Thursday, October 21, 2004


CNN ran a Special Report on the presidential election last night. Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider was on with some hot information on the battleground states du jour: Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

The scoop as Schneider reports it in a hushed tone: "Political insiders say that whoever wins two out of these three states states will win the election."

So, Schneider didn't know this himself; he had to contact some "political insiders" to figure it all out.

I hope he didn't have to work the phones to hard to come up with this inside information. I'm pretty sure by this time my dog is aware of the possibilities, and my dog is not all that into politics.

So, why did the two candidates spend their day yesterday in Ohio? Obviously, they took my earlier post (To Whom It May Concern) to heart.


Wednesday, October 20, 2004


Know any elderly people scrabbling around to get flu shots? Perhaps your mother or grandmother waited in line for ten hours over the weekend, then was turned away as the supply ran out.

These people who can't get shots have only themselves to blame. If they'd had the foresight to choose a different career path, they'd be immunized by now.

Steal a car? You're in. Prison inmates are taken care of.

Steal from the taxpayers? No problem. There's plenty here. (Washington Post "No Flu Vaccine Shortage At Capitol - registration req.)

What did Mark Twain say about politicians?


Tuesday, October 19, 2004


The presidential candidates are spending most of their time in the so-called battleground states. This strategy is predicated on the idea that more exposure to the voters is a good thing. George Bush believes that the more times he comes to Pennsylvania, the more people will vote for him. John Kerry believes the same.

As someone who has never found politicians (as a class) to be especially likeable, I question this assumption. My theory is that the opposite is just as likely to be true.

In Richard Nixon's landslide win in 1972, he failed to carry the District of Columbia. This is where he has spent most of his time in the preceding four years; the people most familiar with him couldn't bear the thought of any more years.

George W. Bush's strategists are often faulted for pouring resources into California in the last weeks of the 2000 campaign, rather than in states that were more closely contested. I believe this was a stroke of genius. If Bush had spent more money and time familiarizing himself to Florida voters, he might have the lost the state by such a great margin that his father's appointees couldn't have gotten away with awarding him the win.

On the other side of the fence, Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in 2000.

In New Jersey, the Democratic governor recently outed himself and announced his resignation (to take effect any day now). This political/sexual scandal has apparently dragged John Kerry's New Jersey numbers down so low that is seems somewhat possible that President Bush will win the state. Taking heart from these latest polls, Mr. W made his first campaign appearance in NJ this week.

I don't know who will win the election, but I'm predicting that Kerry will carry New Jersey handily.

And if I were advising Kerry, I'd get him on the first plane out of Florida and park him in Massachusetts or some other safe state where he can do as little damage to himself as possible.


Friday, October 08, 2004


Martha Stewart is off the streets.


Christiane Amanpour is in Afghanistan for the presidential election Saturday. I heard her breathlessly report that one of the 45 candidates for the office is a woman. She was very excited about the progress being made. As long as we invaded for the right reasons.


The latest rationale being offered for the Iraq War is that Saddam was abusing the U.N. Food for Oil Program. Makes perfect sense. if I knew that that was the reason for the war, I would have been foursquare behind our leaders from day one. It just makes my blood boil to hear the the U.N. is not being properly respected.


I heard a "debate expert, a professor from Rutgers, on CBS radio news this morning. he feels that the president's poor performance in the first debate may work to his advantage tonight, in that he has "lowered the bar" once again.

Any lower and Mr. Bush is going to have to tunnel in from underneath the stage.


Friday, October 01, 2004


I was undecided about whether or not to watch the debates last night.

I'd had my expectations lowered so much that I didn't think I could enjoy the show.

I'd heard that all Bush really had to do was show up, not reveal himself to be a gibbering idiot, and he'd win.

Instead of watching, I played Scrabble against a game disc that had come free in a box of Cheerios. I lost four games in a row and went to bed. I felt a little like a gibbering idiot myself.

Imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning and heard that Bush has lost the debate.

Most everyone seemed to agree that the President had shown himself to be a gibbering idiot.

Not that I didn't know this. Really, who didn't? I'm sure those closest to him and most supportive of his candidacy know it better than most. They also know it's poor form to let on.

Well, now the cat's out of the bag, for the millionth time. Will it make a difference?

I'm undecided.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?