Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
|
World Poll favors Kerry
This is amusing. Drudge linked to this article from AFP on a World Poll. It turns out that a majority of people in 30 of 35 countries want Kerry to win the election. Many little tidbits in here (as if they mattered), including these:
"The only countries where Bush was preferred in the poll covering a total of 34,330 people and conducted in July and August were the Philippines, Nigeria and Poland." And "India and Thailand were divided." Canada prefers Kerry, 61% to 16% for Bush, and "Strongest negative views on US foreign policy were held in Germany, with 83 percent of those polled saying "worse" followed by France (81 percent), Mexico (78 percent), China (72 percent)..." Enough said. You get the point.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [8] | 9/8/2004 4:56 PM
|
|
Muslims as second class citizens
AFP runs this non-story about how Muslims in America are being discriminated against and are drifting toward Kerry (if not running). The whole thing is worth reading (to get your juices flowing for the day) but I especially like this: "’Today, Muslims and Arabs are second-class citizens in the United States.’
The parallels between the experiences of black Americans and Muslim Americans have not been lost on ordinary Muslims like computer engineers Suhl Kahn and Badar Hussain.
’Blacks weren’t really Americans until 9/11,’ noted Kahn, in a wry observation on mainstream America’s shifting perceptions of ’us and them’ in the wake of the terror attacks on New York and Washington." Blacks weren’t Americans until 9/11! Did you get that.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [10] | 9/8/2004 9:18 AM
|
|
Claremont Review of Books
I got my copy of the Claremont Review of Books yesterday and the first thing I read was a piece on Empire by
Carnes Lord. He reviews three books on the theme; worthy. I also read Algis Valiunas’ essay on Beethoven (not on line yet). Tremendous essay. Read it when you can. Here is the table of contents for the new issue.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 9/8/2004 9:09 AM
|
|
Alt speaks on Iraq
Busy day today, will not be able to blog until this evening. Robert Alt is talking on Iraq today. You can listen to it live (click on his name). It should be good. By the way, I saw Madelline Albright (remember her, the secretary of state who ran after Arafat to beg him to return to a meeting that he left in a tizzy?) being interviewed this morning on Kerry’s policy on Iraq and she was completely and utterly incomprehensible. It was embarrasing. I know, I know. Why am I surprised?
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 9/8/2004 8:56 AM
|
|
No Left Turns Mug Drawing Winners for August
Congratulations to this month’s winners of a No Left Turns mug! The winners are as follows: Donald R. Klotz, Jr.
Shawn Lee
Nick Lashutka
Beth Vanderkooi
Patrick Kelley
Thanks to all who entered. An email has been sent to the winners. If you are listed as a winner and did not receive an email, contact Ben Kunkel. If you didn’t win this month, enter September’s drawing.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 9/7/2004 2:40 PM
|
|
I Told You So
NLT readers may recall that I predicted last week that if Kerry loses, liberals in full meltdown mode will compare the Swift Boat ads to the Williw Horton ads of 1988.
Prediction verified in today’s Washington Post.
Just don’t ask me for any stock tips, or look back at my New Year’s even predctions last December, some of which don’t look very good right now (like certain dem nominee Howard Dean), though a couple of others are closer to the mark, such as media rumors about Dick Cheney’s health and his tenuous place on the ticket.
Posted by Steven Hayward | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 9/7/2004 1:03 PM
|
|
Women and terror
The International Herald Tribune runs this op-ed on the recent terrorists action in Russia. "The recent wave of terrorist attacks in Russia has been remarkably brutal, aimed even at children. There was, however, another detail regularly picked up by commentators and analysts: the prominent role played by women." And this: "All this amounts to a major shift in the operational modus operandi of Islamic terrorists. The events in Russia suggest that women are now the preferred tool with which to carry out ’martyrdom operations.’ If sustained, this would be a truly remarkable development." Why women? The points are considered. One is practical; everyone expects young Islamic men to be terrorists, so use women. The second is more interesting: Given that women have an inferior role in Islamic societies, and have no role to play in public, why have them play the role of "heroic martyr"?
The authors respond: "Symbolically, their participation sends a powerful message, blurring the distinction between perpetrator and victim. Even among progressive Westerners, the notion that women are the ’weaker sex,’ and that their inclination is to create and protect life rather than destroy it, remains widespread. If women decide to violate all established norms about the sanctity of human life, they do so only as a last resort. The scholar Clara Beyler, who analyzed public reactions to suicide bombings, found that ’female kamikazes’ tended to be portrayed as ’the symbols of utter despair ... rather than the cold-blooded murderers of civilians.’ If a woman was involved, the media focused on ’what made her do it,’ not on the carnage that she had created. In other words, if the attacker was a woman, it was the bomber who became the victim, and whose grievances needed to be addressed."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 9/7/2004 11:51 AM
|
|
Kerry and Vietnam
The Boston Globe runs this long article on how Kerry (and his campaign) made Vietnam into an issue. Very interesting--Douglas Brinkley is omnipresent in the story--and slightly weird. You are given the impression that it all came about by chance, Brinkley’s book, Rasmussen (the guy Kerry saved) reading the book, calling Kerry (whom he hadn’t talked to since 1969) then the campaign taking it over, etc. Note the last paragraph (notice the Brinkley comment): "Whether this counterassault will put Vietnam squarely back in the win column for the Kerry campaign will become clear in the next eight weeks. Democrats, including advisers to Kerry, remain wary and uncertain, just as the candidate once was about telling his Vietnam story. ’Kerry decided to make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign for one clear reason: Imagine him without his military record -- he would just be another liberal from Taxachusetts,’ Brinkley said. ’With Vietnam, he could challenge Republicans on their strongest position -- standing with the military and with the American flag. Now you’re seeing the negative effects of that.’"
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 9/7/2004 11:43 AM
|
|
The cult of death
The horror of the massacre at Beslan, Russia, (over 300 dead, 100 still missing) forces David Brooks to reflect on terrorism as the cult of death. There are no causes here, but pleasure taken in killing and dying. Along the way he chastizes those who do not understand this.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [5] | 9/7/2004 9:21 AM
|
|
Austen and Nietzsche
I find this irresistible from The Corner. Richard Brookhiser reports: "On C-SPAN yesterday, Harry Evans, the Brit-born publisher, said that when he revived the Modern Library imprint for Random House, the big sellers were Jane Austen and Nietzsche. I mentioned this to a clever friend, who had these thoughts: Ubermenschfield Park, Pride and Ressentiment, Also Sprach Emma Wodehouse,
and, my favorite:
If there were any truth universally acknowledged, it would be that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a transformation of all values."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 9/6/2004 5:51 PM
|
|
Kerry on Iraq
I thought John Kerry was advised by Clinton to stick to the economy and domestic policy? The AP reports: "Democrat John Kerry accused President Bush on Monday of sending U.S. troops to the ’wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time’ and said he’d try to bring them all home in four years. Bush rebuked him for taking ’yet another new position’ on the war." Bush: "After voting for the war, but against funding it, after saying he would have voted for the war even knowing everything we know today, my opponent woke up this morning with new campaign advisers and yet another new position."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [10] | 9/6/2004 5:44 PM
|
|
Eight year old arrested
An eight year old threw a basketball at another third grader, was cited for disorderly conduct because he "got out of control and refused to go back to class." He was then handcuffed and put in jail. Let’s assume that he did hit another kid with a ball and that he was unruly and behaved altogether badly. Pick the kid up, take him to a room, or even home, or call his parents, even spank him, if necessary, but call the cops on an eight year old, and throw him in the slammer? Amazing, if true.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 9/6/2004 5:35 PM
|
|
Gallup Poll: Bush 52%, Kerry 45%
The USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll has just been published. This is the USA Today story about the poll, and this is the poll. The poll was taken Friday through Sunday, shows Bush at 52%, Kerry at 45% and independent candidate Ralph Nader at 1% among likely voters. Before the convention, Bush led Kerry by 2 percentage in the same poll (Aug 23-25).
A few notable details: Bush’s approval rating is at 52%; it was 49% in the last Gallup poll. 59% said Bush has the personality and leadership qualities to be president, 51% for Kerry. 61% said Bush would handle questions of terrorism better, 34% for Kerry (last month Bush was leading this by only 10 points). 60% said Bush is the strong and decisive leader, while 32% said Kerry was.
The USA Today article concludes: "Bush received a modest bounce from his party’s convention, while Kerry’s standing sagged in the USA TODAY poll after the Democratic convention. The president is driving both sides of the ballot: eight of 10 of his supporters say they are voting for Bush; half of Kerry voters say they are voting against Bush."
Rasmussen reports that "In the sixteen-Battleground States that are likely to determine the winner of Election 2004, President Bush now leads Senator Kerry 48% to 45%.
A week ago, before the Republican National Convention, Kerry was ahead, 47% to 45%. In fact, Kerry has been ahead in the 16-Battleground States for most of the year."
Rasmussen also reports this: "-Fifty-two percent (52%) of Americans now believe that President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney will be re-elected this November. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 38% expect the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards to emerge victorious.
Those numbers reflect a big change from the last time we asked the question. Following the Democratic Convention, data released to Premium Members showed that 47% of voters expected Kerry to win while 43% took the opposite view." In short, the post convention bounce is beginning to shape up.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [4] | 9/6/2004 5:03 PM
|
|
Iowa poll
About 60% of Iowans think that Bush will win the election. In a similar poll in July only 47% of Iowans thought Bush was going to win. And, perhaps even more significant, about a third of Demos and about two-thirds of the Independents think that Bush will win. David Yepsen, Des Moines political columnist, says this poll should raise a red flag for the Kerry camp here in Iowa. "This is a significant finding because a significant number of people think the president is going to pull this one out. You’ll even have Kerry people in here saying he’s going to win, so if you’re the Democrats you have to get your people pumped up here a little bit."
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 9/6/2004 11:19 AM
|
|
Electoral College tie?
USA Today considers the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College, thus throwing the election into the House. It’s not going to happen, of course. Since Bush will keep his lead (will probably drop down to about 5 points) there will less talk of this perfect storm as the campaign goes on.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [5] | 9/6/2004 11:17 AM
|
|
Fertility rates and politics
Philip Longman argues that fertility rates have something to do with politics, and fertility rates have something to do with religious conviction and with Bush supporters. Utah has the highest fertility rate in the nation. "Utah annually produces 90 children for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age. By comparison, Vermont -- the only state to send a socialist to Congress and the first to embrace gay unions -- produces only 49."
"High fertility also correlates strongly with support for George W. Bush. Of the top 10 most fertile states, all but one voted for Bush in 2000. Among the 17 states that still produce enough children to replace their populations, all but two -- Iowa and Minnesota -- voted for Bush in the last election. Conversely, the least fertile states -- a list that includes Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut -- went overwhelmingly for Al Gore. Women living in Gore states on average have 12 percent fewer babies than women living in Bush states." 
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [5] | 9/6/2004 10:06 AM
|
|
Clinton’s advice on Kerry’s downward slide
The NY Times describes the "slow motion shakeup" of the Kerry campaign. Notice the irony that Bill Clinton, from his hospital room, (he is in surgery as I write, and I wish him well) has an hour and a half conversation--the night before his surgery--with Kerry in which he tells Kerry what to do in what’s left of the campaign. He tells him that he has to make a clear distinction between himself and Bush, he must give people reasons to vote for him! It seems that more of Clinton’s people (and Hillary’s) are being placed on the Kerry team (Sasso, Wolfson, Sosnik, Lokhart, Johnson, Greenberg, et al). Clinton told Kerry to do this, according to the NY Times: "In an expansive conversation, Mr. Clinton, who is awaiting heart surgery, told Mr. Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam, which had been the central theme of his candidacy, and focus instead on drawing contrasts with President Bush on job creation and health care policies, officials with knowledge of the conversation said."
I find all this quite remarkable. But not only in the sense that there is a campaign shake-up; these things do happen when you are behind. What I find amazing is that--as far as I can tell--Kerry has no idea, and never has had an idea, on how to run his campaign. He simple takes suggestions from the Democratic elites, whether a Kennedy or a Clinton. They advise him to make his Vietnam experience an issue, then to take Edwards as his running mate, then not to respond to attacks on his Vietnam and post-Vietnam life, but not talk about his Senate career, then to hold a midnight rally after the GOP convention, then to start talking only about domestic issues, and so on. And everyone has been sucked in by the theory--pushed hard in the media--that there are no swing voters, that the electorate is polarized just like it was back in 2000. Clearly, if you assumed that, you assumed that 9/11 was unimportant, as was Bush’s reaction to it. Not possible. The eleven point swing proves it. Does Kerry have any ideas of his own about his own campaign? Does he have any judgment?
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 9/6/2004 9:23 AM
|
|
