Comments on: Good Polling News?

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:07:35 +0000

to the extent that they allow a piece of racist, anti-semitic hate-mongering trash like Al Sharton [sic] Of course, the real question here is why are Republicans so fond of Sharpton? Care to explain that, Thorley?

By: poopypants

poopypants — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:40:18 +0000

So the Dems have sewn up the Islamofascist vote, the anti-freedom vote, the pro-Sudanese civil war vote, and the anti-Semitic vote. My favorite kind of satire is when you can’t quite ever tell if they’re funnin’ ya. But I’m not getting that special tingle from these comments. :( One benefit, though, is they lower the quality so much that even I no longer feel self-conscious about posting here. So, there goes the neighborhood. BRING’EM ON! :)

By: DJW

DJW — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:04:31 +0000

If Thorley is actually suggesting that the Republicans wouldn’t allow an anti-semite to participate in debates, I suggest he immerse himself in the collected works of Pat Robertson.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:44:19 +0000

It seems Thorley think the Democratic party is an anti-semitic organisation, that a mere 80% of Jewish voters vote for. Either there’s a lot of self-hating Jews out there, or someone has a very odd definition of anti-semitism. I assume that’s what the racism accusation amounts to. Or maybe Democrats are anti-white. Or maybe black is white. Or maybe giving a recess appointment to Charles Pickering on the weekend of MLK’s birthday is playing to a racist base. Who knows these days?

By: Mel

Mel — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:54:18 +0000

I thought Kerry was a generic democrat. Go figure.

By: ahem

ahem — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:37:49 +0000

Bush does not have to cater to a party base that is so unabashedly racist… Three words: Bob. Jones. University. And it’s four years since Bush’s primary campaign in SC, built upon smearing John McCain through push-polls referring to his adopted Bangladeshi daughter. Yes, Bush’s party base is so unabashedly non-racist that he spoke at an avowedly racist ‘university’ and his supporters played the ‘black baby’ card to win a primary.

As for the Waterloo of South Carolina, most of the facts are well-known, and among this group of Republicans, what happened has taken on the air of an unsolved crime, a cold case, with Karl Rove being the prime suspect. Bush loyalists, maybe working for the campaign, maybe just representing its interests, claimed in parking-lot handouts and telephone “push polls” and whisper campaigns that McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict, that McCain might be mentally unstable from his captivity in Vietnam, and that the senator had fathered a black child with a prostitute. Callers push-polled members of a South Carolina right-to-life organization and other groups, asking if the black baby might influence their vote. Now here’s the twist, the part that drives McCain admirers insane to this very day: That last rumor took seed because the McCains had done an especially admirable thing. Years back they’d adopted a baby from a Mother Teresa orphanage in Bangladesh. Bridget, now eleven years old, waved along with the rest of the McCain brood from stages across the state, a dark-skinned child inadvertently providing a photo op for slander. The attacks were of a level and vitriol that even McCain, who was regularly beaten in captivity, could not ignore. He began to answer the slights, strayed off message about how he would lead the nation if he got the chance, and lost the war for South Carolina. Bush emerged from the showdown upright and victorious . . . and onward he marched.

So, two more words: utter garbage.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:04:57 +0000

Jim Miller wrote:

It is simply a fact that Islamic extremists, some of them terrorists, hope that President Bush will be defeated.

I agree but more unsettling than that would be the fact that Bush’s major critics in the area of foreign policy tend to generally (but not exclusively) be the sort who are either part of the Blame America First crowd (MoveOn.org, ANSWER, Kuchinich, the Dean Dongs, etc.), the “Nation-states are so blaise” UN-philes, or the “whatever the polls tell me is the right side to be on” (Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, etc). Those who are serious about national security (Lieberman) have notably received an icy reception in the Democratic primary which indicates that party is still dominated by the former rather than latter.

It is also a fact that all of his Democratic opponents wish to expand the government in ways that will reduce the freedom of the ordinary citizen.

Quite right. As bad as Bush has been with regards to spending and growing the federal government, it is not nearly as large as what any of the Democratic nominees wanted. More importantly Bush is the most favorable to reforming entitlement programs and to to introduce pro-market/freedom reforms in health care and education. Plus unlike the Democrats, Bush does not have to cater to a party base that is so unabashedly racist to the extent that they allow a piece of racist, anti-semitic hate-mongering trash like Al Sharton to serve not only as a kingmaker in New York but participate in their presidential debates as well.

By: ahem

ahem — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:42:33 +0000

It could actually be argued, contra Jim, that if one were a terrorist of the Osama tendency, one would like nothing more than a Bush re-election. Why so? Thanks to the 22nd amendment, Bush may have less motivation to pursue (or feign pursuit) of terrorist threats; alternatively, four more years of Bush, with the prospect random politically-expedient invasions of nasty but non-threatening nations, might be construed as perfect recruitment material for yer jihadists. But it’s a stupid debating point, because arguments saying ‘vote X because the terrorists want X to lose’ have precious little to do with the functioning of a democracy.

By: GT

GT — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:22:51 +0000

There are 4 different polls, including Rasmussen’s, which came out in the last 2 days and all show Kerry beating Bush.

By: DJW

DJW — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:03:18 +0000

It is simply a fact that Islamic extremists, some of them terrorists, hope that President Bush will be defeated. Two things. First, you offer us no reason to believe this is true. I’ll concede that really compelling evidence for it would be pretty hard to gather, as you can’t commission a survey poll of terrorists, and even if you could there is no reason to believe they’d be truthful. Still, your assertion of a fact here, without even a scintilla of circumstantial evidence, isn’t worth the paper it’s not printed on. Second, I’m comfortable with the notion that Islamic terrorists are often quite wrong about a wide array of factual matters. Even if what you say is true, its relevance cannot simply be assumed. I think that ending this civil war would be a fine accomplishment. I am not sure that all of my critics above would agree. Silly me, I took you seriously, despite my better instincts. Now with this mealy-mouthed and inflamatory accusation, you make it clear I’ve been wasting my time.

By: mike

mike — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:56:30 +0000

Bangs head against wall It is simply a fact that Islamic extremists, some of them terrorists, hope that President Bush will be defeated. That does not, of course, show that we should reelect him, but it is something that thoughtful people should consider. Heck, if only Bush could topple a few more secular Arab states and allow conditions to prevail frighteningly favourable to the creation of an Islamic theocracy. Score one for the Islamofascists! Onwards to Syria! Bush has been the Islamofascist’s wet dream. It is also a fact that all of his Democratic opponents wish to expand the government in ways that will reduce the freedom of the ordinary citizen. This may be worthwhile in terms of the financial security the citizens gain, but a complete argument should consider the losses, too. I’ll tell you what we need. Total Information Awareness. Oh wait… Does Jim Miller know what the word “fact” means?

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:23:09 +0000

A point of clarification. I was reacting to the attitude in the post, that it was so obvious that Bush should be defeated that no argument was necessary on the point. That said, Jeremy Pierce was right. I am suggesting that there are arguments for Bush’s reelection. And there are some against. I have even mentioned some on my site from time to time. It is simply a fact that Islamic extremists, some of them terrorists, hope that President Bush will be defeated. That does not, of course, show that we should reelect him, but it is something that thoughtful people should consider. It is also a fact that all of his Democratic opponents wish to expand the government in ways that will reduce the freedom of the ordinary citizen. This may be worthwhile in terms of the financial security the citizens gain, but a complete argument should consider the losses, too. Some have not read my paragraph about the Sudan carefully. I mentioned that as one example, not the whole case. I am not the only one who thinks the Bush administration deserves credit there. Even the Guardian has praised his efforts there. More recently, the Toronto Globe and Mail did the same. I think that ending this civil war would be a fine accomplishment. I am not sure that all of my critics above would agree.

By: Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:52:47 +0000

Right. Having the programs wasn’t the only issue with Iraq, though.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:44:09 +0000

Oh, I am so NOT going to get into a debate about whether I might be misunderstanding/being uncharitable towards someone who says I don’t care about freedom, make common cause with Islamofascists, etc. etc. As for “WMD program which even David Kay admits”, this is from Campaign Desk’s description of a Senate hearing with Kay:

At the same hearing [before the Senate Armed Services Committee], Sen. Mark Dayton (D., MN) asked Kay “how many countries … would you say in the world today would qualify under the category of developing weapons of mass destruction and related program activities, or having such activities?” Probably about 50, replied Kay.

(emphasis added.)

By: Harry

Harry — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:37:44 +0000

Ophelia has exactly captured my thought (only expressed it more eloquently). Still, wasn’t the point of Jeremy’s post to advertise his skills as a diplomat? Well done.