Presidential Campaign Diary
I didn’t have a read on Howard Dean until watching him on Chris Matthews the other night. Even while the kids were racing noisily around the living room of Gramma and Grampa’s house, I saw all I needed to see.
In the movie The Hustler, Paul Newman was destroying Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason) in pool. Gleason called on George C. Scott, the professional handicapper, to size up Paul Newman. After watching him for a while, Scott turns to Fats and says: “Stay with this kid; he's a loser.”
And I say to John Kerry. “Stay with Dean. He’s a loser!”
Dean has three serious opponents: Kerry, Clark, and Gephardt. Clark can’t win because he’s too new and he’s too knew. He’s too damn smart. One genius in the White House was enough (Jefferson). By the way, that’s why his old cronies in the Army snipe at him: jealousy. Gephardt’s opposition to international free trade is insane. If international free trade is bad, isn’t national free trade bad? As Murray Rothbard suggested, why not abolish all trade and each of us can be a dirt farmer? Okay, you can trade with your own family members.
So it’s Dean v. Kerry. Rush thinks so too. That’s why he constantly bashes Kerry. He’s scared of him. War hero versus Mr. AWOL.
The American People are not going to elect a guy who showed up at his draft physical with x-rays. Dean is what legendary St. Joe’s cross-country coach Bob Ivory used to call a “ham ‘n egger”, a boy whose mommy made him ham and eggs for breakfast every morning. Kerry showed up with only his you-know-what’s. He ended up commanding a river gunboat in Vietnam and won a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts.
Maybe that’s not the main point, but, even though Kerry and I are miles part on the issues, the guy sounds “presidential” whenever he opens his mouth (so does the more recent Clark); Kerry has gravitas; Dean has goofitas. Yes, Kerry is lugubrious, but most people don’t even know what that word means, so it doesn’t matter.
And Dean has no class. When asked to say something good about Bush, he churlishly declined. How about: “He’s a good family man.”? You want to be head of State, Howard? What are you going to do at State dinners? Mock out the foreigners’ funny clothes? On foreign policy, he seemed to be faking it (like Clark on domestic issues). He referred to the Soviet Union of late bad memory as though it still existed. Yeah, Dean was right in opposing the invasion of Iraq, but he would have gone into Liberia. Liberia?
Kerry will win the Democratic nomination. Right now, Bush beats him, but that will all depend on the economy and Iraq. Too soon to tell. Plus, the terrorists can tip the election with another major attack—to Kerry if early, to Bush if late.
One more thing. As Gramma noticed, Dean talks too damn fast. Do we want a fast talker in the White House?
Thus starts my presidential campaign diary--
Entry—December 11, 2003—
To Wesley Clark. Please stop the overstatements. You’re making me dizzy. And why don’t you just admit you know nothing about domestic policy, but are willing to learn?
Gore endorsed Dean. The kiss of death? Reminds me of when Samson got a hair cut.
Happy birthday, John Kerry (and me).
Saddam captured. Great for Bush. Bad for Dean. Good for Kerry. If Bush gets Osama, even on the afternoon of the election, case closed.
As for Saddam, now the Americans will find out that it’s impossible to hold Iraq together without brute force.
Entry—December 21, 2003—
Wesley Clark continues his strange schizophrenia. On foreign affairs, even when he is wrong, he speaks with intelligence, command and with encyclopedic knowledge. On domestic policy, he doesn’t have a clue. He seems to have no understanding of economics. He seems to believe, à la Perot, that all problems are technical and if we give the right people the right powers, all problems can be solved. He thinks the problem with health care is the profit motive, oblivious to the fact that it has been the gradual and steady elimination of the profit motive, competition, and freedom of contract, that have wrecked the system.
Entry—January 15, 2004--
So Kerry’s in first place in Iowa! You heard it here first and you heard it nowhere else to my knowledge. The guys who make the big bucks got it wrong; the blogger from Buffalo got it right. Now that I have your attention. . . .
But what about Edwards? I wrote him off but he shows signs of life. Edwards is a mystery to me. Opaque. Two years ago, I saw him out of the corner of my eye on C-Span and thought to myself: who’s this dufus Congressman and where’s he from? I was shocked to learn he was a Senator!
When I heard Edwards was a pretender to the throne, I decided to do a hit piece on him. I looked for the gory details, the silly policy positions, the quirky quotes. I found nothing! There was no there, there. The guy managed to pass several years in the Senatarium—the millionaires’ club--without leaving a trace.
I think people are writing their own fantasy onto the Edwards blank slate. This fantasy too shall pass, just as the Dean fantasy passed when he brought the Hollywood liberals into Iowa. Howard, it’s Iowa, not the Upper West Side!
Stay tuned for more insights ahead of the pack, and see my other pages too because these guys are wrong about a lot more than who is going to win the Democratic nomination.
One more thing. Edwards, fire your webmaster. Your home page has more clutter than a crack house.
* * * * *
Someone named Carol Moseley Braun claims to have dropped out of the presidential race. What I want to know is—when did she drop in? Seriously--I know why she dropped out. It’s the same old patronage politics she’s played throughout her career. It took a lot of chutzpah to interrupt the Iowa caucuses with her non-momentous announcement of the end of her non-campaign. And no, she is not going to get that Ambassadorship in the Bahamas (or HUD Secretary) because Dean is never going to be President.
Entry—January 19, 2004, 9:30 p.m. EST
Can a Northeast liberal beat Bush? Yes, and without a
single Southern state. Win all the Gore states and two states that Bush won
narrowly in 2000: New Hampshire and Arizona. Kerry: 274; Bush 264. This is
not a prediction, just a scenario.
Entry--January 30, 2004
Here’s a long piece on Edwards, the last challenger.
The Republican long knives, “dirty tricks squad”, and “ratf***ing” are active again. They’re unhappy that their worst nightmare, Kerry, will be the nominee, and with so little effort. The Republicans like the Dems to beat each other up a lot before November. Not this time. That race is over, contrary to what David Broder and many others think.
So they call him the “Botox man” [Wes Pruden] and a “gigolo” [Rush] who “wrote off the South” and accused his fellow soldiers of atrocities [Pruden]. Oh, it turns out Kerry was quoting the soldiers, not indicting them. When did Republican hacks ever care about truth? They cut their teeth on Nixon’s campaigns for goodness sake (before reading Bush, Sr.’s lips).
These guys are scared ****less. I’m getting a feeling about November (unless they’ve got Osama on ice).
Entry—September 16, 2004
Stay With Bush; He’s a Loser!
I haven’t made a diary entry for the general election because the campaign has been so boring and stupid. Yes, nobody knows what Kerry is talking about, but the problem is, we do know what Bush is talking about and it stinks!
And no, Bushies, Dan Rather is not running against Bush. Dan Rather has not been President for the last four bad years. The fellow the rhetorical Bush is running against is the historical Bush. This is a race he can’t win: spending is up, debt is up, inflation continues, terrorist deaths up, noncombatant deaths up, troops killed up, personal freedom down, three major new federal programs: education, drugs, airports.
Bush presided over and slept through the worst day in American history. “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.” Bush is a loser!
I’ve heard and seen enough and I’m ready to announce my prediction, which I’ve been making privately for a week or ten days. The atrocious candidate will beat the atrocious President. Why? Gut feeling, based on thirty years political experience.
Why Kerry will win--in a word? I-R-A-Q!
Those worried that Kerry will make government bigger are mistaken. It is highly unlikely that he will make it any bigger than Bush would have. The main reason is that the Republican Congress will suddenly rediscover that they dislike big government and will block any major Kerry initiatives. Too bad they didn’t block Bush’s big government initiatitives: socializing prescription drugs, federalizing education, and federalizing airline security.
For those yet unconvinced that Bush has been a disaster for America, let me run this by you. A Bush win means turning the keys to the White House back over to The Billary in 2009─and for two terms too!
How to mark the turning point: today was the day a Gold Star Mother was arrested outside a Bush event while talking to the media. Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!
Even the gods are against Bush. Was that a Democratic hurricane or what?
Entry—September 22, 2004
I’m not saying that the Kerry people read my blog; I’m just saying they act like they do. They’ve finally realized that IRAQ is the issue. And look what happens? It’s a tie. Stay tuned.
Entry—October 3, 2004
Kerry won the debate, on style and substance, though I thought Bush made a few good points. You can tell a hack because they won’t say a single good thing about the candidate they oppose. For example, Bush scored when he mentioned Poland. It had nothing to do with foreign policy. It was a message to a large block of swing voters centered around the Great Lakes. Smart. Kerry, don’t forget the Poles.
Kerry hit a home run by arguing that we lost bin Laden because of Bush’s obsession with Iraq. Bush never effectively responded. Case closed. Kerry solved all the problems he had had with the clarity of his foreign policy views in one instant.
Kerry has resurrected himself by focusing on what a disaster the Iraq War is. This is as I predicted.
is creeping ahead in the polls. It’ll stay close with Kerry winning in the
end. As usual, you heard it here first. No, I don’t have a crystal ball.
I’ve just been watching the game closely for 36 years.
As for the rest of the debates, Cheney will beat Edwards, but Kerry will do well in the last two so it won’t matter.
Entry—October 5, 2004
Cheney destroyed Edwards—no surprise to readers of this blog. One wonders why the race isn’t between Kerry and Cheney. Forget the two lightweights. Ironically, Cheney’s superiority over Bush hurts Bush. As previously stated, Kerry will win the last two debates. Why? He has done nothing but debate for forty years and Bush couldn’t debate his way out of a parking ticket.
Entry—October 11, 2004
I hopped on the very nice L. A. Times website and did my electoral analysis of the presidential race. It all comes down to Ohio and Florida. Bush must win Florida. Assuming he does, whoever wins Ohio wins it all. I see Kerry winning Ohio and the election. Kerry wins the Northeast, minus Indiana; he wins Minnesota and Iowa and the three west coast states for 279 electoral votes. Bush loses with 259.
Here’s my quick analysis of the second debate:
Bush won the debate, much to my surprise. Something about being able to move around made his brain work better. Turn the Oval Office into a jogging track. I scored each question as follows: Bush—9; Kerry—5; even—5. Bush did equally well on foreign and domestic policy; Kerry messed up some arcane legal points, but who noticed?
Entry—October 29, 2004
And the Winner is—Nobody!
I’ve been studying the polls closely and it’s close. I still hold to my prediction that Kerry will win. (See also, Bush Had His Chance.) But neither candidate seems to be able to put it away. Why? Because most Americans don’t want either one of these jokers to be president! Ironically, the only thing keeping Bush in the race is sentimentalism over 9/11, a disaster he presided over, slept through and responded badly to.
Bush’s latest ad, which exploits 9/11, is brilliant, unlike the stupid wolf ad. (The wolves are the neocons, aren’t they?) I say, fire Bush and hire his ad agency. Over the weekend, it will be the battle of the videos with a local TV news clip beating this one.
Americans are having trouble deciding between the atrocious President and the atrocious candidate. After the election, liberals may be extolling the Electoral College they’ve been bashing for years.
The real winner on Tuesday will be “None of the Above.” About 70 percent of the eligible voters will have failed to vote for the “winner” who will struggle to get a majority of those who actually vote.
Year Voters Voted for Winner % of eligible voters
2000 205,815,000 50,456,002 24.5%
1996 196,511,000 47,402,357 24.2%
1992 189,529,000 44,908,254 23.6%
1988 182,778,000 48,882,808 26.7%
So the only mandate the “winner” will have will be to not do anything to irritate the 70-75% of the electorate who didn’t vote for them.