Speedkill

Ok, here’s my prediction of how the election goes on Tuesday:

Kerry 279-259

Jeff 2004 election cycle

Factcheck.org has an article on the NRA’s assault (ha!) on Kerry’s gun rights record. One of the things they say is that legislation he supported would have banned some pump action shotguns. This isn’t true; Factcheck lists some shotguns that would have been banned, complete with links to pictures. I like this one:

Yeah, you fucking ducks better watch your asses! Jesus, it says it’s gas-operated. Looks cool I guess, if you’re into that sort of thing.

In other news, Spinsanity takes CAP to task. Being a counterweight to dishonest conservative hack think tanks requires that you not be dishonest hacks, you jackasses.

Jeff 2004 election cycle

Washington Post:

Bush, breaking two days of silence on the issue, told supporters at a rally here that Kerry was making “wild charges” about the missing munitions and was “denigrating the action of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts.”

Completely outrageous. How can we keep this man in the White House?

Jeff 2004 election cycle

Eminem goes off on Bush in his new video.

It’s quite embarrassing.

Jeff 2004 election cycle

How much better of an endorsement of Kerry can there be?

TEHRAN, Iran – The head of Iran’s security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush (news – web sites) was in Tehran’s best interests, despite the administration’s axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country’s nuclear ambitions.

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran’s top security decision-making body.

“We haven’t seen anything good from Democrats,” Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

Jeff 2004 election cycle

Putin: Terror Attacks Aimed at Bush

“I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush (news – web sites),” Putin said at a news conference after a regional summit in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe.

“International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term,” he said. “If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power.”

Then,

“We unconditionally respect any choice of the American people,” he said. “I don’t want to spoil relations with either candidate.”

I….see.

Jeff 2004 election cycle

Maybe it’s bad for my health to be on the official GOP website, but this is sheer insanity:

Washington, D.C. – RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie issued the following statement today regarding a Kerry/DNC campaign document that instructs Democrats to make up charges of voter intimidation even if no signs or evidence of voter intimidation actually exist.

“This document proves the Kerry Campaign and the DNC are more interested in scaring minority voters than in working to reach out to them on Election Day, even if it means completely making things up.

“The Kerry Campaign and the DNC are instructing Democrats around the country to make charges they know to be false, and to manipulate the media into printing and repeating the false charges in newspapers around the country.

The GOP helpfully provide a link to the indicated documents further proving my theory that the best source for debunking GOP propaganda is the GOP’s own website.

Just to cover all the bases, here’s what they specifically object to:

As I look at this 66 page guide and look on, I think it’s page 54, it actually says in plain English, that if no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike. What that means in clear language is, if there is no evidence of intimidation, which we don’t expect there will be, because we’re not going to engage in it, then make it up and talk about it anyway. That is totally outrageous.

It would be outrageous. However, that’s not what the documents say because I’m so nice, I’ll type the section out:

2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a “pre-emptive strike” (particularly well-suited to states in which there (sic) techniques have been tried in the past).

• Issue a press release
• Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
• Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
• Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
• Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
• Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls.

This is all under the heading of “How To Organize To Prevent And Combat Voter Intimidation.”

Now, what exactly are they saying here? In order to prevent voter intimidation tactics that have happened in the past, Democratic operatives should make them known and get them publicly discussed? That sounds like exactly the way to prevent it from happening again. Where does it say anything about making up information?

This is simply Republicans reading things into a document that they, the dishonest party operatives they are, would do. It says more about the GOP than the Democrats.

Jeff 2004 election cycle

Yay, another debate!

Oh, the thank yous! Didn’t see that coming!

Man, Bush is like bright red. What the hell?

I thought this was the domestic policy debate?

The nuisance line! Did anyone know what Bush was talking about? Damn, Bush is going to get roasted, he did say what Kerry just said about bin Laden.

Flu vaccine? What the hell? Hey, wait, I thought Candadian drugs were going to kill us? Flip-flop!

Ok, no more of this line by line stuff. More general observations.

These guys seem kinda tired and out of it. It’s a brainless regurgitation on talking points. Not that the other debates weren’t, but this one seems lifeless.

Damn it, Kerry is still not qualifying that job loss statement. Kind of annoying. The question was pretty good and Kerry’s doing ok. He’s really not answering it well, though. Bush is retarded. Really. It’s worse than normal. He really sounds like a jackass. He didn’t really answer the question either.

Then again, Kerry is acting like an ass, too. I’m going to guess that his smiling is going to be taken as arrogance by the media. And his Soprano joke was pretty bad and is easily spun as out of bounds.

Whoa, where did that homosexuality question come from? Very strange. This is going to be dull. Yep, Kerry sounds dull and hollow on this. I’m honestly getting bored with this. There’s ZERO energy in this debate.

Bush is trying to take the middle ground on abortion, but he’s taking the solid right-wing position. I hope no one falls for that.

I’m done for now, I’ll comment after it’s over.

Well, it was the worst debate so far. A lifeless recitation of talking points, more so than the other ones. I doubt either one gets much out of this one. Kerry won on substance obviously, but neither one hit any knockouts or really even solid blows. I’m interested to see what the press takes out of Kerry’s demeanor, which I mentioned earlier. Bush made some misstatements and so did Kerry, we’ll see how that plays out.

Ok, Fox’s panel just said Kerry is playing to anti-gay sentiments by mentioning the Cheneys’ daughter. What the fuck are they smoking?

UPDATE: As Wulfgar notes in the comments, the moderation was piss poor. Maybe not “Bob Scheaffer should be taken out and beaten with baseball bats until his flesh is easily chewable by weaning kittens” poor, but poor.

Jeff 2004 election cycle

From the guy who remembers Poland’s website:

“John Kerry’s characterization of terrorism as a ‘nuisance’ shows that he doesn’t recognize the threats facing this country and does not have the vision and determination needed to defeat terrorism. The fact that his top foreign policy adviser sees the War on Terror as a ‘metaphor’ adds to Kerry’s credibility problem on the most important issue facing our nation.”

- Steve Schmidt, Bush-Cheney ‘04 Spokesman

A nuisance? Really? Reading comprehension is not a skill of these people:

“When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ‘We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,’ Kerry said. ‘As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.’”

So Kerry wants to reduce terrorism to a “nuisance.” As in, it’s more than a nuisance now. Simple logical conclusion. Honestly, this is bizarre for even the Bush campaign.

The second part of that Schmidt’s quote refers to this:

HOLBROOKE: “‘We’re not in a war on terror, in the literal sense,’ says Richard Holbrooke, the Clinton-era diplomat who could well become Kerry’s secretary of state. ‘The war on terror is like saying ‘the war on poverty.’ It’s just a metaphor.’”

Here’s the last sentence that they cut out: “What we’re really talking about is winning the ideological struggle so that people stop turning themselves into suicide bombers.” That sounds quite reasonable to me. We are in a war of ideologies. If we can’t convince potential terrorists that our ideology is correct, what chance do we have? Can we kill every potential terrorist?

The rest of it is easily as mind bogglingly stupid. Kerry points out a major part of the ‘war on terror’ is law enforcement and intelligence. Oh noes, Kerry is a weak liberal pussy!

So, back to my original thought. Do they actually believe this stuff? Do they really believe Kerry thinks terrorism is a nuisance? Or are they just lying to promote their candidate? Which is scarier?

UPDATE: I beat Spinsanity to it.

Jeff 2004 election cycle

Well, Bush is spouting the same nonsense as last time so far. Kerry did a decent job explaining some “flip-flops.”

Shit, I missed that guys question. Sounded good at the end. Bush doesn’t seem to be answering the question, though. Oil for food program! Really. That makes it worth it. Seriously. Guys?

Saying it more forcefully doesn’t make it true, Mr. Bush.

The Republican critique angle is pretty strong, I wanna see how Bush responds. Of course, he won’t. Damn it, talk to the audience Kerry! Bush is apparently not aware that he’s not getting support when he says the war was justified.

Tora Bora again. This is just like the last debate. Bush spouts some more platitudes, but has a decent point about focusing Osama alone. Kerry should try to mention al Qaeda instead of Osama.

Euro-weenies! In other news, my mouse pointer is possessed.

Read more…

Jeff 2004 election cycle