Dan Straight!

A Crusade!

2005-01-19T09:46:00.000-07:00

Back

2005-01-13T13:33:00.000-07:00

I'm back.

Shameless

2004-10-21T22:25:00.000-06:00

I know a good number of decent, honest liberals, and even a few decent, honest Democrats. Many of them think it is very important that John Kerry be elected. Still, I have to wonder if they think that end justifies these means:

1. Asking the federal government to censor the political speech of groups of veterans.

2. Twice.

3. Threatening the broadcaster of one such group's message with retribution should Kerry win:
[Kerry spokesman Chad] Clanton: "I think they're going to regret doing this, and they better hope we don't win."

4. Filing lawsuits to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot across the country.

5. Waiting to do #4 until the last minute so voters overseas (i.e., our military) can't get ballots in time to have their votes counted.

6. Claiming Kerry will pay for all his "plans" by closing tax loopholes while using those loopholes to reduce the Kerry family's tax burden to barely above the minimum rate.

7. Calling executives who use overseas labor traitors during a campaign financed by money from those very CEOs, not to mention the Heinz conglomerate, which operates, poetically, 57 factories overseas.

8. Telling the handicapped that if John Kerry is elected, people in wheelchairs "are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." The reaction of one such person in a wheelchair:
"In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable."

9. Gratuitously discussing the sexuality of an opponent's daughter on national television - twice.

10. Defending #9 by saying she's "fair game."

11. Attacking the mother of the "fair game" when she objects to #9.

12.

13. Breaking into numerous Republican offices.

14. Shooting at others.

15. Burning swastikas on the lawns of Bush supporters.

16. Adopting an official policy of crying "Voter Intimidation!" even where "no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged."

17. Repeatedly referring to Republicans as Nazis and comparing them to racist murderers.

Is John Kerry really worth all this?

UPDATE:
18. "Making misleading statements regarding his support from the law enforcement community": from a brutal Fraternal Order of Police press release.

UPDATE II:
19., 20. Lying about secret Bush plans to privatize social security and reinstate a draft. These, along with Nos. 8 and 9 are discussed here.

UPDATE III: More evidence of #5.

Bush & the black vote

2004-10-19T17:56:00.000-06:00

Mickey Kaus points to this poll showing that Bush's share of the black vote has doubled from 9 to 18% and notes that if true, it's a "potential disaster for Kerry." I say it's probably even worse than one might think at first glance, since one can assume those 9% who've apparently switched have the typical zealotry of a convert. They thus are very likely to vote - it takes something important to convert someone from ingrained beliefs and behaviors, after all - and very unlikely to change their minds back, even if they are told that, say, Dick Cheney's daughter is gay.

I'd also guess those 9% were not among the hardest-core Democrats in the past, and thus may be mainly new voters, not just switchers, meaning they are kicked out of your typical "likely voter" model. Could this explain the paradox of Bush often doing better among registered voters than likely voters?

Daschle out?

2004-10-19T17:40:00.000-06:00

I'm not admitted in either DC or South Dakota, but this seems like pretty persuasive evidence that Tom Daschle has a serious legal problem on his hands.

Top line:

On April 28, 2003, Thomas A. Daschle signed a legal document with the government of Washington, D.C. in which he asserted that he was entitled to a "Homestead Exemption" for his home there.

Middle line:

Thus, in order to claim a Homestead Exemption, Thomas A. Daschle legally declared that he had "no fixed and definite intent to return to South Dakota"

Bottom line: If that statement is false, Daschle committed perjury by declaring he was eligible for the exemption. If it is true, he is not a legal resident of South Dakota.

Not good.

Sorry

2004-10-17T22:34:00.000-06:00

I hate whining about media bias, but sometimes it's so fun! Check out this CNN story. Note the following:
The headline reads: "Poll: Presidnetial Race Remains Tight."
Amusing enough, but wait for the details: The story's first sentence starts with an attempt to buck up Kerry supporters, by noting that "Americans think John Kerry did the best job in the debates", then tries to undermine its own result by saying it "appears" Kerry "lost some ground" in "the popularity contest."
Then there's a paragraph on the methodology.
Then, before we get to hear what the results of this poll are, we're misleadingly treated to the registered voter numbers from the last poll, taken a week ago, which showed a tie.
Then we get the current registered number, which shows Bush up 49-46. Then another paragraph that says, plaintively, this is "still practially even" and points to the margin of error.
Finally, anyone who's made it downto Paragraph 6 gets the actual result of the poll, which, interestingly enough, shows Bush ahead by 8 percent, 52-44, among people who are actually likely to vote.

I tend to agree with Powerline that these numbers are not very reliable. But it's still good, clean fun to watch CNN try to spin their own stuff.

Double Agents

2004-10-15T17:17:00.000-06:00

If any swing voters are inclined to factor into their decision the type of people supporting the various candidates, these amusing endorsements from novelists will surely not help John Kerry, as his supporters come across as a group of buffoons, paranoids, and pedantic ex-patriots. The handful of Bush supporters, like Orson Scott Card, Roger L. Simon, Robert Ferrigno, and Thomas Mallon (okay, that's the entire list of Bush supporters) are thoughtful, reasonable, decent, and, especially in the case of Ferrigno, amusing:

Mark me on the Bush side of the ledger, a lonely side for this survey, I'm certain. Most novelists live in their imagination, which is a fine place to be until the bad guys come knock knock knocking. I don't agree with Bush on shoveling free meds to granny and grandpa, or his antipathy to fuel conservation along with opening up the arctic reserve, but this is small stuff. I'll be voting for Bush because his approach to stopping the people who want to kill my children is the right one, i.e., kill them first. Kerry will dance the Albright two-step with Kim Jong-il, consult with Sandy Berger's socks, and kowtow to the U.N. apparatchiks who have done such a fine job of protecting the Cambodians, Rwandans, and the Sudanese. No thanks. No contest.

More like it

2004-10-15T13:56:00.000-06:00

I always thought the conspiracy theory that the Bush administration was waiting to launch offensives on holdout towns like Falluja until after the election made no sense. Why would it be politically preferable for Bush (and the military) to be completely on the defensive in Iraq, losing a few men every day or so without being able to point to any progress? If I were making such decisions based on domestic politics I'd launch major offensives right up through election day. Even if they're militarily risky and may involve more short-term casualties, Americans are more than willing to support a president who seems to be fighting a war rather than policing someone else's country.
Looks like I was right.

People are smarter - and better - than John Kerry thinks

2004-10-15T13:30:00.000-06:00

I think people are missing one major aspect of why people are offended by John Kerry's gratuitous invocation of Mary Cheney's sex life. Everyone, even those who, like Andrew Sullivan, don't think there's anything wrong with what Kerry said, realize it was done in order to make Bush's homophobic supporters uncomfortable.
I think the CW on why it's backfired -- because people object to a politician dragging a candidate's family's private life into the debate (summarized and expressed well by Hugh Hewitt here) -- is partly true. But I think this overlooks the fact that a lot of people are also insulted that John Kerry thinks we're a bunch of bigots. They saw through Kerry's statement and recognized that he thought they would turn away from Bush and Cheney because the Cheneys have a gay in their family. I think the marriage amendment is silly, but I know a lot of people who strongly support it. None of them would turn away from a friend because the friend had a gay daughter. They're insulted that John Kerry thinks they would.

2004-10-10T23:53:00.000-06:00

Sad that Superman has died.
I can't help myself but consider the political consequences; no doubt it will keep stem cell research in the fore, at least for a few days, and make Kerry's position more sympathetic.
And I really wish I could help myself from speculating whether Kerry knew when he dropped his name in the debate Friday that his friend Chris was unlikely to make it through election day.

Spin Harder

2004-10-08T22:47:00.000-06:00

I know parties always are spinning that their guy won after a debate, their guy's going to win, etc., etc. But I think it's also quite clear that the Democrats are making the Kerry's-going-to-win theme unusually central to their efforts this year. For example, they actually are taking on-line polls seriously.

This intense focus on making it appear that Kerry's got a real shot (like other spin, it's irrelevant to the spinners whether it's true or not) tends to confirm, if I may say so, my Kerry/None of the Above Swing Voter Theory. To reiterate, I think the key to understanding most of the recent movement in the polls (and to the eventual outcome, probably) is to realize that the movement is mainly between Kerry and None (or between Kerry and not being counted as a likely voter). These people -- a sizeable number -- are the Bush haters who don't much like Kerry either (maybe these guys). They won't show up for Kerry in - or at - the polls unless he's got a real chance to win.

The Kerry campaign's focus on these people is confirmed by their post debate spin, which again focuses on Who Won? instead of making any arguments about policy. Just might work, too.

Bummer

2004-10-08T20:59:00.000-06:00

One thing that should be obvious, I guess, was brought home for me by what I saw of this debate. It's impossible for an honest conservative to get elected President.

When Bush is completely straightforward, he's generally not conservative (e.g., we spent lots of money on education, have a bunch of new environmental laws, more Medicare entitlements), and when he's conservative, he has to dissemble at least a bit. Ok - you can be straightforwardly conservative on a few issues, like judges who don't legislate, and, interestingly, abortion. Plus, it's been long established (since 72, at least) that an honest liberal has absolutely no chance of being elected.

More debate

2004-10-08T20:32:00.000-06:00

Managed to avoid most of the debate, but did see the last question which was, please tell us all the mistakes you've made, Mr. President. (Follow-up: Sen. Kerry, please tell us about all the mistakes Mr. Bush has made.) A fair question, but horrible moderating to use it last. (Charlie must have got the memo)

What's interesting is that Bush really can't come up with a good answer to it. They've been hammering him on this for months, so it's not like it's a surprise. What Bush did was go straight to saying he's gotten the big things (I heard taxes, Afghanistan and Iraq) right. That should be the bulk of the answer, but should come after two or three things like, "Well, looking back, I wish we'd changed course from the mindset of treating terrorism as a criminal matter to be dealt with by lawyers and police and realized that war had been declared on us. I wish we'd done that before September 11, not after. Of course, my opponent proposes going back to that mindset, which would be an even graver mistake ... " Or, "I really regret not pushing harder to get the Y Amendment to the Make America Happier Act, but plan to rectify that in the proposal I put forth . . ."

Here's my theory of why Bush can't even come up with some little mistakes: He doesn't make any little decisions. He's basically delegated everything but the war, and has made only three decisions he thinks are important, and he doesn't think any of them are mistakes.

Beautiful

2004-10-08T17:59:00.000-06:00

A beautiful site. And nothing to do with politics.

Do Self-Employers Count As Employers?

2004-10-08T15:23:00.000-06:00

Via Prof. Bainbridge, I came across this post at Tax Prof discussing a report from the Tax Policy Center on the number of small businesses that would face tax increases under Kerry's plan. I think this is in response to questions about VP Cheney's claim (also repeated in a Bush ad) that Kerry would raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses.
As with anything having to do with taxes, the report is almost impossible to follow, so I could be misreading it completely. But the bottom line seems to be this:

"Based on these assumptions [about how many small businesses that pay pass-through taxes have employees], a total of 471,000 small employers would face under the Kerry plan."

Even if that's accurate I don't see why only "small employers" should be counted. A sole proprietorship at least keeps the sole proprietor gainfully occupied. He is contributing to the economy, even if not employing someone, by 1) providing some good or service that others are buying (otherwise he would have no income to tax), and 2) not being unemployed (or taking a job from someone else).

Bush's point is that tax increases on the "rich" (which is actually the "high income") make it harder for all these kinds of small businesses to thrive. If a sole proprietor has to pay more taxes, his business is less appealing and he may end up being (or trying to be) an employee. Isn't laying himself off just as bad as laying off an employee?

And in fact, the different kinds of employment surveys recently have shown a discrepancy that suggests that the Bush tax cuts have indeed encouraged more people to be self-employed. The higher employment numbers in the household surveys (where actual people are asked: do you have a job?) than in the payroll surveys (where businesses are asked how many people they employ) makes sense if we accept that there are more self-employed workers than there used to be.

2004-10-07T11:14:00.000-06:00

So we've now got another report on Iraq's weapons programs. Predictably, the major media boils it down to the headline on this "News Analysis" in the Washington Post ("War's Rationales Are Undermined One More Time"). Meanwhile, the right-leaning blogosphere begins an exegesis pointing out details of the report that support the president's arguments. From what I've read (not much), it appears Saddam was sitting on his WMD program until the storm of international scrutiny passed. That is, the program was dormant, not extinct, rather like Mt. St. Helens for the last 24 years. Still, I'm quite sure all the headlines like the Post's are self-fulfilling. This will hurt Bush.

But what I find amazing is that nearly all the analysis - on all sides - is about how these revelations reflect on Bush's credibility and how they'll affect the election. OK, I don't find that amazing at all - that's the way it goes during an election year. But what is actually amazing is that nobody - not the French, not the Russians, not Hans Blix - nobody actually had any idea what was going on in Iraq between the end of the first Gulf War and the current war. Why are there no "News Analyses" examining how this could be?

I can somewhat excuse the failure of our intelligence services to pick up on the 9/11 plot. It's hard for spy agencies to keep up with a handful of loosely coordinated guys living apparently normal lives in the relatively open societies of the US and Europe. But the idea that all the world's spies, and all the world's weapons inspectors got basically nothing right about the weapons capabilities of a nation that had warred with at least two of its neighbors, had shot missiles into Israel, had declared the United States an enemy, had been invaded by us only a decade before, and had ever since been the subject of UN sanctions and inspections is surely worthy of some "analysis." Does this give anyone confidence that we know what Iran and North Korea (and who knows where else) are actually up to?

I can't help but point out that this inability to rely on intelligence suggests to me that we should give the president more slack, not less for deciding not to take the risk that Saddam was further along than everyone thought. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out (noted by Instapundit), after September 11, a president shouldn't be giving the benefit of the doubt to someone like Saddam. What we should be hammering Bush (and demanding more from Kerry) on is why they haven't done more to improve our intelligence capabilities so there's less of that doubt for whoever is president to weigh into future decisions about going to war.

A Parable

2004-10-06T13:01:00.000-06:00

This story (from the amazing Fark) is so full of deep symbolism that it's going to take me a while to sort it out. For now, I'm viewing it as a great example of the self-correcting mechanisms of capitalism.

Welcome

2004-10-06T11:40:00.000-06:00

Welcome to those brought over from KerrySpot and Kausfiles. (Does anyone know how to link directly to one of Mickey's specific points? I sure don't so you'll have to scroll down to his "Desperate Housewives" post if you want to see what he says about me. Why am I always coming up in the Desperate Housewives context?)

Anyway, you're welcome to look around for a bit, but there's not much to see - yet. I've only been blogging for a few days. But I'm looking for ideas and suggestions and criticisms, so please email me at dstraightblog@yahoo.com.

2004-10-05T22:36:00.000-06:00

Aside from my belief in individual liberty and responsibility and daily bathing, I would fit right in in Europe. I like wine, fancy suits (although European casual fashion is amazingly ugly), and working as few hours per week as possible. And I love Euro sports. I am a huge fan of bike racing, and went to France this summer to watch the Tour. (Most amusing, and cringe-inducing, t-shirt: "Texas: 6, France: 0").
I even like soccer. Thus I came across this sad story. It took me a while to realize the strangest part which is that these two sentences were found unremarkable.

Renato's girlfriend also was shot, but the wound was superficial, according to a police report.
Renato, who joined the nine-time Swiss league champions after playing for Botafogo, is survived by his wife, Selmara, and son Pedro.

A Decisive Blow!

2004-10-05T22:01:00.000-06:00

I again only watched parts of the debate, finding the Yankees-Twins game more interesting and edifying. It also was just as likely to affect the outcome of the election as the debate. What I did see of the debate was fairly interesting - at least Kerry's three decades in office were discussed.

UPDATE: For the perfect example of the way political junkies overvalue debates, especially VP debates, see this post at The Corner. Don't we all remember how Lloyd Bentsen's dismembering of Dan Quayle effectively ended the '88 race and ushered in the Dukakis Administration? Just think, if Bentsen hadn't won that debate so decisively, he may never have become vice president, never would have resigned after three years in office for health reasons, and never would have been replaced by then-Rep. Gephardt. And who knows, maybe the Dukakis-Gephardt ticket would not have lost in 1992, leading to the eight halcyon years of the Kemp-Dole Administration and the contested 2000 election where the Bush-Bush team narrowly defeated the Clinton and Gore.

All Your Polls Explained Right Here!

2004-10-05T15:01:00.000-06:00

RCP has all the post debate polls, and it looks like Kerry may have gotten a slightly larger national bump than I predicted. I note, however, that the battleground surveys seem to show Bush holding steady at worst. (Vodkapundit has his own electoral college analysis, and links to a few others here. The state-by-state numbers on Tradesports.com come up with the same breakdown as VP: Bush 295, Kerry 243. I think the only difference between the two is that Tradesports gives Bush New Hampshire and Kerry Maine. Interestingly, when I looked a bit ago, the only races that were very close either way (ie, under 55.o for either guy) were New Hampshire and Iowa, which were at 51.0 and 54.1 for Bush, respectively.)

This suggests that the debate reenergized some of Kerry's previously demoralized base on the coasts, but didn't help him much where it counts. This renewed excitement among the base would also explain why there are suddently a lot more Democrats in many national surveys.

But remember, a decent chunk of Kerry's base really doesn't like him - they just hate Bush. When Kerry looks like he might get rid of Bush, they get excited and tell pollsters they're definitely going to vote. When it looks like Bush will probably win, Kerry's base disappears. I think this explains why there have been a few wild swings in the polling despite the fact that there really aren't many swing voters. It's not (so much) the people in the middle who are switching between Kerry and Bush (pace Mark Penn) - it's the people on the far left switching between Kerry and none of the above.

If Kerry's "comeback" means he's still down in most of the polls after a couple more days, look for the base to lose its newfound energy, show up less and less in the likely voter samples, and thus further swing even the national polls back somewhat towards Republicans and Bush. (Of course, the MSM will strive to prevent this, just as they predictably strove to spin the debate into the start of The Comeback. Let's see how effective they are at hiding the state polls and pumping the Kerry-friendly nationals.)

Beautiful Days Off

2004-10-05T14:08:00.000-06:00

Just got back from a weekend doing the tourist things in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Could not have picked a better weekend to visit such a beautiful part of the country. Plus I got to skip all the weekend spinning - what a treat!

Go Blue!

2004-10-01T16:13:00.000-06:00

If Kerry's cheering for Ohio State wasn't enough to put Michigan in Bush's column, this should do it.

2004-10-01T16:09:00.000-06:00

This article by The New Republic's Martin Peretz is about as honest a piece of journalism as I've seen. If you can read it without reassessing your own position on Iraq and the election - no matter what it is - you're missing out.

2004-10-01T15:57:00.001-06:00

This was noted in Best of the Web yesterday, but in all the debate noise has been otherwise drowned out in the blogosphere. I herewith give you the Prime Minister of France, Jean-Pierre Raffarin: "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."