[tomspoumn]

Good for McCain. I'm sure he's still smarting from the sludge Bush threw at him in 2000.

Criticizing the validity of Kerry's medals is pretty foul, but it's nowhere near calling voters to suggest that McCain fathered an illegitimate child.

[AntonioXYZ]

Anti-Kerry Ad Is Condemned by McCain

By JIM RUTENBERG
The New York Times
Published: August 6, 2004


McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for five years

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - Senator John McCain on Thursday repudiated a new advertisement accusing Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts of lying about his Vietnam War record and called on the President Bush to do the same.

At the same time the Democratic Party said three television stations had agreed to its request to cease showing the advertisement.

"I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad,'' The Associated Press quoted Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona and a Vietnam War veteran, as saying.

Mr. Bush's campaign did not do so, but Nicolle Devenish, Mr. Bush's campaign communications director, said, "We have never and will never question John Kerry's service.'' She did not address the content of the advertisement, from a group of anti-Kerry veterans calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Mr. Kerry earned a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is one of the so-called 527 committees, named for a provision in the tax code that created them. Federal law allows such groups to raise unlimited donations and run advertisements so long as they do not expressly call for the election or defeat of a federal candidate. The Democrats have been far more reliant on such groups than the Republicans this election.

Asked in a briefing Thursday if the Bush campaign would repudiate the advertisement, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said, "The president deplores all the unregulated soft money activity.''

In the advertisement, running on stations in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, men who served on Swift boats say Mr. Kerry "is no war hero'' and "lied to get his Bronze Star.'' The spot opens with some of the men saying "I served with John Kerry.'' None of the men served with Mr. Kerry on his Swift boat but claim to have served on boats that were often near his.

Lawyers for the Democratic National Committee on Thursday called upon television stations to refuse to run the advertisement. The party said it had persuaded at least 3 of the 27 stations carrying the spot to cease showing it until they could establish if it contained outright falsehoods.


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[shiciapsisy]

This morning, most of the network news shows played Lynn and Dick Cheney's response to Kerry's remarks. However, they also replayed the debate video. I think that, when they are played side by side, voters will wonder what exactly Kerry said that got the Cheney's are so upset.

Cheney's daughter and the Vice President's unwaivering support of her is a major contradiction to Bush's stance on Gay Marriage and the Christian Rights opposition to any kind of Gay Rights. It is one thing for the Cheney's to say it was unfair to drag their daughter into the debate. It is another to say that focusing attention on their daughter's homosexuality is "a cheap and tawdry trick". I think the longer this little sideshow plays out the deeper the Lynn Cheney's foot will be thrust in her mouth. She chose her words poorly and will have to explain exactly what she meany by a "cheap & tawdry trick".

I think the Kerry campaign has, for the first time all election season, truly thrown the Bush team off balance. It will be interesting to see how it plays, although I think, in the end, it all hinges on Democratic voter turnout vs. Republican success in suppressing or destroying the Democratic vote.

[Starichok]

Cheney: Economic stats miss eBay sales
September 10, 2004

Indicators measure the nation's unemployment rate, consumer spending and other economic milestones, but Vice President Dick Cheney says it misses the hundreds of thousands who make money selling on eBay.

"That's a source that didn't even exist 10 years ago," Cheney told an audience in Cincinnati on Thursday. "Four hundred thousand people make some money trading on eBay."

San Jose, Calif.-based EBay Inc. is an Internet auction site where anyone can sell just about anything, including clothing, cell phones, jewelry, memorabilia, trinkets and automobiles.

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards responded that Cheney's comments show how "out of touch" he and President Bush are with the economy.

"If we only included bake sales and how much money kids make at lemonade stands, this economy would really be cooking," Edwards said in a statement.*

© Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Farson]

July 26, 2004

OP-CHART

Where Do They Stand?

By SARAH BINDER, THOMAS MANN, ALAN MURPHY and PAUL SAHRE


Source: Ideological positions calculated by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, see "Common Space Data," http://voteview.uh.edu/readmeb.htm .

Most campaigns feature efforts by the candidates to characterize their opponent as being out of the mainstream - as an extreme liberal or as part of the far right. The current presidential campaign is no exception.

Thus far, most of the ideological fire has been directed at the Kerry-Edwards ticket. The Bush campaign has gotten particularly good mileage out of a National Journal analysis of roll call voting in 2003 that ranked John Kerry of Massachusetts as the No. 1 liberal in the Senate and John Edwards of North Carolina as the fourth-most-liberal senator.

Yet the senators' ratings are misleading because of the large number of votes each man missed. Mr. Kerry, for example, attended so few votes on social and foreign policy that his composite score in 2003 was based only on economic policy. Even then he was not the single most liberal senator on economic issues; it was a distinction he shared with six other senators, including Bob Graham of Florida.

So where do the Democratic nominees really fit along the left-right spectrum? Well, you get a different answer if your calculations are based on nearly all votes cast by the candidates in their Senate careers. Using this measure, we have arrayed Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards from left to right in the above figure based on their voting history in the Senate. For comparison's sake, we also have included Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, John McCain of Arizona, and the parties' median senators. We even have scores for President Bush (from his announced positions on roll call votes while president) and Vice President Dick Cheney (based on the votes he cast when he represented Wyoming in the House of Representatives from 1979 through 1988).

Assertions that the Democrats' presumptive nominees are extreme liberals fall flat. True, Mr. Kerry's voting history places him to the left of today's median Senate Democrat (Tom Daschle of South Dakota). But he is closer to the center of the Democratic Party than he is to the most liberal senators, including Mr. Kennedy. John Edwards falls just to the right of the median Democrat. In fact, he is nearly indistinguishable from Mr. Lieberman, the Democrats' vice presidential candidate in 2000.

On the other side of the partisan divide, Mr. Bush - like Mr. Kerry - is more extreme than his party's median senator (Richard Shelby of Alabama). He is also noticeably more conservative than his primary challenger in 2000, John McCain. So any assertion that the Democratic candidates are out of the mainstream might easily be applied to the Republicans as well. In fact, if any of the four candidates on the national party tickets this year is out of the mainstream, it is Mr. Cheney, who in his last full term in the House was on the right flank of roughly 90 percent of his Republican colleagues.

Sarah Binder and Thomas Mann are senior fellows at the Brookings Institution. Alan Murphy is a senior research assistant there. Paul Sahre is a graphic designer.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Hervams]

I also think that Mr. Edwards is best place for Vice President. He is young and sounds smart. He is from the south....which he can get some votes for Kerry and he is known to people already (I think). He seems active to get votes for kerry and might help Kerry's lack of enthusiasm. :P

[Jon Woodgate]

July 15, 2004
POLITICAL MEMO

Hear the Rumor on Cheney? Capital Buzzes, Denials Aside
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON, July 14 - In the annals of Washington conspiracy theories, the latest one, about Vice President Dick Cheney's future on the Republican ticket, is as ingenious as it is far-fetched. But that has not stopped it from racing through Republican and Democratic circles like the latest low-carb diet.

The newest theory - advanced privately by prominent Democrats, including members of Congress - holds that Mr. Cheney recently dismissed his personal doctor so that he could see a new one, who will conveniently tell him in August that his heart problems make him unfit to run with Mr. Bush. The dismissed physician, Dr. Gary Malakoff, who four years ago declared that Mr. Cheney was "up to the task of the most sensitive public office" despite a history of heart disease, was dropped from Mr. Cheney's medical team because of an addiction to prescription drugs.

"I don't know where they get all these conspiracy theories," said Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist, who has heard them all. "It's inside-the-Beltway coffee talk, is all it is."

It may be inside the Beltway, but in recent days the Washington summer clamor about dropping Mr. Cheney has so greatly intensified that Mr. Cheney himself was forced to address it on Wednesday. Asked in a C-Span interview if he could envision any circumstances under which he would step aside, Mr. Cheney replied: "Well, no, I can't. If I thought that were appropriate, I certainly would."

In the interview, to be broadcast Sunday, Mr. Cheney also said that Mr. Bush "has made very clear he doesn't want to break up the team," but that chatter of his stepping down was to be expected.

"I suppose right now, because we're in the run-up to the convention, people don't have much to talk about so you get speculation on that," he said. "It's normal. When we get to the convention, I think that'll put an end to that." Who would replace Mr. Cheney has nonetheless became a favorite Washington guessing game, with the names of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Senator John McCain of Arizona whispered about the most. Never mind that neither has a particularly cordial relationship with Mr. Bush, and that neither has expressed interest in the job. Other names that keep popping up include Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader.

There is also something of an under-the-radar campaign among Republicans promoting their friends for a job that may never come open. As an example, boosters of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, have long tried to toss his name in the mix, despite the fact that friends of the president say he would never pick Mr. Giuliani.

The rumblings about Mr. Cheney are similar to those that plagued Vice President Dan Quayle in 1992, when Secretary of State James A. Baker III led efforts to push Mr. Quayle off the ticket. But the reasons are different.

Mr. Quayle was seen as a bumbler who could not spell "potato," making him an easy target for Bill Clinton's campaign. Mr. Cheney, who has suffered four heart attacks, has faced persistent questions about his powerful role in promoting the war in Iraq and insisting that Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons.

But like Mr. Quayle, Mr. Cheney suffers from low approval ratings. Last month, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that 21 percent of voters had a favorable impression of Mr. Cheney, compared with 39 percent for Mr. Bush.

Democrats, as part of their campaign to discredit the competition, are energetically promoting the idea that Mr. Cheney is a drag on the ticket. But none of them are suggesting that Mr. Bush should drop him.

"He has come to be a polarizing figure who repels voters," said Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Senator John Kerry. But asked if that did not make Mr. Cheney a dream candidate to run against, Mr. Devine demurred. "I'm not going to lob one in that direction," he said. "I don't want to be the Kerry guy who says 'We want Cheney.' "

Republicans close to the Bush campaign say that the Democrats are using Mr. Cheney as a powerful way to attack Mr. Bush and undermine the White House. "When the Democrats attacked Dan Quayle, it didn't matter a lot," said Vin Weber, a former congressman who is the Bush campaign's chairman for the upper Midwest. "Nobody thought Dan Quayle was the president's most trusted adviser, with broad responsibilities. But Democrats understand that when you go after this vice president, you really go after the administration.''

But even some Republicans are now questioning whether Mr. Cheney should stay on the ticket. As one House Republican said, conspiratorially, outside the House chamber this week, "Watch Cheney." Another Republican member of Congress said that Mr. Cheney was increasingly viewed as a political liability.

"I don't think you fix the problem by changing the No. 2 horse, but Bush is facing so much heavy baggage going into November, he's going to have to throw some of that baggage off," said the Republican, who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

One recent contribution to the buzz about Mr. Cheney came Tuesday in a column by Charlie Cook, the editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "Stipulating that dumping a totally loyal, integral part of his inner circle is something that is absolutely not in George W. Bush's DNA, losing with plenty of notice does not appear to be part of his genetic makeup either," Mr. Cook wrote. He concluded that in an election year as close as this one, "the president badly needs something to shake this race up, and I can think of just one thing. Cheney may need to watch his back."

Mr. Cook's column came less than a week after Alfonse M. D'Amato, the once-influential Republican senator from New York, said on the cable station NY1 that Mr. Bush should replace Mr. Cheney with Mr. Powell or Mr. McCain. Mr. D'Amato's motives have stirred speculation among New Yorkers, although some who know him well said that getting attention might have been primary among them. An assistant in Mr. D'Amato's office said Wednesday that he would have no further comment on the matter.

Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said that Mr. D'Amato's comments had not thrown the White House into any evident frenzy. As Mr. King recounted it, he was recently at the White House with another member of Congress and had a brief conversation with Mr. Bush. The other member of Congress mentioned Mr. D'Amato's comments to Mr. Bush, Mr. King said, and Mr. Bush laughed.

"He didn't seem concerned or angry," Mr. King said. "And then I said that Al is getting married on Sunday and he's got other things on his mind." Mr. Bush responded, Mr. King said, by saying, "Tell him the president wishes him well on his wedding day."

Copyright 2004*The New York Times Company

[DzjwMKo5]

The only way he will pivot is toward fear and away from civil liberties.

Opponents Say Republicans Plan Sequel to Patriot Act

[padlabtard]

The NY TImes seems to be giving legitimacy to the above claim:

August 19, 2004
The New Hanging Chads

ne of the scandals of the last presidential election was the large number of voters who were denied the right to vote because of foul-ups in the election system, like errors in the voting rolls or problems in directing voters to their correct polling places. As a result, Congress required that this year, voters be allowed to fill out provisional ballots if their eligibility is in question, and that the validity of those ballots be determined later on. It was a crucial reform, but in many places the ballots aren't working out the way they are supposed to, because of poor procedures and overly technical regulations. If this year's election is close, there are likely to be furious battles over how these rules were applied. While there is still time, state and local officials should fix the provisional-voting problems.

The nation's voting rolls are notoriously inaccurate. One study found that as many as six million votes were lost in the 2000 presidential election because of registration problems and that the use of provisional ballots nationwide could have cut the loss significantly. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 mandated that such ballots be given to every voter in a federal election who shows up at the polls but doesn't seem to be listed on the voting rolls. Unfortunately, Congress left local officials too much discretion in carrying out the law. In Chicago this March, 93 percent of the provisional ballots were thrown out, often for dubious reasons.

One of the biggest problems is that some states are refusing to count provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling place. In Chicago, this rule voided more than 20 percent of the votes with provisional ballots. But when voters cannot locate their polling places, elections officials are often just as much to blame. This month, Claude Hawkins went to four Kansas City, Mo., polling sites, trying to vote, only to be told he was in the wrong place. No poll workers, however, could direct him to the right place. The Board of Elections phone lines were busy or not answered all day. At his fourth stop, Mr. Hawkins cast a provisional ballot, which was disqualified - because he had voted at the wrong polling place.

Mr. Hawkins and other Missourians are challenging the wrong-polling-place rule in federal court. They rightly argue that it violates the Help America Vote Act, which says provisional ballots "shall be counted." They also argue, in an equal-protection claim, that in Missouri's 2002 election, African-Americans were significantly more likely than whites to have their provisional ballots thrown out. The judge has ordered Missouri to wait before certifying this month's primary results, and he has put the case on a fast track.

This week, several unions filed a similar suit in Florida, which also disqualifies provisional ballots cast at the wrong polling places. The wrong-precinct rule serves no legitimate purpose, and it denies eligible voters the right to vote. States should not wait for a court to tell them that rule is unacceptable. At the very least, election officials who intend to throw away ballots cast in the wrong locations must have a foolproof way of directing voters on Election Day to their correct polling places.

Many more provisional ballots are disqualified because of errors in completing them. Some 2,400 of the 5,914 provisional ballots in Chicago this year went not counted because the accompanying affidavits were incompletely or wrongly filled out. Provisional ballots cannot be a literacy test, preventing all but the most sophisticated voters from casting valid votes. The ballots and affidavits should be simple and the instructions clear, and well-trained poll workers should be on hand to help voters complete them. When the time comes to count provisional ballots, highly technical rules should not be used to disenfranchise voters.

Finally, and most basically, elections officials must have enough provisional ballots on hand. Since this is the first presidential election with mandatory provisional voting, and interest in this year's race is so high, they should err on the side of excess. In California's March primary, voters were turned away because polling places had run out of provisional ballots. Some voters had to make three trips before new ballots arrived.

The guiding principle behind the Help America Vote Act's requirement for provisional ballots is that glitches in the election system should not keep eligible voters from voting. State and local elections officials must not handle provisional voting in a way that frustrates this core democratic ideal.

Making Votes Count: Editorials in this series remain online at www.nytimes.com/makingvotescount.



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[CKDIWEQ]

August 27, 2004

Bush Dismisses Idea That Kerry Lied on Vietnam

By DAVID E. SANGER and ELISABETH BUMILLER

FARMINGTON, N.M., Aug. 26 - President Bush said on Thursday that he did not believe Senator John Kerry lied about his war record, but he declined to condemn the television commercial paid for by a veterans group alleging that Mr. Kerry came by his war medals dishonestly.

Mr. Bush's comments, in a half-hour interview with The New York Times, undercut a central accusation leveled by the veterans group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose unproven attacks on Mr. Kerry have dominated the political debate for more than two weeks.

In the interview, which included topics like preparations for the Republican National Convention, the reconstruction of Iraq and the twin nuclear threats of North Korea and Iran, Mr. Bush portrayed himself as a victim of the same type of political interest groups - called 527 committees for the section of the tax code that created them - that are attacking Mr. Kerry.

"I understand how Senator Kerry feels - I've been attacked by 527's too,'' he said, adding that he had spoken earlier in the day to Senator John McCain and had agreed to join him in a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission to bar the groups.

Mr. Bush also acknowledged for the first time that he made a "miscalculation of what the conditions would be'' in postwar Iraq. But he insisted that the 17-month-long insurgency that has upended the administration's plans for the country was the unintended by-product of a "swift victory'' against Saddam Hussein's military, which fled and then disappeared into the cities, enabling them to mount a rebellion against the American forces far faster than Mr. Bush and his aides had anticipated.

He insisted that his strategy had been "flexible enough'' to respond, and said that even now "we're adjusting to our conditions'' in places like Najaf, where American forces have been battling one of the most militant of the Shiite groups opposing the American-installed government.

Mr. Bush deflected efforts to inquire further into what went wrong with the occupation, suggesting that such questions should be left to historians, and insisting, as his father used to, that he would resist going "on the couch'' to rethink decisions.

On environmental issues, Mr. Bush appeared unfamiliar with an administration report delivered to Congress on Wednesday that indicated that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades. Previously, Mr. Bush and other officials had emphasized uncertainties in understanding the causes and consequences of global warming.

The new report was signed by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser. Asked why the administration had changed its position on what causes global warming, Mr. Bush replied, "Ah, we did? I don't think so."

Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's press secretary, said later that the administration was not changing its position on global warming and that Mr. Bush continued to be guided by continuing research at the National Academy of Sciences.

Mr. Bush conducted the interview in an unusual setting: A cinderblock dressing room, outfitted with a conference table and leather reclining chairs, accessible only by walking through a men's room underneath a small stadium here, where he appeared for a campaign rally. The president was joined by one of his closest advisers, Karen P. Hughes, who is now traveling with him; the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice; former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, who was introducing him at rallies across the state; and his press secretary, Scott McClellan.

In the interview and at three rallies across the state, Mr. Bush appeared relaxed in an open-collared shirt with his shirtsleeves rolled up. Aides said he was in a good mood because of recent polls that showed him gaining ground on Mr. Kerry after months of bad news in Iraq.

A poll conducted by The Los Angeles Times found that Mr. Bush was running ahead of Mr. Kerry for the first time this year and suggested that some of the erosion in Mr. Kerry's support could be linked to the attacks on his military service. But the Times poll and several others released on Thursday showed the race to be deadlocked, with neither candidate holding a lead beyond the margin of sampling error.

One senior political adviser to the president said the shift in Mr. Bush's favor was due to Mr. Kerry's statement two weeks ago that he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known that the country currently possessed no weapons of mass destruction.

"It felt like he had finally made his position clear,'' Mr. Bush said in the interview, referring to Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Bush also took issue with Mr. Kerry's argument, in an interview at the end of May with The New York Times, that the Bush administration's focus on Iraq had given North Korea the opportunity to significantly expand its nuclear capability. Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons.

He said that in North Korea's case, and in Iran's, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not "tolerate'' nuclear capability in either nation. He declined to define what he meant by "tolerate.''

"I don't think you give timelines to dictators,'' Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea's president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's mullahs. He said he would continue diplomatic pressure - using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran - and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.

"I'm confident that over time this will work - I certainly hope it does,'' he said of the diplomatic approach. Mr. Kerry argued in his interview that North Korea "'was a far more compelling threat in many ways, and it belonged at the top of the agenda,'' but Mr. Bush declined to compare it to Iraq, apart from arguing that Iraq had defied the world community for longer than the other members of what he once called "the axis of evil.'' Nor would he assess the risk that Pyongyang might sell nuclear material to terrorists, though his national security aides believe it may have sold raw uranium to Libya in recent years.

Mr. Bush spoke on the first leg of a multistate tour in advance of the convention: He spends late Friday in Florida, Saturday on another bus trip through Ohio, and Sunday in West Virginia. All are considered crucial swing states.

Mr. Bush did not hesitate when asked about the central charge issued by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the veterans' group that has leveled unsubstantiated attacks against Mr. Kerry's record in Vietnam. "I think Senator Kerry should be proud of his record,'' Mr. Bush said. "No, I don't think he lied.''

But when pressed repeatedly if he would specifically denounce the advertisements, which Mr. Kerry has said were being run with the tacit approval of the Bush campaign, the president refused to condemn then. Instead, he said he would talk only of the "broader issue'' of the political committees that take to the airwaves with attack advertisements.

"Five twenty-sevens - I think these ought to be outlawed,'' he said. "I think they should have been outlawed a year ago. We have billionaires writing checks, large checks, to influence the outcome of the election.''


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Smeaphvalialm]

Do you think Edwards can play the usual VP nominee role of attack dog? Maybe, and maybe he won't need to with Ralph Nader running, but that's not what makes him appealing. I'd like to see Edwards picked, and I wouldn't mind Bob Graham either.



April 22, 2004

Kerry Opens New Bush Attack, Focusing on Iraq and Economy

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JIM RUTENBERG


WASHINGTON, April 21 — Senator John Kerry on Wednesday began what aides said would be an increasingly visible and combative challenge to President Bush, starting with a bus trip through the distressed Midwest and a television advertisement attacking Mr. Bush's Iraq record.

The moves, intended to define Mr. Kerry's candidacy, amount to a re-emergence of sorts by a candidate who largely yielded the spotlight to Mr. Bush after effectively winning the Democratic nomination in early March.

The television advertisement and the energized schedule came after two months in which Mr. Bush battered Mr. Kerry in advertisements intended to undercut him while he remained largely unknown to most of the country.

Mr. Kerry's aides repeatedly described Mr. Bush's spending as a waste, contending that voters were not paying attention to the race this long before Election Day.

But two newspaper polls this week found that Mr. Bush had succeeded in raising doubts about Mr. Kerry's credibility and ideology. That finding, coming after three weeks of unwelcome news for Mr. Bush from Iraq and a commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, unsettled many Democrats. Republicans said on Wednesday that Mr. Bush's overwhelming advantage over Mr. Kerry on the issues of terrorism and foreign affairs overrode any concerns voters might have had about the news that has besieged the White House in recent weeks.

Evidence of Mr. Bush's continued strength renewed questions about the decision by Mr. Kerry's advisers to ignore the Bush attacks for now.

As late as Friday, Mr. Kerry's campaign indicated that he would not begin his national television campaign until next week. Mr. Kerry's campaign announced Wednesday morning that instead, the advertisements would begin on Wednesday. An aide said that there had been no change in the timetable in response to the polls and that the advertisements began as soon as production was completed.

The campaign said that Mr. Kerry would broadcast two advertisements in 17 states for 10 days at a cost of about $4.5 million. One advertisement attacks Mr. Bush's record on Iraq, while the other seeks to present Mr. Kerry as someone who could protect the nation from terrorists.

Notably, Mr. Kerry's aides did not do what a number of Democrats have pushed them to do in response to attacks by the Bush campaign: run an advertisement that highlights Mr. Kerry's biography, in particular his war record, and begin to lay out some defining theme for his campaign.

"A minimum amount of positive information about Kerry is going to help," said Carter Eskew, a senior adviser to Al Gore in 2000. "There's a certain hunger out there for information about this guy."

A Kerry adviser said the campaign would begin broadcasting a biographical advertisement when the campaign was ready, possibly as soon as next week.

The adviser also said that the central theme of Mr. Kerry's campaign was in one of the spots released on Wednesday: "Together, we can build a stronger America," Mr. Kerry says in the advertisement, speaking firmly and looking directly into the camera.

Mr. Kerry's modest presence on the air was largely a matter of necessity. He has spent much of the last seven weeks raising money — he raised almost $55 million this quarter, a record — and hiring staff members to grapple with what has proved to be a relentless and efficient organization put together by Mr. Bush, who did not have an opponent in the primaries.

Mr. Kerry's aides proclaimed that they would expand the number of states where they would seek to compete with Mr. Bush beyond the 17 or 18 that most parties view as the battlefields. Mr. Bush's advisers scoffed at the assertion as bravado, though some Democrats and Republicans said that such a calculation could not realistically be made until this summer.

The developments underlined what has emerged as one of the critical strategic questions of this campaign: the extent to which television advertisements today shape the effect of an election seven months later.

Advisers to Mr. Bush, who has spent roughly $45 million on advertisements attacking Mr. Kerry, said that recent history — including, in particular, the 1996 election — had proven the power of such advertisements. Mr. Bush's advisers, noting the polls this week, contended that the same thing was taking place now.

"This campaign will be close until the very end," said Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior campaign adviser. "But perceptions have begun to gel."

Mr. Kerry's advisers argued that the fact that the two men remained close in polls, despite the huge investment by Mr. Bush, suggested that most voters were not paying attention now. They argued that in such a volatile year voters will not start to form opinions until the fall.

Tad Devine, a senior Kerry adviser, put it this way: "If you're the incumbent president of the United States having spent $50 million in six to seven weeks trying to define yourself, and you're in a dead-heat horse race with a challenger who's just beginning to come into focus, I would submit you're in trouble."

Other Democrats, though, were not as sure. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, said that the period after Mr. Kerry effectively won the nomination was a time in which voters were paying attention.

"This was a period of opportunity for Kerry and Bush," Mr. Greenberg said. He said that that window had not yet closed but that Mr. Kerry had a more difficult task now.

"I think it was a tough period for Kerry," Mr. Greenberg said. "He's been attacked on taxes and flip-flopping and on defense, and his personal negative has gone up significantly in the period. I'm assuming there will be an accelerating amount of information about Kerry and hopefully he'll win back some of that ground."

Aides said Mr. Kerry's decision to attack Mr. Bush's handling of the Iraq war reflected a conclusion that the conflict would continue to help define this contest, as it has for much of this campaign. Mr. Kerry's aides said he would follow up this television advertisement with a speech attacking Mr. Bush's Iraq policy next week, timed to coincide with the first anniversary of the appearance Mr. Bush made on an aircraft carrier to celebrate the fall of Baghdad.

In the other advertisement, he assures viewers he will remain committed to protecting the nation while focusing on improving the economy and health care, summing up by saying: "My priorities are jobs and health care. My commitment is to defend this country."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[ManituIKOL]

The Chicago Tribune is endorsing Bush.

[KitRittyTug]

April 4, 2004

In Campaign 2004, the Crystal Ball Is Fuzzy

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON — President Bush and Senator John Kerry have spent close to $40 million on television advertisements in the past month alone. Their campaigns have plotted meticulously orchestrated battle plans. Mr. Bush's aides have even charted attacks on Mr. Kerry that they say will take them right through the first day of summer. Barely a week goes by without Bush or Kerry aides disappearing for a long, private strategy retreat.

But why bother?

It is hard to remember a presidential campaign with so many potentially critical and unpredictable events on the horizon, poised to rewrite the story line of the race within a news cycle. Because campaigns are at base a struggle for control - over the campaign agenda, over what voters are thinking about, over what your opponent is talking about - this has become an unsettling realization for both the Kerry and Bush campaigns.

Consider what everyone knows is going to happen before next November. There will be a transfer of power in Iraq this summer. The government will release new job creation and economic growth figures every month between now and Election Day. Gas prices will go up to among their highest levels in history - or will go down.

A federal court will rule, probably by the summer, on the legality of multimillion-dollar expenditures by independent Democratic committees that are helping Mr. Kerry keep up with Mr. Bush in the television war. The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is scheduled to complete its report the same week that the Democratic National Convention opens in Boston on July 26, giving the party a chance to take advantage of any further damaging revelations. And a week before the third anniversary of the attacks the Republicans will nominate Mr. Bush just a few miles north of Ground Zero in New York, bringing a renewed examination of the attack, this time in a supercharged political context that will no doubt again raise the question of whether the White House is exploiting a tragedy for political gain.

There's even more nervousness about the unknown. Will there be a pre-election terror attack, a concern obviously heightened by the pre-election train bombing in Madrid last month? Will Osama bin Laden be captured? Will weapons of mass destruction finally be found in Iraq? And will Bill Clinton really publish his memoir midway through the year, as has been promised, and if so, what dirt will the former president dish? "There are a lot of outside forces that are going to be important,'' said Ken Mehlman, Mr. Bush's campaign manager. "We recognize that. And we have got to deal with that.''

Campaign strategists say they have been busy planning for all these contingencies. But both sides learned a lesson when the normally sure-footed Bush White House and the less-sure-footed Kerry campaign seemed caught unaware by the publication of a book by Richard A. Clarke, Mr. Bush's former counterterrorism chief, challenging the president's record on terrorism.

While every campaign must anticipate shocks and bumps along the way (think of the New York City mayoral candidates whose primary election on Sept. 11 was canceled after it began) the sheer number of wildcards is of particular concern in a race that both sides expect to remain tight until the very end. A single event in October can wipe out everything the campaigns did until then.

"Every little change in the environment is reacted to with greater ferocity because people know now that the country is deeply divided and the likelihood is we could have another election that is extremely close,'' said David Axelrod, a Democratic consultant.

Nothing, it seems, can be taken for granted. Take the prospect of the capture of killing of Mr. bin Laden. Mr. Kerry's advisers are clearly worried that an event like that would provide a major lift to Mr. Bush. The White House certainly tends to agree.

But after Mr. Hussein was captured on Dec. 13, Mr. Bush enjoyed a spike of voter approval that barely lasted through the New Year. And what if the capture of Mr. bin Laden brings with it disclosures that the United States had missed opportunities to seize him earlier, a finding that might lend some heft to Mr. Clarke's criticisms. Mr. Clarke said that Mr. Bush's focus on Iraq diverted him from hunting down Mr. bin Laden.

Along those lines, Republicans and Democrats are alert to the possibility that Al Qaeda would respond to the capture of Mr. bin Laden with an attack to show that it was not dependent on him, an event that certainly would blunt the significance of his apprehension.

Beyond that, the transfer of power from American authorities to an Iraqi government takes place on July 1. Should it go well, Mr. Bush could presumably claim that he restored democracy and peace to Iraq, in addition to removing a dangerous dictator. But the White House got a reminder of one alternative course with the carnage in Falluja last week. Support for the Iraq war remains high, but Democrats say it could be replaced by impatience if Americans keep dying, or if civil rule breaks down after a new government takes power.

Officials in both parties say anxiety about the economy is not as palpable as it was in 1992, when Bill Clinton defeated Mr. Bush's father in an election that was based largely on economic issues. Thus, with inflation, interest rates and unemployment relatively low, one major economic statistic is looming as critical over these next six months: the monthly job creation figures.

The government reported on Friday that the economy created 308,000 jobs in March, a number that had the Bush White House celebrating. Mr. Bush's aides argued that strong job numbers this summer would complicate Mr. Kerry's effort to make the economy the centerpiece of his challenge to Mr. Bush, taking away one tangible measure he has been able to use so far to assail the president's economic policies. At least 125,000 new jobs a month would be needed to keep pace with population gains, so anything below 200,000 would probably keep the issue on the table.

Gas prices are another variable that has concerned both sides, as was obvious by the sparring last week by Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry over the issue. Gasoline prices typically go up in the summer, before starting to come down some time in the fall. Both campaigns are contemplating a battle that could take place against a backdrop of grumbling motorists facing record gasoline prices in crucial states like Ohio and Missouri. That is why Mr. Bush moved last week to spotlight statements Mr. Kerry had made in the past advocating a 50-cent-per-gallon tax hike on gasoline, while Mr. Kerry has reminded voters that the president and the vice president have made at least part of their fortunes in the energy industry.

Finally, there are upcoming events that might appear relatively trivial, but are no less consequential. Take Mr. Clinton's book. It certainly has the ability to roil the waters by raising all kinds of subjects, some helpful to Mr. Kerry (the Clinton economic recovery) and some perhaps not so helpful. (Do you really have to ask?)

And finally, the Olympics take place in Athens in a two-week stretch between the two conventions, at what should be a very busy time for Mr. Kerry, coming out of his, and Mr. Bush, going into his. It could divert the electorate's attention for a few weeks. At the rate things are going, that is a break that a lot of people might welcome.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Wymdqcvb]

Moved from another topic:

If not Bush or Kerry, vote Barbie
Mattel launches 'presidential campaign' of flagship doll, which is being sold by Toys R Us for $20.


August 13, 2004: 7:10 AM EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Look out Bush and Kerry, Barbie's making a run for the White House.

No. 1 toy manufacturer Mattel Inc. (MAT: Research, Estimates) launched a presidential campaign for its popular fashion doll at the flagship Toys R Us (TOY: Research, Estimates) store in Manhattan's Times Square on Thursday.

The promotion is being conducted in partnership with the White House Project, a group that encourages women to run for public office.

Dozens of girls aged 3 to 12 attended the "press conference" wearing shirts emblazoned with slogans like "Future Frontrunner" and carrying signs that said "Go Vote. Go Run. Go Lead. Go Girl."

The event comes months after Mattel announced a "break-up" of longtime doll couple Barbie and Ken. The company is working to capitalize on its best-known product, which has been losing its appeal to older kids. The move is less a money-making initiative for Mattel, and more a labor of love, Mattel spokeswoman Julia Jensen told Reuters.

"This educates girls and also engages them with the Barbie brand in a new way," Jensen said. "It also gets parents involved." Mattel and the White House Project are also encouraging parents to bring daughters to the voting booth.

A Barbie for President doll will be sold exclusively at Toys R Us stores through the end of the U.S. presidential election and the balance of the year for about $20. Each doll comes with a leadership tip sheet.

Of course, Barbie is no stranger to the career world. She's been a veterinarian, surgeon, police officer, astronaut and business executive. Girls can vote on her campaign issues at the Barbie Web site.

Copyright 2004 Reuters All rights reserved.

:? Sure Barbie for president why didn't I think of that.


Got to run to the store in Manhattan's Times Square... See you later!

[Rwujnezq]

October 24, 2004

Bush and Kerry Focus Campaigns on 11 Key States

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
and KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

FORT MYERS, Fla., Oct. 23 - President Bush and Senator John Kerry move into the last days of the presidential contest in agreement that the race has come down to just 11 states, and have laid out plans for a barrage of visits and television advertisements across this final battleground between now and Nov. 2.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry will spend virtually all their time - and most of their remaining advertising budgets - in those states, aides said, starting here in Florida, and extending as far west as Colorado and as far north as New Hampshire. [Page 24.]

Both sides have reassigned staff out of states that once appeared competitive, like Missouri for the Democrats and Washington State for the Republicans, and scattered them across the 11 states.

Fittingly enough for this year, with polls showing the race deadlocked, five of the states were won by President Bush in 2000 and six by Al Gore, the Democratic candidate. And at least 7 of the 11 states are now considered tied in nightly polls being conducted by the campaigns, aides said.

"Where we are is where we ended in 2000: with a limited number of states that are very, very close," said Matthew Dowd, a senior adviser to Mr. Bush. "And the good news for us is more of those states are Gore states than Bush states."

Tad Devine, a senior Kerry adviser, disputed that assessment, arguing that Mr. Bush was struggling in two states that were the bedrock of his victory in 2000, Ohio and Florida. "We're in enough states to win a clear and convincing victory in the Electoral College," Mr. Devine said.

This geographical repositioning comes as Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry have sharpened rather than blurred their differences as the race comes to a close, staking out vastly different positions on tax cuts, health care, Social Security, abortion rights and America's role in the world. In the process, the two candidates have offered one of the sharpest choices between two presidential campaigns in a generation.

Of the 11 states on this final battleground, representing 135 of the 538 electoral votes, Mr. Bush won Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio in 2000. Of those, analysts and aides to both campaigns say Mr. Kerry has the best chance of winning New Hampshire, Ohio and Florida, while Nevada appears least likely to turn Democratic.

The Gore states in play are Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Of those, analysts and aides said Mr. Bush had the best chance of winning Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico.

A sudden surge by Mr. Bush in Michigan, a state that Mr. Kerry thought he had put away, caught both sides by surprise, and both men scheduled last-minute trips there for next week.

Ed Sarpolus, a pollster in Lansing, said that Mr. Kerry was paying a price for having campaigned in other parts of the country. "He hasn't been here," he said.

More than anything, Mr. Bush's aides say, his central focus over the final 10 days will be what they have always seen as his strongest suit: the fight against terrorism. Mr. Bush's advisers will attempt to command the agenda in the remaining days with an intense and grisly procession of television advertisements and attacks by Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on the issue.

Mr. Bush returned to the theme of terrorism during a campaign stop here in Fort Myers on Saturday, roaring into a rally in a procession of machine-gun-toting helicopters escorting Marine One as it settled, in a swirl of wind, in the middle of a field. It was a display of the power of incumbency and a reminder of a dominant theme of Mr. Bush's campaign. On television stations here this week, it was all terrorism all the time: images of the smoldering World Trade Center and Republican claims that Mr. Kerry would be weak in the face of terrorist threats.

"We will basically be talking about who will win the war on terror, who will make America safer and who will lead the effort to reform our government," said Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior adviser.

The emphasis on terrorism is part of a calculated appeal to some female voters, who tend to be among the late deciders in a campaign, and among whom Mr. Kerry has had difficulty building the kind of support Democrats typically have.

The president plans to conclude his campaign with an advertisement in which Mr. Bush, recounting the trauma of the nation these past three years, makes a personal appeal to be returned to office.

Bob Shrum, a senior adviser to Mr. Kerry, said Mr. Bush had been "reduced to a one-note-Johnny" campaign. He said Mr. Kerry would respond by challenging Mr. Bush's management of the war in Iraq, but also promising what Mr. Kerry has called a "fresh start" for the country, with am emphasis on job creation and health care.

"John Kerry has a fundamental argument that we need a president who can defend the country and fight for the middle class," Mr. Shrum said. "Bush can only talk to one half of that equation."

In a reflection of the rapidly changing landscape, Mr. Kerry's campaign has reassigned campaign workers once stationed in Missouri and Arizona - two states that have slipped off the Democratic wish list - to Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada. Mr. Bush has moved his staff out of Washington State.

Of the 11 states, all but Nevada and Colorado were described by both sides as being effectively tied. Mr. Kerry's aides said they had a statistically significant lead in Ohio and New Hampshire as well, but Mr. Bush's advisers disputed that.

The dynamics of the endgame are varying state by state, though the fact that 39 states are now considered firmly behind Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush has made the challenge faced by both campaigns at least somewhat less daunting.

In Ohio, for example, aides to both men said the outcome was likely to be driven by concerns about the economy and jobs. In Wisconsin, Mr. Kerry's campaign is attacking Mr. Bush on milk prices, while in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush has emphasized his opposition to abortion and gay marriage in an attempt to undercut Mr. Kerry and appeal to the state's sizable Roman Catholic vote.

But in places like Florida - arguably the most competitive of the 11 - minds seem so made up that the outcome is almost surely going to be a function of turnout and voter registration. And for all the talk of speeches, issues and conflicting perceptions of these two men, the power of get-out-the-vote operations that both sides have spent two years putting together may well prove to be the most important factor.

"Pennsylvania remains a tight race with Kerry having a slight edge, but it's just down to turnout now," said Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin and Marshall College.

Eric Rademacher, a political scientist at the University of Cincinnati, said, "Our most recent polls show a dead heat," and he added that for all of the advertising money, campaign appearances and attention poured into Ohio this year, "it will still come down to ground-force execution."

"I don't think there is anything the candidates can do at this point to try to change minds," Mr. Rademacher said. Even the arrival of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California in Ohio next week on behalf of Mr. Bush may have little effect, he said, because "we've passed the level of saturation."

Mr. Dowd argued that support for Mr. Bush among Republicans would counter what he acknowledged was intense animosity toward Mr. Bush among Democrats, a remnant of the disputed 2000 election.

"You should start seeing some movement next week because people are trying to make up their mind," Mr. Dowd said. "But a big part of this is who turns out. Are Democrats more motivated than Republicans on Election Day?"

Mr. Kerry's senior aides said that Democrats in states like Florida were showing motivation and interest in levels they had never seen. A procession of polls that show the race as deadlocked has fed that sense.

"People waking up in these battleground states and the media telling them that the race is neck-and-neck - that's the greatest motivator of all," said Michael Whouley, a longtime friend of Mr. Kerry and a seasoned operative who is working as a senior strategist at the Democratic National Committee.

The candidates began the campaign this spring looking at a much wider universe of swing states, from 18 to 21. The narrowing of states is typical late in a campaign, though it does not always happen. It would not be surprising if Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry moved to other states in the last days should they see an opening.

The starting assumption of both campaigns is that whoever wins two of the top three - Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio - will win the presidency.

Mr. Bush's aides noted that Mr. Kerry was now in a situation where more Gore states were at risk than Bush states, suggesting that might allow them to endure even a loss of those three states. In addition, they said they were skeptical that Mr. Kerry would continue being competitive in Nevada and Colorado, and that Mr. Kerry would come to regret a decision to fly across the country Saturday to Colorado.

That said, Mr. Bush is in a situation where he is still fighting in states that were critical to his victory in 2000, Ohio and Florida, and that have been critical to his re-election strategy. He returned to Ohio on Friday after a 19-day absence, during which Mr. Kerry appears to have made clear gains there.

Beyond that, even though Mr. Bush has visited Pennsylvania 41 times since he took office, some state polls still show Mr. Kerry with a slight lead there. And a brief flirtation with New Jersey, one of the more solidly Democratic states, has now been abandoned by the White House, Republicans said.

The campaigns' advertising dollars reflect this shrinking list. Both Mr. Kerry's and Mr. Bush's biggest advertising buys have been in Florida, where they have both saturated several markets.

In many ways, the contest has become a battle between character traits and issues, as Mr. Kerry tries to turn the campaign into a referendum on Mr. Bush's record and proposals for the future, while Mr. Bush relentlessly seeks to paint his opponent as intellectually inconsistent and too weak to protect Americans in a time of terrorism.

And so aides to both sides say the critical question is which candidate can determine what the debate in the final days is about - terrorism or the economy.

"The most important thing to watch is the struggle for control of the agenda," said Charles Black, a Republican consultant who advises the White House. "The president wants people to have their top priority to be terrorism and security. Kerry should want their priorities to be jobs and health care."


Adam Nagourney reported from Fort Myers for this article, and Katharine Q. Seelye from Washington. Richard W. Stevenson contributed reporting from St. Petersburg, Fla.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[gechaheritt]

I'm upset with this match- up. I don't really like Kerry and I don't like Bush. I just dont want Bush for 4 more years. I don't believe in any of his values.

[Elitiachirl]

Early poll gives Kerry the edge in final debate

Thursday, October 14, 2004
Web CNN.com


According to a poll taken after the debate, Sen. John Kerry had more reason to smile.

TEMPE, Arizona (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry appeared to gain more momentum heading toward November 2, easily beating President Bush in the third and final debate, a poll taken late Wednesday night suggests.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup snap poll taken immediately after the presidential debate found that respondents gave a significant edge to Kerry over Bush, 52 percent to 39 percent.

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The numbers were similar to the results of a poll taken the night of the first debate September 30 in Miami, Florida. That night Kerry was favored by a 53 percent to 37 percent margin.

Kerry and Bush were almost even in the second debate on October 5, with the numbers falling with the margin of error.

The respondents Wednesday were 511 registered voters who watched the debate. Their political affiliations broke down as 36 percent Republican, 36 percent Democratic and 28 percent independent.

The poll is a reflection of immediate impressions of only those voters who saw the debate on television, and cannot be applied to all registered voters. Views of all Americans can change in the days after a debate.

Kerry scored big gains, as 42 percent of respondents said they had a more favorable opinion of him after the debate. Bush only increased with 27 percent of those polled.

When asked who would handle domestic issues better, Kerry scored higher in health care (55-41). There was no clear leader on the economy (Kerry 51, Bush 46), education (Kerry 48, Bush 47) or taxes (Bush 50, Kerry 47).

Kerry's biggest win came on the question of who expressed himself better, where 61 percent of respondents chose him over Bush (29 percent).

The president was viewed as more likeable, but Kerry appeared to respondents as having the better understanding of issues (49-37).

As expected, both campaigns declared their candidate the clear victor.

"I think tonight that Americans saw someone who's ready to be commander-in-chief," said Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager. "Someone who has plans for where he wants to lead this country. I think that he did extraordinarily well and he delivered a faithful and optimistic vision of where the country can go in the future."

Karl Rove, a senior adviser to Bush, disputed the accuracy of such instant polls, noting that a similar snap poll in 1984 showed Walter Mondale won the second debate with President Reagan.

"The president was the clear, commanding victor tonight," Rove said. "It's going to give us a great momentum rolling out on the trail here for the last 19 days."

[GogaMegaPis]

I wonder if Kerry ran that comment about Cheney's daughter by his advisors. Sure he did. Edwards hit the same point. Kerry's comment was no accident and it wasn't out of bounds -- it's a known fact, moreso now that Lynne Cheney is trying to play the victim card, which just goes to show that the GOP saw its ghost on Wednesday night.

[Haremporblape]

D’Amato tries to pull out Dick...

Drop Cheney? Democrats hope not
Speculation abounds in Washington after GOP ex-senator urges new Bush running mate

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC July 09, 2004

WASHINGTON - When former New York Sen. Al D’Amato suggested this week the time had come for President Bush to replace Vice President Dick Cheney with either Secretary of State Colin Powell or Arizona Sen. John McCain as his running mate, was D’Amato voicing Republican hopes and Democratic fears? Or was he simply being provocative?

"On through September, the Democratic ticket of Kerry-Edwards could very well build an insurmountable lead among a public that is hungry for change,” said one Washington-based political consultant, speaking on condition of anonymity.


President Bush and Vice President Cheney listen to reporters' questions at a White House meeting last January.

“If Cheney is dropped it would be the highest example of desperation in the history of presidential elections,” he said. “Without a doubt, it would happen in response to the fear Republicans have at Edwards being selected as Kerry’s VP."

While some Democrats acknowledge they’d love Cheney to stay on the ticket because they consider him a drag on Bush, most want to talk instead about their exuberance over Edwards.

Bush will play his hand

“I take the president at face value when he says that he is going to stand by Cheney,” said Washington-based Democratic campaign consultant Jim Duffy. Dumping Cheney? “I just don’t see it,” Duffy said. “It flies in the face of how Bush plays his hands. I see the president playing the hand he has right to the bitter end.”

Democrats, Duffy said, “are talking about how elated they are about the Kerry-Edwards ticket. This (Cheney speculation) is not something I see Democrats engaging in.”

“We’re praying Cheney stays on the ticket,” California Democratic Party spokesman Bob Mulholland said. “Cheney is an albatross around the neck of the president, so Democrats are supporting Cheney.”

Mulholland noted that on Tuesday the Bush-Cheney campaign unveiled a new television ad featuring McCain.

“It wasn’t featuring Cheney,” Mulholland noted. “If Cheney were a plus for the ticket, they’d have him out there in that ad.”

“I’m hoping it doesn’t happen,” Mulholland said of a Cheney exit. “We want Cheney so we can beat up on him for the next four months.”

Mulholland said that one potentially troublesome story for Cheney that may get wider exposure in the next four months is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s investigation of alleged payments of $180 million in bribes by several firms, including a subsidiary of Halliburton, to officials in Nigeria, in order to smooth construction of a liquefied natural gas complex off the Nigerian coast.

Some of the payments were allegedly made at the time Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said, "We are working with officials in Europe and the United States as well as conducting our own investigation to determine the truth of these unproven assertions. We do not believe that the company has violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," a U.S. law that prohibits payments of bribes by American firms to foreign officials.

The Bush-Cheney campaign did not immediately return a call seeking comment on the Nigeria allegation.

D'Amato urges 'bold stroke'

For his part, D’Amato portrayed his dump-Cheney proposal as a move not dictated by the urgent need to avoid Republican defeat, but rather as way to bulk up Bush’s victory margin.

"While I believe George Bush will win re-election even without this bold stroke, he will insure a broader, deeper, more resonant reaffirmation of his leadership if he places his duty to continue as president above any one individual," D'Amato said.

But tradition and logic suggest that such a “bold stroke” would be necessitated only if the vice president’s heart ailment really did require him to step down or if Bush and his strategists thought his re-election hopes were slipping away.

Polling data released Thursday suggested that while Edwards’ selection as vice presidential candidate may have given Kerry a positive bump, Bush-Cheney is still quite competitive.

A John Zogby poll released Thursday showed the Kerry-Edwards ticket only two percentage points ahead of Bush and Cheney, a lead within the poll’s margin of error.

An Associated Press poll released Thursday found that 50 percent supported the Bush-Cheney ticket while 46 percent chose the Kerry-Edwards ticket, within that question's margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

Threshold for drama

In an era of spectacular political events, from Bill Clinton’s impeachment to the 2000 election recount to the airplane crash deaths of Democratic Senate candidates Mel Carnahan in 2000 and Sen. Paul Wellstone in 2002, the electorate’s threshold for drama has been raised.

But by any standard, a Cheney adieu would qualify as truly dramatic.

A memo written by a Washington-based political consultant and currently making the rounds in the capital sketches a Cheney exit scenario.

The memo notes Bush’s low job approval ratings in national polls.

“Only dramatic events create dramatic opportunities to change these perceptions. Why? During dramatic events the public’s attention is fixated on nothing else but the event in question,” the memo says.

A Cheney resignation would, it says, push Kerry and Edwards to the side. The news media coverage of who’d replace Cheney would be “pervasive and overwhelming. With less than a week to the Democratic Convention, little attention is given to Senator Kerry’s policy and political agenda. The Democratic nominee is relegated to the second-tier of the news cycle.”

A Cheney resignation would give Bush the opportunity to nominate his successor who, under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, would have to be confirmed by a majority vote of the House and the Senate.

The memo assumes McCain would be the nominee.

“Can Sen. Kerry vote against the Vice-President select? Of course not,” the memo says. “Can he vote for him? Of course not. Can he abstain? Of course not. There is no right answer. Can anyone imagine a more dramatic moment in recent political history?”

And perhaps it is a moment that will play out only in the summer nightmares of some Democrats.

© 2004 MSNBC Interactive

[steevytraunse]

A report from another forum I participate in.


Bush Has People Putting In Change Of Addresses For Voters, Then They Can't Vote

"Are you registered to vote? Are you sure you're registered?

I am currently pissed off. Let me tell you why.

Today, around lunchtime, I went with my parents to the polls to vote in our primary election. When I got there, I found that I had somehow been removed from the books, and hence could not vote.

Frustrated, I took the day off work and my mom took me down to the Election Board at 18th and Walnut. When we got there, we found that the reason I was not on the books is that SOMEONE had sent in an address
change card for me. I live near 76th and Troost, but the voting database now had me down as living at 52nd and Locust - I've NEVER lived there, and have in fact lived at this address all of my life (well, except for the year in England, and even then this was my "permanent address"). It took about two hours, but the elections commission director straightened it out and I was finally able to vote. However, she told me why this has been happening, and it's very worrisome.

Apparently there are groups out there who buy copies of the voter registration rolls, then send in new registrations for registered voters giving them a new address. It's really a more sophisticated version of the whole thing with the felony lists in Florida in the last election - however, people aren't being REMOVED from the voting rolls, and hence there's no red flag being raised. After all, people DO move and send in change of address, so there's no reason for them to suspect voter fraud.

And there's really no way to trace this, so there's really no way to detect this. But in effect what it means is voters are removed from the rolls - after all, if you're unknowingly registered in another precinct, how can you vote at yours? I was lucky...I have the job flexibility and transportation to go down to the election board and find out the problems, but I'm betting a lot of the other people with the same problems don't. And there are a lot - at my precinct, during the period we were at the polls, which was
pretty slow, there were only about five or six people in and out, including us. And of those, me and one other guy found ourselves off the rolls, and one woman said she'd had the same thing happen to her during the 2000 presidential election and had to spend the entire day down at the election board.

By the way, I'll just say that I think it's significant that I happen to live in a largely minority, heavily Democratic district in a swing state. You can draw your own conclusions from that. But I'll add that I've recently been reading Bush's Brain, a book about the INCREDIBLY F-ING SCARY Karl Rove, and this scheme has a distinct Rovian stench to it. (Three guesses who masterminded the similar scheme in Florida for Bush?)

Anyway, I have a feeling that this problem is only going to get worse as the November election approaches. So I'm urging everyone, especially if you live in a swing state - either check with your election board a few days
before the election to make sure you're on the rolls at your current address, or vote absentee early (which will also let you know whether you're on the rolls or not). "