Cipherdom (deprecated)

I thought the answer to your question was an "addadictomy."

Q: What's the medical term for reattaching a severed sexual organ?

A: Repudiate

8^)

Stern is a martyr to free speech, as none other than Rush Limbaugh pointed out today. Of course, he makes the point by stating Kerry must be defeated to avoid a pogrom against conservative radio, but I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy.

Stern has said he would retire in less than two years, so if that's sincere, Michael Powell and Clear Channel just did him the biggest favor since Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt.

I think you're confusing it with repudilingus. VC must weigh in with a Howard Stern controversy.

I just like saying "repudiate" because it sounds vaguely dirty.

I hope I don't have to eat my words WRT repudiation.

They asked Clinton if he thought the Kerry intern situation was similar to Monica Lewisnky scandal and he said, "Close, but no cigar."

This campaign is going to be a rough one.

I believe the "them" doing the painting is Chris Lehane (John Kerry's embittered fired former communications director). This little act of Democratic self-destruction is an intramural scuffle. Rove hasn't started yet ... and he may not have to!!

I'm sure this will be thoroughly investigated (including receipts and pay stubs). I would venture a guess that the alleged infidelities that ended Kerry's first marriage will also be exhaustively probed. Trust is an issue and as Ross Perot said (after firing an adulterous employee), "If his wife can't trust him, how can I."

This is getting fun!

Haw! Just let them try to paint Kerry as the New Clinton. People would elect Clinton in a heartbeat. The logic is odd: "People are scared to death over terrorism, so elect Bush because he's never committed adultery." Or the even zanier and scarier: "We are in a holy war against Islam, so elect Bush because he is God's choice." Right wingers themselves must be subconsciously nostalgic for Clinton, which might be why they're trying to turn Kerry into him. A little sex appeal is just what the guy needs. 8^P

Here is a note from Craig Crawford of MSNBC (formerly worked for J.Glenn and G.Ferraro): "The Drudge item on Kerry intern issue is something Chris Lehane (Clark press secy) has shopped around for a long time - it was one reason the Gore vetters in 2000 shied away from Kerry as a running mate choice - their conclusion that it wasn't bad enough to disqualify him, except for the fact that they couldn't risk it as they were trying so hard to distance themselves from Clinton's personal failings (note: Lehane worked for Gore at the time - and briefly advised Kerry during this campaign). The Kerry camp has long expected to deal with this, and have assured party leaders they can handle it..." Olam reports ... you decide.

Which must be why Clark is going to endorse Kerry tommorrow.

In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue."

I doubt if this will go away either.

“I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.” - John F. Kerry
(Thank God 30+ year old stuff has been deemed highly relevant)

This also is the type of issue that won't go away. As disencahanted as some may be about Bush, most people definitely don't want this.

Bush said unequivocally that he reported for duty. He was making 2 points: 1) I served and reported for duty. 2) Don't denigrate service in the guard. It is completely fair to investigate whether or not he reported for duty.

On the other hand, if I were John Kerry I would say that, since you have never spent a day in uniform and never took an oath of office, you are unqualified to judge military service, particularly how this could be seen as denigrating to people who served in the guard.

>"If people went to Canada, if people
>opposed the war, if people chose to be
>in the Guard, that’s their choice, and
>I’ve never raised that in an issue," he said.

What? He just _said_ he didn't raise it as an issue. There's no pleasing some people!

National Guard service during Viet Nam was a whole different proposition than today, when reservists routinely get sent on risky foreign duty. Back then it didn't happen, which is precisely why Bush and Quayle gravitated to it. Cheney didn't even bother doing that.

>This is what Bush was responding to.

Exactly, and my point is that it was an act of misdirection. For sake of argument, let's say Kerry the war hero denigrates people who ducked into the guard w/ help from powerful parents during Viet Nam. I don't think that'll cost JFK many votes. Calling him unpatriotic or anti-military is a risky bet for the GOP. The more they say it, the more people will insist on an answer for the original question: Why didn't Bush report for duty?

You're wrong. Kerry degraded guard service just last week. "If people went to Canada, if people opposed the war, if people chose to be in the Guard, that’s their choice, and I’ve never raised that in an issue," he said. (Boston Herald, 2/3/04). This is what Bush was responding to.

It depends what the meaning of "us" is . . . ;^)

Kerry's fudging it is a valid issue. But what I alluded to is the predictable anti-semitism that will crop up in certain regions of the country where GOP push polling has been raised to an art form. Ironic, considering Bush is in the pocket of fanatically pro-Israel neocons, not to mention of Ariel Sharon himself.

On Meet the Prez, Bush sure was unconvincing with the AWOL issue. "It's politics -- I got an honorable discharge," he said, and tried to imply people were questioning his National Guard hitch itself, rather than the fact that he didn't show up for much of it. The Alabama guard's CO still says Bush never showed. This one ain't going away. Neither is the lack of service by Cheney, who says he had "other priorities" during Viet Nam. And now Powell says he never would have signed on for the Iraq war if he'd known what he knows now.

You condeded on the only point I was trying to make. The rest is uninteresting to me and would not have drawn comment.

For VC:
"For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans ..." (John F Kerry - Congressional Record, March 18, 1986).

What is wrong with calling Kerry on this!

A bit selective, in your 'review;' but let's pick it up at:

"The inference is that if more people approve than disapprove, then 'repudiate' is probably not the proper way to characterize how the 'nation' feels."

First, why are you holding onto that? It's not a very profound observation. If it's the semantics that are bothering you, nitpicking is far too O'Reillyesque to take seriously. But, ok...how about 'HALF the nation?' Better?

More significantly, recent historical precedent shows approval numbers (months prior to the election) don't offer much insight into how people will ultimately vote (repudiating Bush, in the eyes of the world). That's where I was going, with my comments. I predicated my comments, twice, by saying 'Approve/disapprove doesn't necessarily indicate how someone is going to vote' and '...an approval rating on job performance doesn't address whether or not someone will vote for him again.'

That was the primary point, I was attempting to raise. Still with me?

Need background? In early '84, Reagan and Mondale polled almost exactly to the same 50/50 split. I vaguely remember Reagan winning that one, in a landslide. GHWB was polling behind Dukakis in Feb of '88. Another reversal, by November. When it came time for his re-election, GHWB had an approval rating of 89% in '91. I won't gloat over what happened next. Moving forward to '95, Clinton's re-elect numbers hardly ever got above 40%. It just doesn't seem prudent to put any stock in approval numbers, particularly at this stage in the race.

You continue:

" Your entire ensuing argument is an irrelevant non-sequitir [sic]
which I would have ignored if not for the zany claim that the approval / disapproval "results can be interpreted in a number of ways."

In fact I continued with, if not approve/disapprove polls, what polls are more interesting, when trying to discern how the vote will ultimately go? I proposed another polling question, which... well... I already explained why. Please note I didn't make any brash claim this question was, in fact, a better indicator. I'd like to believe it could be, because it does ask the polled to make a choice between the candidates' politics, which is not unlike voting. But that's impossible to prove, so I made a qualification regarding it. As a thoughtful republican, I assumed you might appreciate that.

Anyway, this is is getting stale and I think I've imposed on our good host, VC, more than enough. I'll let you, Olam, have the last word. I trust you wouldn't have it any other way.

Let's review. In response to VC's "repudiate" comment, I countered with a poll which states that more people approve than disapprove. The inference is that if more people approve than disapprove, then "repudiate" is probably not the proper way to characterize how the "nation" feels. Still with me? Your entire ensuing argument is an irrelevant non-sequitir which I would have ignored if not for the zany claim that the approval / disapproval "results can be interpreted in a number of ways."

I don't see my comment as a highly nuanced interpretation. I'm saying an approval rating on job performance doesn't address whether or not someone will vote for him again. Besides, 49/48 pro/con, with 3% no opinion, isn't a mandate.

That said, I still maintain that interpreting a single polling question in a black and white fashion, doesn't shed much light on the way people are actually thinking; or predict how they will vote. People say the darndest things. You are free to disagree.

Here's an example of what I do consider a highly nuanced interpretation: 'weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.' ;-)

I dont think Bush is worried about the "imminent threat" threat. In the 2003 SOTU he said, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent ..." It was clear to me that he was saying that he intended to act before the threat was imminent. However, he also said that SH had WMD. That is the real source of consternation for most thoughtful Republicans. It will be intersting to see how GWB addresses this with Russert on Sunday.

As the Cipherdom moderator, of course, I must maintain an air of cool detachment. ;^) The polls are volatile at the moment, as Howard Dean might admit. Republicans and Democrats alike might take solace in the fact that Gore is history at last -- he'll never live down having prematurely endorsed the guy who is now lobbying to be Kerry's VP.

Bush's intelligence problem (heh, that sure trips off the tongue) is that he needs a fall guy, but Tenet is in an excellent position to settle the score if it comes to that. The CIA director's big speech yesterday was a fascinating bit of brinksmanship. On one hand, he stepped out front to take heat off the president. On the other, he fired a warning shot at the Administration, in case they'd make him the scapegoat: "We (the CIA) never said the threat was imminent." A nifty trick. Who said it was imminent? Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and, though evidently under duress, Powell. Heck, as recently as two weeks ago, Cheney was still referring to "mobile weapons labs" that were actually hydrogen tankers for weather balloons.

I wasn't joking about GOP voters turning their backs on Bush. Friends of mine down South are disillusioned with the war; their kids serve the military in disproportion to kids from other parts of the country. Most conservatives fully recognize his disastrous fiscal policy, too; it's just a question of whether it troubles them enough to make them stay home or vote the other way in November. I don't hear many people staunchly supporting anything he's done. GOP party loyalty has always been stronger than Democrats', but I'm not sure Bush's base is that energized -- they got their massive tax cut, and his second term wouldn't see anything on that scale. So what's their incentive? To preserve the sanctity of marriage, maybe. Or just to hang on to the levers of power, though each party has that incentive for any given election cycle.

Maybe the lack of a passionate defense by Bush's supporters reflects real ambivalence, or maybe they're just stunned that Dean crumbled so suddenly and they now face a real fight. Since the 2000 South Carolina primary, I will never underestimate Karl Rove's and the less visible Ralph Reed's willingness to stoop however low they must to elect Bush, whose family has been pandering to the worst in America going back to at least Lee Atwater. Did y'all hear that Kerry isn't really Irish?

Your link also shows the USA Today poll I referenced (See number 6). Please evalute in context (i.e. figures with the background info on the sample, polling procedures, how the question was worded & in what context, etc) and defend your claim that "the results can be interpreted in a number of ways." I always thought the approve / disapprove thing was binary. Please explain your highly nuanced interpretation to me.

First, we'll take over Vern's blog, then the white house...;~>

>> What are the different ways you can interpret these results?

Approve/disapprove doesn't necessarily indicate how someone is going to vote. This A/D polling is only about how we feel about Bush. It's not legitimate to infer from that how the population might feel about him *in comparison to someone else*. If I think he is doing a good job, but Kerry would do a better job, I'd approve of the former, but vote for the later.

While trying not to bring my politics into this (yeah...riiiight), any polling data taken out of context (i.e. figures w/o the background info on the sample, polling procedures, how the questions were worded & in what context, etc) is simply not meaningful. That's why I referenced the site where I took my examples. It has that info available.

>> I think it's crazy to say that more people are relating to Kerry's politics over Bush's at this time. I think you're seeing the sentiment VC expressed above: "anyone but Bush will do" ... which I understand. I don't think many people know Kerry's politics.

Crazy like a Donkey. How many people vote without knowing the specifics of any candidates politics? Probably millions. Many people develop a partial sense of what a candidate is about and go with it. Which is why I think it's significant more people are saying Kerry's politics are 'about right.' That said, I don't disagree with your point that the figures could also reflect an 'ABB' sentiment.

Either way, your boy is going down in Nov! ;-)

Latest Bush Approval / Disapproval polling data:
USA Today - 49/48
Quinipac Univerity - 48/45
Newsweek - 49/44
Fox News - 53/39
ABC - 58/40
CNN/Time - 54/41

What are the different ways you can interpret these results?

I think it's crazy to say that more people are relating to Kerry's politics over Bush's at this time. I think you're seeing the sentiment VC expressed above: "anyone but Bush will do" ... which I understand. I don't think many people know Kerry's politics. It will be interesting to see what happens when his record comes to light.

Also from another USATODAY poll, when asked if Bush & Kerry's political views are too conservative, about right, or too liberal, the results showed:

Bush / Kerry
Too conservative 39% / 8%
About right 36% / 46%
Too liberal 18% / 29%
No opinion 7% / 17%

As with all polls, the results can be interpreted in a number of ways. I'd like to think it's fair to say more people are now relating to Kerry's politics, over Bush's. Does this map to how they'll vote? If so, the undecided will decide the outcome, in Nov.

As a card-carrying member of the GOP, I can confirm that Kerry is a concern for exactly the reason that VC cites. Plus, Kerry has experience and is presidential. We wanted Dean!!!

WRT Bush, I must mention that in this week's CNN/USA Today/ Gallup Poll, more people approve of Bush than disapprove. I'm not sure the nation wants to repudiate him and I'm surprised to see someone "indifferent to the mainstream" attempt to divine its wishes.

Kerry genuinely concerns the GOP, reportedly. The "Massachusetts Liberal" tag doesn't stick so easily to a war hero, especially when his opponent didn't bother to show up for most of his National Guard duty. Though none of the Demo candidates thrills me, Anyone But Bush will do. I think the country owes it to the rest of the world to get the guy out of office. And we owe it to ourselves. If he gets relected, the damage will be longlasting -- partly because of what he might do in a second term, but also because if, as a nation, we miss the chance to repudiate what he has done, non-Americans will take it as evidence that Bush's policies reflect the public's wishes.

I guess I officially declared my RNV status.

But no rest for the wicked. Now the question is - how to convince Rudy Giuliani not to run as Bush's next VP? We want Bush/Cheney. That's the ticket that Kerry/Edwards can trounce. Bush/Giuliani....um....

I'm more dismayed than repentant but, I am happy to see our federal government (FCC) focusing its investigative efforts on important issues like Janet Jackson’s breast as opposed to less important matters like WMD and intelligence. BTW, this is the doctrine of pre-emptive criticism.