Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Note: Fake Poll.

As the prior post should suggest, but some people apparently didn't catch, this post with Gallup numbers is a joke (much like Gallup itself). The thing about Gallup is that they always oversample Republicans in their surveys, thus inflating support for Bush. This tongue in cheek post was merely meant to go to an extreme to illustrate the problem with Gallup polling. It was not meant to imply that I thought Kerry was losing or that you should not vote for him. Please vote for Kerry. Please, please, please.

New Gallup Poll out

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,538 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 24-25, 2004. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. Sampling size 53 % Republican, 18 % Democrat, 14% independent.


LV: Bush 59 Kerry 38

RV: Bush 57 Kerry 41

Wow, that is quite disturbing. Clearly Kerry has no chance of winning. Why even vote?

Note: This is a joke, this poll is fake. Kerry is winning.
Mr. Newport, what's your take on this?

Bush Kerry Nader DK Oct

Florida 46% 49% 1% 4% 23-25

Ohio 47% 49% * 4% 23-25

Pennsylvania 47% 50% * 3% 23-25

Wisconsin 47% 47% 2% 4% 16-19

New Mexico 46% 48% 1% 5% 16-18

New Hampshire 47% 46% 1% 6% 16-18

Oregon 44% 49% 2% 5% 9-12

Iowa 47% 47% 2% 4% 10-12

* Ralph Nader is not on the ballot

Notably, the numbers for Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are the most recent ones. Perhaps the older numbers for the other states are the only reason why Kerry doesn't have an outright lead in Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Iowa.

Oh yeah, and Zogby has Kerry leading in Colorado (but strangely down slightly in other key states).

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Despite the fact that George W. Bush had over one month more to raise money...

...than Kerry and thus merely had to make his $75,000,000 last a fraction of the time John Kerry did,

John Kerry's got more dough for the strech run!

We're gonna take these guys out

Kerry holds slight edge in cash for final sprint
October 22, 2004

Sen. John Kerry started the final two weeks of the campaign with a slight cash edge over President Bush, pre-election campaign finance reports they filed Thursday showed.

Each had less than a third of his $75 million budget left as of mid-month -- Kerry just over $24 million and Bush $22 million. Both spent around $14 million in the first two weeks of October.

True, Kerry doesn't have a whopping advantage right now, but that he has any money left at all-let alone more than Bush, after enduring the most savage attacks in the history of American politics, that's quite comforting. If W. thought JFK was broke and on the verge of collapse, he was wrong.
Secretary General Clinton?

Second update:

Even though this came from a Moonie publication, I have decided to leave it up because I think that Bill Clinton as Secretary-General would be a great idea.

Update: I have been reminded by some friends that UPI, a once respectable press outlet is now a Moonie publication. So that makes this article much less credible, and I will soon remove it. Nonetheless, if possible, a Clinton UN Secretary Generalship would be great, I think.

Analysis: Clinton eyes U.N. post

By ROLAND FLAMINI, UPI Chief International Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming U.N. secretary-general. A Clinton insider and a senior U.N. source have told United Press International the 56-year-old former president would like to be named leader of the world body when Kofi Annan's term ends early in 2006.

"He definitely wants to do it," the Clinton insider said this week.

A Clinton candidacy is likely to receive overwhelming support from U.N. member states, particularly the Third World. Diplomats in Washington say Clinton would galvanize the United Nations and give an enormous boost to its prestige. But the former president's hopes hang on a crucial question that will not be addressed until after the presidential elections: can he get the support of the U.S. government -- a prerequisite for nomination?

The political wisdom is that a second George W. Bush presidency would cut him off at the pass. The notion of Clinton looming large in the international arena from "the glass tower" in New York would be intolerable to the Bush White House. If Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wins on Nov. 2 the prospect of Clinton as secretary-general won't exactly be welcome either, but Kerry would find it much harder -- if not impossible -- to go against it.

Wow, this is exciting! Imagine, what more effective way could there be to mend the alliances that George W. Bush has so badly damaged around than world than to to have Bill Clinton as Secretary General of the UN? Clinton brought great international respect and credibility to the United States, and as Secretary General, he could bring it back, as well as bring credibility and strenght to the United Nations and international law.

The prospect of Clinton as Secretary General wouldn't be welcome in a Kerry administration? Say what? I don't think any other single thing could strengthen President Kerry's hand more when it comes to rebuilding international alliances, and extracting us from the mess in Iraq. Kerry's bringing Clinton out to campaign with him in a few days is likely a sign that in a Kerry administration, Clinton will play an important role, and this could be part of it.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Mike's Ex, or a high ranking hypocrite?

Someone Has Stolen Both the Brains AND the Sense of Humor from the Michigan Republican Party

Michael Moore filed a theft complaint with the Lansing City Police today stating that "someone has stolen both the brains AND the sense of humor from the Michigan Republican Party."

The brains were locked in a box where they were placed after the last moderate Republican governor of Michigan retired in 1980. The party's "sense of humor" was not valued at more than $100 and therefore its theft is considered a misdemeanor.

"I am concerned about the loss of these two items," Moore told reporters. "If there is anything I can do to help the Republicans find them, I will."

Anyone knowing the whereabouts of the Michigan Republicans' brains or sense of humor is asked to call CrimeStoppers at (269) 273-6467.

Quite funny. I wonder who that phone number belongs to, though. It's not Michigan Crime Stoppers. I called it, out of curiosity, and a woman simply answered "hello." At that point, I suddenly realized that I was calling a private person at past midnight Eastern time, and hung up. I did a reverse directory search which revealed that it is a Verizon number in Michigan, so probably a cell phone. So you blog users are welcome to investigate (at a more sane hour) if I don't get to it first. I'm betting that it's someone that Michael Moore doesn't like...

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

If only Gore were President...

Federal surplus to top $8 billion
Total is four times bigger than expected:sources


OTTAWA - The federal Liberals are poised to announce they're sitting on an embarrassment of riches - a whopping budget surplus of at least $8 billion, four times more than they predicted.
Senior government sources told The Canadian Press that Ottawa's surplus - which was projected to come in at only $1.9 billion for the fiscal year that ended March 31 - will instead top $8 billion.

Remember when we used to have headlines like that...

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

Here's some more interesting information on the United States v. Canada economic comparison, courtesy of this site:

Canada page

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Twice the Cheney=2x the Evil


Bush=Farenheit 9/11, Cheney=Farenheit 451
WASHINGTON — The Education Department this summer destroyed more than 300,000 copies of a booklet designed for parents to help their children learn history after the office of Vice President Dick Cheney's wife complained that it mentioned the National Standards for History, which she has long opposed.


As the wife of the vice president, Cheney has no executive position in the federal government. But when her office spotted the references to the National Standards for History in the new edition of the history booklet, her staff communicated its displeasure to the Education Department.

Subsequently, the department decided it was necessary to kill the new edition and reprint it with references to the standards removed. Though about 61,000 copies of "Helping Your Child Learn History" had been distributed, the remaining 300,000-plus copies were destroyed. Asked about the decision, one department official said they had been "recycled."


Tricky, Orwellian Dick
Cheney: Weapons Report Justifies Iraq War

Thu Oct 7, 5:06 PM ET

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

MIAMI - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) asserted on Thursday that a finding by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq (news - web sites) that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government produced no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 justifies rather than undermines President Bush (news - web sites)'s decision to go to war.

OK, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, nor the ability to manufacture them, since 1991. They may have wished to assemble them when the UN weapons inspection regime came to an end.

Thanks for clearing this up for me, Dick. Now it all makes sense. All though Iraq didn´t have weapons of mass destruction (since 1991), nor the ability to manufacture them (since 1991), and although the rational for invading Iraq was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (and was there some connection to Al Qaeda?), Saddam Hussein did, perhaps, have the desire to amass such weapons, and perhaps, several years down the road, if he was still in power, and still alive (unlike Mr. Cheney who, though he is running this country, I suspect died several years ago) and he still wanted to make weapons of mass destruction, might have been able to do so. This made him the biggest security risk to the United States in the world, and such a grave threat to the United States that it was worth sending 10 times as many troops to take him out as we had in Afghanistan looking for Osama bin Laden, who actually attacked the United States, and who we still have not found, for a military operation that is likely to last several years at the least and cost hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe trillions not to mention cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives.

Dick Cheney, as you like to remind us, as Vice President of the United States, you are the President of the Senate, and I advice you to take the advice you gave to Senator Pat Leahy in that capacity.

Monday, October 04, 2004

Quote of the day

"I heard Senator Kerry say that there was some kind of 'global test' that you ought to be able to pass to support preemption, and I don't understand what that means," Rice told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

"I don't understand 'proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons,' " she said.
--Condoleeza Rice

Well that certainly explains a lot...

In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. In a speech to veterans that August, Vice President Dick Cheney said Mr. Hussein could have an atomic bomb "fairly soon." President Bush, addressing the United Nations the next month, said there was "little doubt" about Mr. Hussein's appetite for nuclear arms.
The United States intelligence community had not yet concluded that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. But as the vice president told a group of Wyoming Republicans that September, the United States had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

The tubes quickly became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, asserted on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But before Ms. Rice made those remarks, she was aware that the government's foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, an examination by The New York Times has found. As early as 2001, her staff had been told that these experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and a senior administration official, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Don't forget about Poland!

Poland planning pull-out of troops from Iraq
Derek Scally, in Warsaw

Poland is planning to withdraw its troops from Iraq in the coming months, dealing another blow to the US-led coalition forces there.

The revelation yesterday by a senior government adviser that Poland's 2,500 soldiers would leave Iraq comes just a day after the new Spanish Prime Minister, Mr José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, announced the pull-out of Spanish troops "as soon as possible".

A senior adviser to the Polish government confirmed to The Irish Times that Warsaw's decision had been influenced by the Spanish move. "Given the circumstances [in Iraq], we will probably diminish significantly the forces at the end of 2004," said Prof Tadeusz Iwinski, secretary of state for international affairs in the office of the prime minister.

By the way, this article was from April. But the general idea that Poland plans to remove most of its forces from Iraq within a few months is confirmed by this September article.

Poland To Withdraw More Troops: Defense Minister

Poland will hand over another part of the zone it administers in Iraq under a planned reduction of its forces next year, Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski said in an interview published Sept. 3.