September 15, 2004

MODIFIER PLAGUE SWEEPS BOSTON

The Botson Globeís Anne E. Kornblut seems reluctant to face certain realities:

Strategists on both sides of the presidential campaign are increasingly looking northward toward the Great Lakes region, eyeing three states -- Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan -- as crucial in a race that for now at least appears to be trending toward President Bush.

Canít wait for her election day report: "For now at least it appears that George W. Bush has been re-elected". Meanwhile, for now at least it appears that Democrat volunteers should steer clear of the scary Lileks mansion:

Had another DNC canvasser the other night. Very young. She read from a piece of paper. She wanted my help to defeat Bush, and said that with only 55 days until the election it was clear that the Republicans would stop at nothing and we are out tonight to (squint, doublecheck word) encourage your support. Then she handed the board for me to sign.

"Why?" I asked.

She stared at me. "Tell me why I should vote for John Kerry," I said.

"Iím - new at this? And I Ė" she looked over her shoulder for the other canvasser. "I had some paper, but I gave it away."

"Tell me what you believe," I said. "Tell me what you feel in your head and heart about John Kerry."

Whereupon she said that the War in Iraq was wrong and was "killing all those innocent soldiers," and someone the other day said that if we didnít elect him Bush would have another 9/11, but she didnít know who said it.

"But tell me why I should vote for John Kerry," I said. Gently, mind you. With a smile.

"I donít know," she said.

For now at least it appears that not many people do.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 15, 2004 03:03 PM
Comments

It sounds as if the DNC is using Jordan Capri to do their canvassing.

Posted by: Pig Head Sucker at September 15, 2004 at 03:50 PM

Because he will repeal the global gag rule?

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 04:20 PM

Because he won't take advice from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz?

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 04:22 PM

Because he supports civil unions?

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 04:28 PM

Because he will lower the budget deficit and shrink the size of government?

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 04:34 PM

Because he is not planning to invade Iran?

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 04:38 PM

Because he knows that the proposed missile defence system is nothing but corporate welfare on a colossal scale?

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 04:42 PM

Because he'll get the troops out of Iraq, but he won't "cut and run" from Iraq, and he'll send more troops to Iraq, but he'll bring the troops home from Iraq, and he'll vote to authorize spending on Iraq before he votes against authorizing spending on Iraq...

Posted by: Dave S. at September 15, 2004 at 04:46 PM

Because he does not change his position as often as the incumbent?

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 04:49 PM

Because he opposes capital punishment, particularly the execution of juveniles?

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 04:58 PM

Because he won't send his flunkies to post talking points from DemocraticUnderground.com?

Posted by: Quentin George at September 15, 2004 at 05:14 PM

Because we'll be able to get great deals on the Flipper DVD.

Posted by: YoJimbo at September 15, 2004 at 05:16 PM

"Because he opposes... the execution of juveniles"

Ah, so you have a personal stake in this.

Now it's bedtime for you, Little Mr. Postyfingers!

Posted by: Dave S. at September 15, 2004 at 05:17 PM

Because he is condesending like the French and even speaks French?

Posted by: perfectsense at September 15, 2004 at 05:19 PM

Trolls rarely deserve comment, however this little tidbit:

"Because he won't take advice from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz?"

is a great example of blind devotion. You state that as a reason to vote Kerry, with no evidence whatsoever to suggest that taking advice from those people is a bad thing. I could equally state that a reason not to vote for Kerry was because he *would* take advice from Ted kennedy.

"Because he will lower the budget deficit and shrink the size of government?"

Again - got any proof of that, or is saying it proof enough? Maybe this is further "CBS logic", where you can assert something without evidence, and the burden of disproving it falls on us?

Posted by: attila at September 15, 2004 at 05:21 PM

Because that's the way NK,Syria,Iran,PLO,Hamas AQ,Hezbollah,France,UN and Germany want us to vote.

Posted by: YoJimbo at September 15, 2004 at 05:23 PM

attila, I'm tempted to reply:

"Is taking advice from Cheney et. al. a bad idea? 1000 soldiers and 10,000+ civilians say YES!"

...but that would be in extremely poor taste.

I'm afraid I can't *prove* he will reduce the budget deficit, as that would require time travel to verify. However, he has expressed the desire to do so, while the incumbent shows little inclination in that direction. (Not to mention the usual Republican controlled congress that would act as a brake on spending, etc etc).

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 05:26 PM

Because we'll never have to bother with absud questions about national priorities or national security. The UN will reveal and provide all.

Posted by: YoJimbo at September 15, 2004 at 05:27 PM

I was unaware that Cheney and Rumsfeld had personally murdered 10,000 civilians.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 15, 2004 at 05:27 PM

50 million recently freed people say no.

Posted by: YoJimbo at September 15, 2004 at 05:30 PM

Yep, North Korea must be just longing for a compliant US president... to get re-elected:

"The mere fact that we are even contemplating a nuclear weapons test by North Korea highlights a
massive national security failure by President Bush. During his administration, North Korea has
advanced its nuclear program and a potential route to a nuclear 9/11 is clearly visible. North
Korea's nuclear program is well ahead of what Saddam Hussein was even suspected of doing - yet
the president took his eye off the ball, wrongly ignoring this growing danger. What is unfolding
in North Korea is exactly the kind of disaster that it is an American president's solemn duty to
prevent."

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 05:30 PM

Yeah, Kerry would probably ask the UN to vote on the issue of America going to war...

...no wait, that was Bush.

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 05:32 PM

Quentin, to my knowledge, Hitler didn't strangle 6 million Jews with his bare hands, either.

Bugger, Godwin's law! I lost the debate. Sorry!

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 05:34 PM

Yes he did. And then he enforced the resolution. Something Kerry would't do.

Posted by: YoJimbo at September 15, 2004 at 05:41 PM

The compliant foreign policy is what got their nukular program going in the first place nitwit! Think Clinton.

Posted by: YoJimbo at September 15, 2004 at 05:44 PM

At least with W we won't have genocide as an outcome of French oil interests.

Posted by: YoJJimbo at September 15, 2004 at 05:48 PM

I hope Michael has a hanky for November.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 15, 2004 at 05:50 PM

Quentin, that's okay, it will be fun seeing what W. can come up with on his second term.

But I'm a bit disappointed in your response; can't you at least give me a reason *not* to vote for Kerry? That isn't a parody of the "he looks French... and flip flops and things" comic?

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 05:55 PM

I don't know about the hanky, I just hope he has an oar left. Landfall seems far,far away.

Posted by: YoJimbo at September 15, 2004 at 06:00 PM

Because Kerry is an empty suit who believes in absolutely nothing?

Because Kerry has no actual support, and will be unable to govern?

Posted by: John Nowak at September 15, 2004 at 06:01 PM

Michael, to take your "points" in order:

1. "Global gag rule"? What are you blithering about now?
2. Kerry does not seem capable of taking advice from anyone. You need to demonstrate that this is in some way a good thing.
3. Has Bush opposed civil unions?
4. Bwahahahahahahaha! Sorry. Hahahahahaha! Um - haha! - evidence? Ha!
5. No, silly, this is supposed to be points in favour of Kerry.
6. Evidence? Either of the nature of the problems with the missile defence system or of Kerry's awareness of same.
7. You mean, that he has a strong record of sitting on committees?
8. One can only change position if one has a position, which in Kerry's case is rare. (I'm assuming that the list you linked to is 100% pure export-quality bullshit, but I can't be bothered checking.)
9. What juveniles, exactly? And what crimes had they committed?

Posted by: Pixy Misa at September 15, 2004 at 06:06 PM

Bingo! CBS logic:

"can't you at least give me a reason *not* to vote for Kerry?"

So your default position is to automatically vote Kerry, and we are supposed to talk you out of it?

You may have missed the point of the post - even a john kerry volunteer couldn't provide a good reason to vote kerry, other than he 'isn't bush'

That may be enough for you, but unlikely to be enough for a lot of other people.

Posted by: attila at September 15, 2004 at 06:07 PM

Pixy: The global gag rule was one of Bush's first acts as president, just to make it absolutely clear in what way W stands for women. Kerry has pledged to repeal it.

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 06:15 PM

That gag order. I'm more concerned with the repeal of the gag order on Afgahn women that W engineered. Seems more beneficial to me.

Posted by: YoJimbo at September 15, 2004 at 06:23 PM

That's Afghan. Sorry!

Posted by: YoJimbo at September 15, 2004 at 06:29 PM

Yep, W reluctantly promised $3.3 billion to rebuild Afghanistan, then submitted a budget that included *nothing* whatsoever. Feel the love.

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 06:31 PM

Michael - I'm female (though perhaps you are as well - there's always a chance) and personally I support that law; if Kerry wants to repeal it, that's one more reason for me *not* to vote for him. Not all women agree with me, of course - because, shockingly enough, we are all individuals who are capable of forming our own opinions. If you think that you're somehow selling all the women here on Kerry by posting that - well, it might work if we were a hive mind.

Men like you (notice how I did not say "Men in general") are arrogant twits - so "sensitive" to the needs of women that you never take the trouble to think that you know, we're not a f*cking monolith. I don't need your patronizing "defense", thank you. Go off to DU or someplace - I'm sure the ladies there will swoon at the idea of being protected by the likes of you - a man so sensitive to women that he assumes he knows best, a man so considerate that he'll doubtless dismiss this post as not being an "ordinary woman", a man so brave and fearless that he CAN'T WORK UP THE STONES TO POST A REAL EMAIL ADDRESS.

Look, get a throwaway account if you must; God knows they're useful. But don't expect to make many converts if you insist on handing down your pronouncements as if they were engraved on stone tablets, OK?

Posted by: Sonetka at September 15, 2004 at 06:33 PM

Comments caught up with me: I mean the law that you refer to as the "global gag rule."

Posted by: Sonetka at September 15, 2004 at 06:34 PM

Hang on - didn't Kerry vote against the money to pay for Iraq? After he had voted for the use of force?

Posted by: attila at September 15, 2004 at 06:36 PM

Sonetka, I believe that policy hurts men also, but I accept that there are both men and women who disagree. But it is one reason for voting for (or against) Kerry that many people don't think of, which is why I mentioned it.

Obviously opinions may differ on his policies (Pixy for example believes that not wanting to invade Iran is a bad thing), but it is nice to at least consider what those policies might be before dismissing them.

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 06:40 PM

attila, Kerry voted against one form of the bill that he disagreed with, just as Bush threatened to veto other versions of the bill.

In particular, Kerry did not trust that the reconstruction money in the bill (~$20 billion) would be spent wisely. Reports on how little of it has been spent at all since then would seem to back that up...

Posted by: Michael at September 15, 2004 at 06:49 PM

Because he comes from Botson.

Posted by: Tony.T at September 15, 2004 at 06:54 PM

Oh, yes, Kerry says he'll balance the budget.

He's also said he won't cut spending on health care, social security, education, security (including both Homeland Security and defense), or veteran's benefits. And that he's going to increase funding for education, alternative energy, health care, and military personnel.

So, Michael, I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for a mere $50. Really, I will. I have the deed, it's in Times New Roman font.

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at September 15, 2004 at 07:29 PM

Tony T. I must agree, the main reason not to vote for John F. Kerry, is that he is an East-Coast snob.

I think however, that if he is elected (cough..cough), when that tactical nuke goes off in U.S. City X, old sagy face will go Roman on the entire Middle-East.

And when that happens, at least he can rightly expect, and will see, the support of U.S. Republicans, as well as U.S. Democrats in his calculated revenge.

If the same scenario happens under Bush, well, you know.

Posted by: Thomas at September 15, 2004 at 07:33 PM

Michael, don't multiple comment like that. It's annoying, and makes you look like a hectoring shrew. If you are having trouble remembering all your ideas at once, type them up in Notepad or something as they come to you and then post them.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 15, 2004 at 08:22 PM

Reasons the left will vote for Kerry:

Because he impersonated an Irishman.
Because he stole plans for a donut shop.
Because he committed war crimes.
Because he failed to get into Harvard Law School.
Because he wonít release his military records.
Because he wonít release his medical records.
Because he wonít release his academic records.
Because he accomplished nothing after 20 years in the Senate.
Because he marries rich women.
Because he gained national prominence over the bodies of his comrades-in-arms.
Because he threw away his medals, but didnít throw away his medals.
Because he "volunteered" for the Navy to avoid the Army.
Because he conquered Cambodia.
Because he cut-and-ran after four months in Vietnam, leaving the fighting to lesser mortals.

Posted by: perfectsense at September 15, 2004 at 08:35 PM

As someone who has, in the past, been first point of contact for women trying to arrange an abortion I testify that not a single one of them said they wanted it because they wanted it. Almost universally they were on that road because their husband/boyfriend wanted it and was pressuring her to have it done. Miserable, unsupportive, life-denying, greedy, selfish sods taking advantage of what "progressive" lawyers made possible.

The reason I said, "almost universally," is that there was that one woman who said that otherwise she couldn't afford the new lounge suite. So there you are. It takes all sorts.

Of course, that was a few years ago, before misery-guts Keating changed his mind about women and the workforce and made it next to impossible for anyone but rich blokes like himself to afford to keep a wife at home to look after the kids. And, of course, no one has yet made it possible for men to work part-timish and still have a career so they can do some child care themselves and let the wife get some hours in so as to avoid falling completely through the career cracks. Ah well. We will all know the folly of outsourced child care in about 5 - 10 years when the first big chunk of kids raised that way start trying to raise their own.

As far as I'm concerned the global gag rule rules. Wish we had one here.

Posted by: Janice at September 15, 2004 at 08:55 PM

Reasons NOT to vote for Kerry:

1. He shilled for the North Vietnamese in 1971, betraying and defaming the men he now calls his "band of brothers." (The "Winter Soldier" "evidence" was a load of fetid dingoes' kidneys.)

2. He shilled for the Sandanista distatorship in the 1980s, going so far as to make up stories about secret missions in Cambodia as part of his argument.

3. To the extent you can say he has a taken a consistent position on a foreign policy issue, he has called for appeasement of Iran and North Korea.

4. If elected, his main foreign policy advisors would be Madaline Allbright ("I danced with Kim Jong Il! He's my dream date!"), Sandy Burglar, and Ted Kennedy.

5. He considers Islamist terrorism a law enforcement problem.

6. He thinks liberating 50 million people from two of the world's worst tyrranies is a bad thing.

7. While he promised to respond to any attack, he seems not to notice that WE ALREADY HAVE BEEN ATTACKED.

8. If elected, his primary constituenbcy will be wacko nutjob conspiracy-theory "Bush=Hitler" "the Jews control everything!" barking moonbats like Michael Moore, the DemocraticUnderground.com crowd, Atrios, Kos, and Michael the Troll (see above). Even if Kerry actually tried to do the right thing, his own base of political power would prevent it.

Need I go on?

Posted by: Mike at September 15, 2004 at 09:45 PM

Uh Michael, Kerry said "If the bill (that he supported that wd have paid for the Iraq bill with tax increases. Imagine that: Kerry wanting higher taxes, qu'elle surprise!) doesn't pass, it would be IRRESPONSIBLE to veto the other bill." Then when he had to get left of Dean he did that very same thing.

He is gutless, he has no integrity, he is the worst of the lear jet liberals that collect a nice paycheck to hang out in Georgetown.

Oh and 1,000 soldiers and 10K civilians killed? Weren't your Moveon.org talking points before the war talking about 10's of thousands of soldiers and hundred's of thousands of civilians will be killed?

What? You were wrong? Again? Go away pest.

Posted by: hen at September 15, 2004 at 10:19 PM

Because he is not planning to invade Iran?

Oh, thank fucking goodness, I REALLY want the mullahs sleeping peacefully.

Posted by: Sortelli at September 15, 2004 at 10:56 PM

. . .his own base of political power. . .

Actually, I want to predict that if Kerry WERE elected, he would have NO base of political power. He would become the most hated President in US history. Kerry does not have a base of political power. He does not have supporters. The best he could hope for is the non-confrontational non-support of the "militant middle", but both the left and right sides of the political spetrum would tear him apart.

Democrats hate Kerry, but they're betting on him because he's what they got and he happened to "Not Be Howard Dean" at the right time.

Posted by: Sortelli at September 15, 2004 at 11:41 PM

Note, for example, how many of Michael's talking points were anti-Bush instead of pro-Kerry.

Posted by: Sortelli at September 15, 2004 at 11:42 PM

Even in his attempt to be positive about Kerry.

Posted by: Sortelli at September 15, 2004 at 11:42 PM

And that's pretty damn pathetic.

Posted by: Sortelli at September 15, 2004 at 11:43 PM

To be fair, "Tell me why I should vote for John Kerry" is an extremely tough question.

Posted by: dorkafork at September 16, 2004 at 12:51 AM

Sortelli:

I think you're right. Kerry would have no real base because no one is for him; they're all against that {span class-moonbat) moronic evil genius BushHitler who's trying to take over the world for Halliburton and Israel!!!! (/span)

It would be like the Carter administration all over again, only worse.

Posted by: Mike at September 16, 2004 at 12:54 AM

"As someone who has, in the past, been first point of contact for women trying to arrange an abortion I testify that not a single one of them said they wanted it because they wanted it. Almost universally they were on that road because their husband/boyfriend wanted it"

Yes, I'm sure that's what they told you. Probably threw in some tears for good measure.

"Miserable, unsupportive, life-denying, greedy, selfish sods"

I don't know what the laws are in Austrlia, but here's how it works in the US:

Mommy wants abortion, Daddy doesn't = abortion. Tough shit, Daddy.

Daddy wants abortion, Mommy doesn't = Daddy pays child support for 18 years. Tough shit, Daddy.


Posted by: Dave S. at September 16, 2004 at 01:01 AM

Botson?

Isn't that a Navy NCO?

Posted by: Joe Geoghegan at September 16, 2004 at 01:02 AM

Joe, the Navy position is Boatswain, abbreviated in speech to Bo'son (Bah-sun).

Mike: regarding the restrictions on NGO funding, AKA "Global Gag Rule"... This is a pretty simple law. All it does as far as I can tell is prevent US taxpayer dollars from being used to fund convenience abortions in foreign countries. It in no way affects NGOs use of such funds (as available) for sex education, contraceptive and medical equipment/training, or family planning. If I read it right, it also still allows funding to go for abortions in cases of rape, incest, or where the health of the mother is in jeopardy.

Why the hell should I work to fund someone else's lifestyle abortion (foreign or American)? People can fund that on their own time.

I did not even know about that law until you brought it up. Thanks for informing me; now I have one more reason to like GW.

Posted by: jonathan at September 16, 2004 at 01:22 AM

And you're telling me these Bah-sun people have their OWN NEWSPAPER?

Now that's a niche market!

Posted by: Joe Geoghegan at September 16, 2004 at 01:28 AM

Is it me, or do "Michael's" reasons to elect Kerry boil down to him being the annointed NotBush?

Posted by: Patrick Chester at September 16, 2004 at 01:29 AM

This is all academic anyway. Michael has no pro-active reasons to elect Kerry, just anti-talking points, of which the only one with merit is the spending problem which has conservatives somewhat ticked off. Kerry would be worse of course, because he would spend more and raise taxes, which is exactly what is platform has in general indicated - one of the few things on which he has any position identified at all.

Besides, CBS has killed Kerry. The DNC must stand for Dumb National Committee because their hands are looking to be all over the "documents". Bush is surging, battleground states are moving red while formally safe Kerry states are moving into battleground status - i.e. New Jersey. Kerry will have to spend to protect his base, not attack Bush. Hell, Bush is inside 10 points down in NY!! He got smoked by Gore there in 2000. If Bush makes an appearance in NYC Kerry will have to defend NY-talk about expensive.

The problem Michael, is that while Bush is no saint and almost everyone has some issue with him, he does stand for things. People sense that and appreciate that, especially in a time of war, which this is. Kerry stands for nothing-just recently Imus throttled him after his appearance on the biggest east coast radio show in the country on his comments on Iraq. He cannot articulate what is important to him on any topic - that shows vulnerability and in our troubled times makes him unelectable. I said over a month ago Bush wins easily - now it might be a landslide of Reagan proportions.

Posted by: JEM at September 16, 2004 at 05:57 AM