THis is how you know it's OVER!!!!

Kerry Campaign Retrenches

The Associated Press reports that the Kerrry campaign has cancelled plans to advertise in Missouri, Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana:

Ads were scheduled to begin airing Oct. 5 in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana and Missouri as part of a $5 million investment through Nov. 2, but campaign advisers concluded Kerry isn't doing well enough in the states to justify the cost.
The campaign, which has reserved commercial time in 20 states through Election Day, notified television stations in the four states that Kerry would not follow through on his plans for the first week of October.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana are unlikely to see Kerry ads unless there is a major shift in the campaign's dynamics. Missouri is still the subject of debate inside the campaign, with some advisers pushing to advertise in the traditional swing state.

You can debate polls endlessly, but the most reliable polls are the ones done by the candidates themselves, because they are actually relied on. And all indications are that for now, at least, the data are bad for John Kerry.

THE ANTI-WAR TURN IS A LOSER

BY DICK MORRIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint



September 23, 2004 -- Kerry: New Iraq shift invites devastating attack.
STUNG by criticism that his campaign lacks di rection and focus, Sen. John Kerry has chosen to base his candidacy on an all-out assault on President Bush's record in Iraq — indeed, opted to move to the left decisively and attack the war head-on.

Liberals will cheer Kerry's new-found decisiveness, but it opens the way for Bush to deal him a counterstroke that can all but end this election and finish off Kerry for good.

Kerry's right flank is now gapingly vulnerable to a Bush attack. According to Scott Rasmussen's tracking polls, 30 to 40 percent of Kerry's voters disagree with his new leftward tilt on Iraq.

That is, even as the Democrat condemned the war in Iraq as a "diversion" from the central mission of the war on terror, a large minority of his own voters disagrees and sees it as "integral" to the battle to respond to 9/11.

Kerry has moved to the left, leaving about one-third of his vote behind. Bush can now move in and peel off Kerry's moderate supporters.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has opened the door for this new Bush offensive by declaring the invasion of Iraq "illegal" and equating the deadly terror raids by Iraqi guerillas with the embarrassing but hardly lethal sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. military. With those incendiary claims put into play, it is now legitimate for Bush to attack the secretary-general and ask his opponent to take a stand for or against Annan's remarks.

In his current incarnation as a dove, Kerry dares not dissent too sharply from the views of the U.N. leader. Bush can develop a key campaign issue over whether it is legal for the United States to act in its own self-defense without obtaining Security Council approval. Ratification by an assemblage of nations bribed through the Oil-for-Food program should not be a prerequisite for American action.

The backdrop of this new emphasis on Iraq is Bush's largely successful effort to appeal to women in his battle against terror. After misdirecting his rhetoric for months, echoing a macho tough guy approach, the president found his stride at the GOP Convention and, with the able assistance of his wife, portrayed the war in Iraq and the global battle against terror as an effort to keep American families safe at home.

This linkage of combat in Baghdad with safety on Main Street has reduced the gender gap in the polls to historic lows as women have resonated with Bush's new emphasis.

Now that Kerry has moved too far left in a misguided effort to enthuse his political base, Bush can close in for the kill and defend our action in Iraq and our global combativeness against terrorism as fundamental to the protection of our families at home.

Part of Kerry's vulnerability on the Iraq issue is because he is really not proposing anything new to deal with the war. His four-part "plan" — which centers on urging our allies and the U.N. to do more and calls for strong efforts to provide jobs to Iraqis (the John Edwards message, sent abroad) and to train Iraqi police and troops — just mirrors what Bush is already doing.

That is, it is only in retrospect — in criticizing past actions — that Kerry really differs from Bush. He is proposing no real alternative for action in the future.

Since elections are about the future and history books about the past, Bush can fairly ask Kerry what he would do differently. When the Democrat ticks off his agenda, Bush can reply with his statistics saying (in effect), Been there, done that.

John Kerry has zigged when he should have zagged. He has chosen to fight over terror and Iraq when he should have stayed on domestic issues. He has tacked left when he should have stayed in the center on foreign issues and attacked on matters closer to home.

Kerry has defined himself as a liberal — and will pay for it with his defeat.

For many news sources what seems important is not whether stories are factual or cover the issues, but how many people might read or watch them. That’s what happens when news becomes a business driven completely by market share and not the truth.

Newspapers claim to follow a business model that is driven by professional ethics. But the bulk of journalists covering the presidential campaign or Iraq, or the economy seem to understand the business, but not the professional ethics. Doesn't it seem that editorial policies morphed into “suggestions” as articles became unhitched from fact-checking? The 21st century news media isn’t driven by conviction but by perceived economic interests. Their new role is governtment cheerleader, not watchdog. And what about this nonsense of blaming 9/11 for the decline in professional journalism! During a period when the public needs the most truth we have received the least.

Its eye opening when the prominent news sources take the path of least resistance to promote the Administration's positions the front page but critial views are buried. And with Cable news it sounds like a race to the bottom.

Senate Races

As for the Democratic Senate seats, here are my rankings:

1. Georgia-The Democrats might as well just give up here. The state is now solidly Republican. Senator Johnny Isakson will soon become the state’s junior Senate. Now who would have imagined, thirty years ago, that Georgia would have TWO Republican Senators.

2. South Carolina-Another poll from SurveyUSA confirms the earlier news. Jim DeMint, unless he makes a mistake in the next few weeks, can start measuring the curtains for his Senate office.

3. Florida-We have yet to see any new polling data in this crucial Senate race.

4. North Carolina-Apparently, Congressman Burr is going on the attack against Bowles. This is what I said he had to do several weeks ago to win. I think the ads, tying Clinton to Bowles, are very effective and should make this a single digit race.

5. Louisiana-According to a recent article in Rollcall, there is whispering in Washington circles that Congressman Vitter may win the 50% needed to avoid a run-0ff in December. This would be a huge upset, so you can expect the NRSC to target this race if a win in November is possible.

6. South Dakota-John Thune seems to be doing very well, and several polls have him leading Tom Daschle. Thune did very well in a debate on Meet the Press, but I expect this one to be very close until the end.

7. Washington State-Congressman Nethercutt was closing in on Murray, but he seems to have stalled in the single-digits. The question many are asking is if he can regain his momentum. If the Republicans feel confident about Florida, then you can expect funds to be sent here.

8. Wisconsin-This is the Big Question Mark. Several days ago, the NRSC earmarked 1.2 million dollars in ads for this state. At the time, I thought it was a feint to throw the Democrats off balance. However a new ABC News poll apparently has Feingold with a narrow, single-digit lead.

Michels has plenty of money, and President Bush is very strong in Wisconsin.
I think this may be the surprise Senate race of this year’s cycle.

So there you have it - I think the GOP has eight excellent opportunities to pick up Democratic seats.

I have suspected for the longest time that Left Coaster is really Right Coaster--Posted By is too much of an asshole to reveal his-her-it's name.

Re: Isakson.

It's interesting that Isakson has told Jr. NOT to come down here and help him. DeMint is faltering. Read the SC papers on that one. His plan to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes is a loser. Burr is consistently losing in the polls. Nethercut in WA? Boy, I want what you are smoking!

Man, oh man, we have some mighty desperate trolls around here Steve!!!

Dick Morris also said that if you are going to run as a war president then you had better be winning the war. So, since Jr. is losing Afghanistan and has lost Iraq already, applying his logic: Jr. is toast!

Here are the latest state polls:
Wisconsin: Bush 53, Kerry 43 (ABC News)
Oregon: Bush 48, Kerry 47 (Survey USA)
Washington: Kerry 51, Bush 46 (Survey USA)
Texas: Bush 58, Kerry 37 (Survey USA)
South Carolina: Bush 58, Kerry 38 (Survey USA)
Nevada: Bush 52, Kerry 43 (Gallup)
West Virginia: Bush 51, Kerry 45 (Gallup)

Though the most recent polls and electoral tallies seem to show the presidential race tightening, the Iowa and Intrade political futures markets show Kerry falling fast.

While the comparison to Bircher's works, I think a comparison to the Baldknobbers is more apropo.

i dont think the analogy works at all.when has he ever advocated any one of those positions? the income tax is still rather progressive,his advocacy of change in social security cant qualify remotely as repeal,he has no earl warren to impeach,i dont think i have heard any comments about busing from anybody in yrs,and i think he was here in ny just the other day speaking to the un....go back to drawing board and come with another and better historical precedent.

i dont think the analogy works at all.when has he ever advocated any one of those positions? the income tax is still rather progressive,his advocacy of change in social security cant qualify remotely as repeal,he has no earl warren to impeach,i dont think i have heard any comments about busing from anybody in yrs,and i think he was here in ny just the other day speaking to the un....go back to drawing board and come with another and better historical precedent.

Since it was mentioned - The infamous Iowa political futures market And indeed, it looks awful . . but I would say this means jack in the reality of the presidential race. It may be a 'predictor', but I see little reason why a belly dancing trance medium with a scrabble set and a Ouija board wouldn't do just as well in predicting the outcome of the Election.

Mary - "Too bad our official media doesn't think its worth connecting the dots anymore." the Media is one of the dots.........

Does anyone know what rate a flat tax would have to be if we totalled up everybody's UNADJUSTED income and divided by the total federal budget? I realize it would put a lot of accountants out of business, but the rich would have to give up their tax shelters and start paying their ACTUAL FAIR SHARE!!

dd

the Iowa and Intrade political futures markets show Kerry falling fast.
Wow, the same ones that were wrong in 2000. Awesome! It's funny how right wingers wont even post their name or a fake name. I thought those anonymous posts would be deleted?

Does anyone know what rate a flat tax would have to be if we totalled up everybody's UNADJUSTED income and divided by the total federal budget?

Sure! Start with the items listed here under 'Tax Receipts' [PDF] which will provide all the information on the tax revenue collected.

Then look at Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2004 and Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2005. After all of this, the math should be easy.

In all seriousness, if any of our regulars wants to wade through all of this and come up with the answers to Dave Diamond's questions, I will post it up front on the first page for you. Contact me at my email address and we'll work it out.

My guess;

To cover the current budget picture - 27%.

Purely a guess. Kinda like the CIA.

Of course it depends on how much income you exempt at the bottom end.

dd

I trust that you were being sarcastic. However, in case you weren't:

The flat tax will benefit the wealthy over the rest of us. Given that the wealthy have funds far in excess of basic living costs, the amount of tax they pay will be proportionately less than what the average American will pay, and will probably be less than what they now pay tax accountants and lawyers to beat paying taxes. At the same time, the rest of us - whose living expenses take up most of what we earn - will pay proportionately more of what we earn in taxes. The flat tax is the most regressive form of taxation that exists.

Are you looking to be a peon?

Aren't they talking about a 23%- 27% flat tax on all items purchased?
That would devastate an already weak economy.
Also Poppy was a Bircher early on in Texas so the apple does not fall far from the tree.

Its more like they want to go back to the late 1800's; back to the Robber Baron days.

The only way Bush wins on Nov 2 is by again stealing the election.

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for Democracy.

Shotzie. I see you're still posting! And wrong as usual.

Re: the tax rate under a flat tax. It's easier to estimate by assuming there would still be deficit spending. With the upper 50% of taxpayers paying in something like 93% of taxes (I'm saying that without looking it up, so give me a break if I'm off) the tax will need to be distribusted on goods so that revenue is generated on items most purchased by those in these tax brackets. If it was not done this way, you would see 150% grocery tax or 200% gas tax, etc.

We could expect a 25% tax on food (not including state sales tax) 50% - 100% sales tax on cars and homes. 100% tax on hotel rooms. If taxes weren't allocated to the tax base in this fashion, the poor would starve and live in the street. Taxes would consume all of their income.

This is how you know it's over

When freaked-out anonymous trolls spend all this time trying to deflate us you know you're hitting a nerve. Keep on hitting!!

The John Birch thing is TRULY CREEPY.

Looks like it's time to require registration to post.

The Associated Press reports that the Kerrry campaign has cancelled plans to advertise in Missouri, Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana:

Hey Shotzie. How is pulling campaign ad money from states that voted strongly for Bush in 2000 an indication of anything? Explain why Kerry has a slight lead in W VA?

And really, as for MO. How is that an indication of anything, especially since those people had Ashcroft for governor? And your poll numbers...ABC's poll? Puh-luh-huh-leeeze!

Kerry is in the lead.

I see in the news that the Bush madministration is considering allowing part of the strategic oil reserve to be released to ease the pinch brought on by their own actions -- I mean, the Iraq war -- and the hurricanes.

Funny, I remember them calling to the high heavens when Kerry suggested slowing the rate of filling the damn thing (NOT "taking some out," just not "filling it so fast") to ease pressures.

Bush flip-flop, or just Bush flop?

We retort, you deride.

Ed

The Birch Society didn't exist in 1950, unless I am greatly mistaken in my memories of the Blue Book. School Busing was certainly not on any agenda four years before Brown v. Board. The Texas oily embrace of the other Birch goals is a fact of 5 decades--that this most unprincipled Bush yet should adopt any of those is unsurprising.

no, I wasn't being sarcastic. I'd really like to know the answer. ordinary people don't have all these tax shelters and the common perception is that the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes because of this.

so why does it necessarily benefit the wealthy? let's pick a number like 20%, which could be way off. if a wealthy person's accountant can get their taxes down to where they're paying less than 20%, wouldn't they be paying more under a flat tax system?

actual number would help here. we'd also need to know some real examples of rich people and what actual percentage of their income they end up paying after all of their deductions and shelters.

I think the Bush camp is really thrashing now...

Today, Bush asserted that Iraqi insurgents might attack inside the US if we pulled out. That is so far out there, I hope the media jumps on how ridiculous that sounds...

Read...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040923/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Media Consistently Perceived as "Too Liberal"

Gallup poll found that 48% of Americans view the news media as "too liberal", while 15% viewed it as "too conservative" and another 33% perceived the media as "just about right." Clearly, one would expect to find ideological differences on this question. Nearly three out of four conservatives (74%) say the media are too liberal, 6% too conservative, and 19% just about right. However, liberals may look at the large corporations that own many major media organizations and see a much different picture: just 11% say the media are too liberal, 37% say too conservative, and 49% say just about right.

SCLM? Why yes, yes it is. It's a very simple test to determine if the news is biased and this poll proves it.

Why else do 49% of liberals agree with the undertone of the news. It's because they approve of the way it's getting reported, i.e. slamming the right any chance it gets. That is why you liberals hate FOX because the undertone is either right leaning or no leaning at all. Hell any moron knows that Tony Snow is a Republican. Any moron also knows that all the anchors from ABC, CBS & NBC are liberals. So don't give us your B.S. anymore that there is no liberal media. CBS just proved you wrong.

thanks for the link. here are the numbers. I'll use 1997 because there are personal income and actual federal outlay figures for both.

actual federal outlay: 1,601 Billion
personal income: 6,951.1 Billion

which works out to about 23 percent

unless someone would like to correct my methodology

the next question is how much the rich are paying as a percentage.

and please don't start about how to tweak it so poor people can pay nothing in taxes. I don't believe they should have to pay the 23 percent, but let's not get into that here and now.

sources:

federal outlays:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy99/pdf/budget.pdf
page 6

personal income:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec14.pdf
page 12

"Today, Bush asserted that Iraqi insurgents might attack inside the US if we pulled out."

No Kidding, Roy. I saw Bush's Optimistic Prediction of today and thought, "they wish..."

Of course, now Bush is doing nuance: There are few terrorists, many terrorists, few insurgants, many insurgants, etc. Whatever the situation calls for...

Dave,

You can't tax 100% of the income of people on or below the poverty line at 23%. They won't be able to pay. That's going to require skewing the percentage up a bit.

Another aspect of a flat tax/no deductions type system that I think might often be overlooked is the effect on charitable donations. If carity is no longer deductible a good portion of those who give now will be inclined to stop. How many people do you know who make donations for the tax right-off?

Re: Press conference.

Bush really does live in a fantasy world and the press conference proved it. He keeps talking about Howard Dean's "We aren't any safer with Sadaam gone" statement. Does he realize that he is running against John Kerry. Sure didn't seem like it to me.

Also, he was extremely defensive.

Dave,

It seems to me that if you are going to rely on taxes on personal income as the sole source of federal government revenue, which it appears you are proposing, the percentage will have to be much higher.

You can not tax someone making $20,000/year at 23%. That's $4600 in tax leaving them $15,400 to live on.

Take an extreem example;

Say the first $20,000 of income is exempt from taxation. Just for arguement sake.

We file about 128,000,000 individual tax returns annually. If you subtract 20,000 from each of those your total receipts go down from $6,241 billion to $3,681 billion. If the federal budget stays the same the percentage tax rate needs to increase significantly from 23% to make up for lost revenue.

"If we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be free to plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations," Bush said.

So, at the moment terrorists in Pakistan, Malaysia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have all ceased any active plotting and planning of attacks on all free nations soley because of our current deployment in Iraq? Hmmmmmmm, methinks Kerry is correct about Bush living in a fantasyland. Now, if a winger wants to say "No, Bush is only saying the terrorists we've tied up and kept busy killing Marines in Iraq are the bad guys that won't be plotting against us," does that mean we have to deploy in every one of the other countries I mentioned to tie up those terrorist too? If so Bush beats the hatter in the department of mad.

Yes, Mary, the basic agenda hasn't changed in decades (although busing was added much later). When the GOP claim to be the Party of new ideas, they really mean the Party with a new advertising campaign - their "ideas" are really old and smelly.

Goldwater was merely ahead of his time; the bridge between where the country was and where he wanted to take it was too long and too many voters could remember what the other side leads to having experienced it in the Great Depression. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, BushI and Clinton each shortened that bridge and GWB is just itching to make that still large leap to the other side. It won't be pretty as he plops us down in the swamp.

Bizarre is all I can call it. Bush and the Puppet are on TV telling everyone how great things "really" are in Iraq exactly at the precise time we are bombing the hell of of a town over there, killing a bunch of children. Bush and the Puppet are on TV telling everyone how good its going and at the same time his General in charge of Iraq is asking for *more troops* !! Ha, what buffoons are the 47% of Americans still supporting this clown act.

I think the real problem with the flat tax is that it will only be on income earned in wages. The Republicans want to eliminate all of the taxes that fall on investment income such as the capitol gains tax. You can be sure that the flat-taxers are not going to allow the taxation of this income under flat tax legislation.

Therefore the flat tax will only fall on people who earn a paycheck. The truly wealthy (multi-millionares and billionares) who earn all of their income from investments will be effectively tax free.

This extreme regresivity is the real problem with Republican tax proposals.

And what will one do if one who earns a living via wages can no longer pay the tax AND support one's self, much less a family?

Uncle Sam's Club will soon have LOTS of openings in each of its facilities! Choose from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Homeland Security, Neighborhood Rats, Anonymous Snitches, Immigrant Bashers, Halliburton Foreign Service truck drivers, ...

Just don't lose your head over the prospects.

"Fairness" is not a mathematical term.
A flat, 23% tax which costs someone earning $40K/yr $9200 makes their lives more impoverished than $46K out of $100K does. The impact of the tax is 'unfairly' disparate, privileging wealth, and punishing poverty. And such a tax would STILL be only a federal revenue source. Unless you're planning to socialize all public services on all levels of governemnt, there must also therefore bo other taxes, which if also regressively 'flat' would further drive the impoverished into wage slavery...
Flat tax is a libertarian fantasy.

Meant to sign the previous post...sorry

Tristero must have his facts wrong. There was no busing for school integration back in 1950. 1950 was back in the days of perfectly legal Jim Crow, which wasn't outlawed until 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. It was only after that ruling that busing was instituted to correct de facto segregation.

Careful about wanting the "Flat Tax" or National Sales Tax to be the final solution.

The rate would be high - 23 to 28%

The details always allow current deductions for expenditures (including the deduction of land as an expense)(ie the flat tax is calculated on the net, not gross for businesses but calculated on the Gross for wage earners), which shifts the tax to labor from capital (that includes high dollar labor like physicians and attorneys)

The Social Security Tax remains in effect (ie the wage earner gets no deductions; the wage earner pays a combined tax of 40 % [plus state taxes](25% flat inc tax plus 15% soc sec/medicare tax)

A better solution is to Exempt all earned income under $100,000 (ie no tax returns, no filing; soc sec & medicare would be paid by the employer; small business would still be required to file in order to calculate the self employment taxes).

This would shift tax paying to the larger corporations, which would then redistribute the tax to consumers via higher prices. Less government involvement looking after the multitudes, whom will end up paying anyway. Much more efficient & gets Big Brother off of the little guy.

High dollar individuals and families would still pay, but they get a huge benefit from a stable society that protects their wealth.

Mim,

I do not have my facts wrong. In my post, I wrote:

"The John Birch Society arose in the late 50's and rapidly grew to considerable prominence. (The Birch Society doesn't get much attention these days, but the group is still around.)"

The typo was in Mary's post. She surely meant 1960.

I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that you were incorrect in attributing this typo to me.

tristero.

What's the big whoop?

The John Birch Society was founded in the 1950's.

Fine.

Back then people agreed that it was an extreme right wing organization.

Fine.

It's agenda subsequently came to encompass resistance to school busing, amongst other things.

Fine.

No said that The John Birch Society opposed school busing before it existed. Just that they came to oppose it at some point in their history.

What's the problem?

I wrote that the objectives of the extremist Birch Society are the same objectives as George W. Bush and the Republican Party. This is rather remarkable. How did this happen?

I believe that the right wing was able to mainstream fanaticism by abandoning the more paranoid reasoning of the Birchers - which appalled even other conservatives - and concentrating on the practical task of achieving the desired ends.

Now, one might disagree with my understanding of how Birchite ideas got mainstreamed but my analysis is based on knowing the facts about the Birch Society cold.

As I said, the John Birch Society was founded in the late 50's, to be exact, in 1958, after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Ed decision.

In summarizing my argument above, Mary made a typo. MIM never read my original post, caught Mary's typo and, rather than addressing the point I was makingt, MIM wrote "Tristero must have his facts wrong."

In fact, it is MIM who is wrong. My facts are absolutely correct. I expend a lot of effort to make sure they are. MIM should acknowledge and correct his/her error, as I would if I were wrong.

And hopefully MIM will address my main point - that Bushism is just Birchism but with the crazier stuff hidden from view - with more substantive critiques.