believe that the Dems can think like this and still claim to be champions for women.

RMR

"Breck Girl" Caught on Tape

Watch this video of Senator Edwards fixing his hair.

Heh.

RMR

Why Bush?

As the Big Day of Decision is a mere two weeks away, it comes down to a fundamental question - Why Bush? What is the argument to keep Bush in office and not replace him with Mssr. Kerry?

Bush's administration has been one of tremendous consequence. While Mr. Kerry points to our divided electorate as one of the President's negatives, it is actually evidence that Mr. Bush has actually accomplished things as President. In our current the-establishment-is-not-power political times, nothing will cause controversy like a President from the how-did-THOSE-people-get-in-control party actually doing anything. However, partisanship aside, this is a Presidency that has addressed some important issues, like education reform within the first year, Bush's faith-based social service reforms, developing an energy policy that would have prevented our current problems, adding prescription drugs to Medicare (something Clinton couldn't do in eight years), and military reform, to name a few. These were all tough issues to tackle and Bush addressed them precisely because they needed addressing.

Which brings us to Mr. Bush's most important qualification to be President - he sees himself as there to fix problems, not to simply hold the office. His actions are directed at solving problems that he sees, not making politically expedient "moves". This is perhaps how the President sometimes manages to outmaneuver the Dems - they simply don't expect him to make decisions and do things that are not politically beneficial in the short term. They always go on about "going to war for political gain" but forget that the war was not universally popular and fairly risky politically. We can know for sure that Clinton wouldn't have taken so bold a risk. Bush went to war because he thought it was the right thing to do.

John Kerry would never do such a thing, and hasn't in his entire life. For all his debate talk about "going against his party", Kerry's public record has been one of a follower and not a leader. He has consistently done what was popular within the liberal wing of his party or what would earn him election. This is why his legislative record is so singularly mediocre. There is no "Kerry-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform" or "Gramm-Kerry Tax Reform" because these are positions and bills that inspire controversy, require a multi-year effort to convince people of the rightness of your cause, and will by definition alienate some that disagree with you - even some within your party. Kerry is no John Breaux or Zell Miller or even Evan Bayh. There were no Republicans plus Kerry votes. Kerry is a pack Democrat - that's why his campaign had to keep "introducing him" to America - he hadn't done anything previously to merit their attention.

The Presidency, especially in our current age, is not a resume enhancement (a charge that can be fairly leveled against Bush's father). We need a leader with core values and a desire to lead us somewhere. Reagan had the Big Three - Rebuild the military, lower taxes, decrease regulation. He believed they were right for America and got them accomplished with great results. Similarly, Bush wanted to lower taxes, reform education, and add prescription drugs to Medicare. Notice that he did all three and more in four years. Do we doubt that what he says now will be accomplished?

Kerry has no Big Three - he has talking points that change with the wind. He should run again in less interesting times when he won't need the character to lead us through treacherous waters. You can definitely be assured that he lacks the ability to lead a Republican congress anywhere (like Reagan managed to do in the reverse situation). There is no charisma or leadership ability to do that in Mr. Kerry's empty suit.

Boil Iraq, jobs, prescription prices, gas prices, blah blah blah down and that's what you have to decide:

Who can lead?

The answer is obvious to those willing to face it - Bush.

RMR

A Word From BUSH/CHENEY Central Command

To: Interested Parties
FR: Matthew Dowd
Re: State Of The Presidential Race

As the campaign enters its final days, President Bush has seized the momentum and is well-positioned to win re-election in a close race.

Supporters should use the momentum to recruit two new George W. Bush supporters between now and Election Day. In the next two weeks, let's each try to get two new people to vote for the President who we haven't touched yet – two in two!

With this momentum in hand, the campaign will be spending the last two weeks on the offensive. The President is doing increasingly well among voters deemed a part of the key swing group: the President is winning independent voters, he is doing better among women voters than 2000, and we have the opportunity to achieve historic gains among minority voters.

The President led Kerry by about 5 points prior to the debates, but the debates energized the Democratic base and closed the race to dead even. Now, the President is on the upswing and leads Kerry by 4 points nationally, 49% to 45% — almost identical to his position before the debates.

When Kerry adviser Tad Devine declared in Tempe that 'we leave the debate with an advantage that is measurable,' the Kerry campaign was dancing on the 50-yard line. Now they'll be crying in their beer. No challenger who trailed an incumbent president after the conclusion of the debates has ever gone on to win.

Terrorism and Iraq remain key issues of the campaign, and President Bush continues to lead by double-digits on both of them. In the recent Newsweek poll, terrorism was the top issue for 26% of voters (President Bush leads Kerry by 16 points on handling terrorism in the same poll) and Iraq was the top issue for 20% (President Bush leads Kerry by 10 points on handling Iraq).

Yesterday's Gallup poll shows that John Kerry's favorability has remained stagnant through the debates. Between Gallup's Sept. 15 and Oct. 16 polls, Kerry has remained at a net +7 favorability. President Bush now has a net +11 favorability, at 55% favorable and 44% unfavorable.

In yet another sign of the President's momentum, the Kerry campaign pulled its advertising out of West Virginia on Friday, making it the latest in a string of their retreats from former 'battleground"' states. In fact, the Kerry campaign and its allies have now conceded victory to the President by pulling out of Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia, after they combined to spend $36 million on ads in those states.

But Kerry and his allies aren't the only ones who are increasingly skeptical of their chances — Americans also believe that President Bush will win re-election. According to the recent ABC News poll, 56% of Americans believe that President Bush will win the election, compared to just 33% who think Kerry will win.

And the President's travel will reflect this movement. In the next two weeks, 2/3 of the days will be spent in states Al Gore carried in 2000, as opposed to protecting states. For example, the President will visit New Jersey today, a state that Gore won by 16 points, but recent public polls show to be competitive. And in those states he will be visiting swing as well as high-growth areas with many new voters.

Please do all you can in this 'two voters in two weeks' program, and if we are successful, we will be celebrating on November 2nd.

Poll has Kerry Campaign Heading to Dead End

Maybe this photographer saw the CNN story with Bush up by 8.

Thanks to the Discerning Texan for the photo.

RMR

More on Kerry's "Mary Gaffe" and Endorsements

The New York Daily News has a great article on this today. Also, followers of the site may have noticed that the previous RMR article on this subject has been linked by Hugh Hewitt on his site as part of a blogger symposium on the issue.

Another development on this story is that I've read commentary in various places around the web that repeats the myth that "Cheney brought the issue up". This is, of course, not true. Cheney has only ever talked about this in response to questions, and Mary is not referred to in a Cheney stump speech ever, nor is she part of his regular comments or talking points. This is particularly true in the context of the issue at hand, in which at the Veep debate Edwards most definitely brought the issue up and not Cheney (go watch the tape!).

This points to a real problem today in journalism: fact checking. Conservatives often point to this as bias, and that is probably a factor, but the problem is also that reporters seem to repeat facts that they have heard without checking them. Or, worse, the reporters' "facts" come from previous news reports without bothering to check original sources and errors get repeated over and over again. In Academia, this gets your paper a grade of F and some seriously uncomfortable time during a doctoral defense, but apparently journalists' standards aren't so high. For example - the draft issue. How hard is it to address the facts of the issue when a simple Google search on "reinstate military draft" reveals that Charles Rangel and Fritz Hollings are the sponsors, the email sent around was a hoax, the Republicans killed it, and that Bush is against the draft? It took me about a minute and a half. It's funny how bloggers get this rep (and, yes, I'm sure I've gotten something wrong at some point) from journalists, but it's often bloggers that do their fact checking for them!

Finally, the endorsements are coming in and Bush has the Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, Rocky Mountain News, San Diego Union-Tribune, The San Antonio Express-News, and the Manchester Union-Leader. Kerry has the Times, Boston Globe, and a couple of Florida papers (not good) - the St. Pete's paper and the Miami Herald (I just don't feel like adding links, so go to RealClearPolitics.com to read them for yourself).

RMR

Vote Is In: Americans Offended By Kerry Lesbian Reference

Well, folks, the vote is in. The Washington Post has an article on the web today quoting a poll that 64% of likely voting Americans were offended by Kerry's reference to Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter Mary.

As well they should be. The Shiny and Lemon Scented John Edwards managed to slip in the reference in a way that Cheney had to simply thank him for his kind (if odd) words, but Mr. Kerry's obviously poor delivery of a planned remark did not fly nearly so well (think Spruce Goose or Hindenberg). Such a blatant comment could not be anything but calculated. Kerry's argument would have been much better served with a laundry list of popular gay celebrities, like "tell Rosie O'Donnell, Elton John, KD Lang, or Ellen Degeneres that it's not they way they were born." All of these folks would have been proud to have been referenced by Kerry and thank him for it.

No, sorry Mr. Kerry, but your lame explanation on this just won't wash. You weren't trying to be nice, you were trying in some bizarre liberal thought universe to wedge out some Bush/Cheney voters. If this isn't enough to convince conservative religious americans that Kerry doesn't understand them, I don't know what is.

But, bad as Mr. Kerry's statement was, it was Mrs. Edward's response that was the most offensive to me of all. In classic liberal lawyerly turnabout, Mrs. Edwards put the onus on Lynne Cheney by saying that Cheney is ashamed of her daughter's sexuality. Wait, didn't your husband say how impressed he was that the Cheney's had embraced their daughter with love? Was he lying then, or are you just being mean and disengenuous now?

Instead of apologizing, they justify. They blame, they attack.

Sound familiar?

Hint: he was from Arkansas.

RMR

Slipping Kerry Invokes Draft Lie

Yahoo! News - Kerry Says Bush Plan Could Lead to Draft

Kerry, with tracking numbers slipping back to pre-debate levels, today said that Bush will reinstate the draft with no evidence to support the charge whatsoever. Let's review the facts.

The only people in America in favor of the draft are DEMOCRATS. The bill in the house (that was soundly defeated by the Republicans last week) was sponsored by Dem Charles Rangel and a few other DEMOCRATS. The Senate version was sponsored by DEMOCRAT Fritz Hollings. Please see this post right here at RMR for evidence on this. The post also has a link to UrbanLegends.com that debunks the rumor. The recent vote in the house only received two votes from DEMOCRATS.

People buy this rumor because it feels true in their liberal world view. Every suggestion about the draft (again, from DEMOCRATS) has been met with swift rejection from the Administration and the Pentagon because the idea of a draft doesn't work with the modern military. A draftee can't operate the equipment or perform the tasks of the trained volunteers in the modern army. The days of massive armies slugging it out in trenches is over. This is beyond the moral problem of compelling soldiers to fight that didn't volunteer.

Bush has stated repeatedly and emphatically that there will be no draft as long as he's president. Furthermore, there would have to be congressional action to have a draft, and that isn't going to happen either. Can you imagine a more unpopular bill?

Is that the smell of desperation? Kerry should stick with lying about other things and avoid lies that are so easily refuted.

My greatest irritation about this is that Kerry will probably dupe some passionate young people with this gargage. They deserve better.

RMR

And the winner is . . .

As Simon and Garfunckle once sang "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

Most democrat commentators, including many in the MSP say Kerry won. Most republican commentators say Bush won. Who's right? I don't think it matters much.

Here's what does matter:

• Whose supporters got turned on the most? - Bush - With several good comebacks and a relaxed 'in command' demeanor.
  
• Who gave the other side ammo for adds? - Kerry - His comment about Cheney's daughter and the '56 bills' statement will be heard over and over.
  

So Bush's base will be pumped up more than Kerry's. The polls will widen in Bush's favor a little by mid next week.

Who will win the election? - Depends on who shows up to vote in several key states, and that depends largely on the success of Rove's turn out machine.

David

Still Questions About Kerry's Military Service

The New York Sun has a front page story today that asserts that Kerry's discharge from the Navy Reserve may have not been honorable. This is not news, but has only really been mentioned anywhere in the press by Swift Vets who said that they have not made a deal about it because the information they had was only suspicious and not rock solid (like everything else they had). Beldar has some of the documents mentioned in the story posted on his site.

Here are a couple of salient facts -

1) The document on Kerry's site is not consistent with a normal honorary discharge. It mentions a board of review assigned to his discharge at the request "of the President", who in 1978 was Carter for those of you keeping score at home. This, to me, seems unusual. Why would he need a review? This is not ordinary discharge policy (perhaps David, the retired rocket scientist and Vietnam Vet, can address this issue). Further, the policy mentioned that caused the review was Mr. Kerry's "involuntary seperation" from the service, which can mean lots of stuff but not an honorable discharge.

2) When you are dishonorably discharged, you lose your pension, medals, and lots of other stuff (like your honor). Perhaps this explains why Kerry, five months after entering the Senate, had all of his medals reinstated to him on June 4, 1985. Kerry claims that he lost them and had to have them reissued, but he might have used his new Senator clout to get them back to use as campaign materials.

3) Kerry could clear this and every question about his military service up by signing Standard Form 180, which would make all of the Pentagon's records on him public. The President has done so many years ago and has continued to push the Pentagon to find more to answer questions about him. He has done this because he knows he didn't do anything wrong (one of the conveniences of not being a liar). Kerry has not, and he can't claim that involves his kid's finances like he does with his taxes. Maybe he has something to hide. What could possibly be the harm of releasing the documents?

4) Kerry could claim that Nixon and company were out to get him, so he doesn't want to release his records. This makes no sense because that would make him look like a big stud since the Zeitgeist now is that Nixon was eeeeevil.

There are about one hundred pages of files Kerry won't release. Americans should ask - why not? Shouldn't someone so obviously proud of his service be willing to make his records available? Kerry has brought this on himself by touting his Vietnam record so heavily.

RMR

Reviewing the Electoral Map

CNS News has an interesting article today (you can read it on the crawl on the sidebar also). The campaigns are spending almost all their money in ten states. According to the article Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are seeing the heaviest advertising of the fifty states. Here is the poll breakdown (thanks to Real Clear Politics Averages) for each state:

Colorado: Bush up by 5.6%, electoral votes: 9 (Bush 2000)
Florida: Bush up by 3.5%, electoral votes: 27 (BUSH 2000)
Iowa: Kerry up by 1%, electoral votes: 7 (Gore 2000)
Michigan: Kerry up by 2.7%, electoral votes: 17 (Gore 2000)
Minnesota: Kerry up by 3.5%, electoral votes: 10 (Gore 2000)
New Mexico: TIED, electoral votes: 5 (Gore 2000)
Nevada: Bush up by 4.8%, electoral votes: 5 (Bush 2000)
Ohio: Kerry up by 2%, electoral votes 20 (Bush 2000)
Pennsylvania: Kerry up by 3.8%, electoral votes 21 (Gore 2000)
Wisconsin: Bush up by 3%, electoral votes 10 (Gore 2000)

A couple of interesting points. First, there are a total of 131 votes in play here. Of those, if Bush scores like he did in 2000, he will win 61. That means that Kerry is defending more territory. If Bush wins what he is winning today, he will win 51 (demographic changes in solid Bush states like Texas should compensate for this difference). Those of the ten that are true toss-ups are Iowa, New Mexico and Ohio for a total of 31 votes.

What does all this mean? If you count the leaning and solid states' electoral votes, the score is currently Bush 264, Kerry 237. The magic number is 270. Bush would also win with 269 because the good guys control the House, which decides all ties. So...of the true toss-up votes, Bush only needs five more in his favor, even if he loses Ohio. Kerry basically has to run the table.

We all should remember how well the last few weeks of the Bush 2000 campaign were run, with Bush hitting all the states that ended up putting him over the top within the last 72 hours. Bush has also consistently led in the average national polls for the last month or so, and Kerry's post debate surge seems to be subsiding.

It looks like we're going to be all right, folks, but have the coffee already made on election night. You might need it. Just make sure you vote first!

RMR

Nailing Kerry and (Surprise!) the Military Loves BUSH

PJ O Rourke has a fantastic article in the Weekly Standard today, both funny and insightful. He just skewers the Kerry argument in a million ways.

Secondly, a great Washington Post article reports that a Military Times poll found that military members support Bush over Kerry 72 to 17 percent in spite of continuing Democrat efforts to woo their votes. The article speculates that Kerry's red meat on Iraq might excite the base but doesn't do much for those wearing fatigues. Also, I doubt many want a return to the Clinton era military.

Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't we go with the military's choice in a war? Just a thought.

Gary Gregg also has a good article about the electoral college breakdown and Bush's strong poll position in that race. If he wins all the red and "pink" states, he only needs one of the true toss-ups (six electoral votes) to win. That means he could theoretically lose Ohio and still win, something no Republican has ever done. In any case, Kerry has a much higher mountain to climb. Read the article for more details.

Hold on to your hats folks. It's going to be close, but we will be victorious.

RMR