[EzekelEnzino]

October 17, 2004

John Kerry for President

senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

•

There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.

When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.

If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.

•

The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.

He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.

The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation's ports still goes uninspected.

Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the administration's normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.

American citizens were detained for long periods without access to lawyers or family members. Immigrants were rounded up and forced to languish in what the Justice Department's own inspector general found were often "unduly harsh" conditions. Men captured in the Afghan war were held incommunicado with no right to challenge their confinement. The Justice Department became a cheerleader for skirting decades-old international laws and treaties forbidding the brutal treatment of prisoners taken during wartime.

Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent, harmless braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to do something terrible, lacked the means. The Justice Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism prosecution, and has squandered much of the trust and patience the American people freely gave in 2001. Other nations, perceiving that the vast bulk of the prisoners held for so long at Guantánamo Bay came from the same line of ineffectual incompetents or unlucky innocents, and seeing the awful photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, were shocked that the nation that was supposed to be setting the world standard for human rights could behave that way.

•

Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international vetting. Top members of the administration knew this, but the selling went on anyway. None of the president's chief advisers have ever been held accountable for their misrepresentations to the American people or for their mismanagement of the war that followed.

The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.

•

We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term, particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The record so far gives us plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge. Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.

Mr. Bush remains enamored of tax cuts but he has never stopped Republican lawmakers from passing massive spending, even for projects he dislikes, like increased farm aid.

If he wins re-election, domestic and foreign financial markets will know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest rates.

The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management. The Department of Education's handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has been heavily politicized and inept. The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats. Without providing enough troops to properly secure Iraq, the administration has managed to so strain the resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world.

•

Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.

Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.

We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.

Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Verger99]

July 4, 2004

Swaying Unhappy Ohio Voters Could Be a Key to the Presidency

By JAMES DAO

PORTSMOUTH, Ohio — It is tempting to view Ohio politics as a bipolar clash: liberal Northeast versus conservative Southwest, industrial Cleveland against white-collar Cincinnati. But this year's presidential race may come down to people like Robert Burton in the gently rolling, easily overlooked hills of southeastern Ohio.

Here, Appalachia meets the Midwest along the Ohio River, which carves a muddy border with Kentucky and West Virginia. The region is part New Deal Democrat, part Ronald Reagan Republican. The people are gimlet-eyed about politicians, fickle about political parties and adept at picking winners, from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush.

Mr. Burton captures the temperament. An electrician, his business has been hurt by textile and steel plant closings. He nearly spits in disgust that a Wal-Mart Super Center will soon replace a coke processing plant, exuding the kind of burning resentment Senator John Kerry's campaign hopes to exploit.

"The best business around here is the U-Haul business," Mr. Burton, 36, said recently.

Yet for all his frustration about Republican stewardship of the economy, Mr. Burton is equally dismayed by the Democrats' support for abortion rights, gun control and welfare programs. Asked whom he plans to vote for, he says he is leaning toward President Bush.

But he is far from sure.

"I'm a Republican until it comes to economic policy," he said. "Then I'm in no man's land. And there are a lot more people like me."

Mr. Burton helps explain why the Kerry campaign has high hopes for Ohio — and why it still faces high hurdles in trying to win it. Victory here could be pivotal: no Republican has won the presidency without carrying Ohio. No surprise, then, that Mr. Bush has visited the state 18 times since 2001.

"I don't see how the president wins without carrying Ohio," Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican, said.

But Democratic victory will also require convincing fence straddlers like Mr. Burton that Mr. Kerry has the right character, experience and message to run the country. So far, polls and interviews show, Mr. Kerry has yet to do that, despite having spent about $7 million in the state. (Labor unions and private groups opposing Mr. Bush have spent about $6 million more.)

In dozens of conversations across the state, many voters asserted that they knew little about Mr. Kerry, or did not like what they had heard about him. Many support his economic policies but distrust him as a Northeastern liberal. Some expressed unease about changing leaders in a time of war and terrorism.

And others had clearly been influenced by the $9 million in advertising, much of it attacking Mr. Kerry's character, that the Bush campaign has already broadcast in the state.

"I think Kerry's too negative," said Mark Allbaugh, 39, a fifth-grade teacher from Dennison in eastern Ohio. "I haven't seen a whole lot in him that I like."

But Mr. Allbaugh remains undecided. He disapproves of the American military occupation of Iraq, dislikes President Bush's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, and believes the administration has mishandled the economy.

"I'm not really fond of either candidate," he said. "I thought Bush was down to earth, told you what he thought, like a normal person. But once he got into office, he changed."

Such skepticism helps explain why Ohio has been a presidential bellwether for decades - and is perhaps the most closely watched swing state this year.

Sometimes called the state of presidents, having produced seven of them, Ohio has voted with the winner in every national election since 1960. In 2000, Mr. Bush won Ohio by less than 4 points, after Vice President Al Gore pulled his advertising just weeks before the election, believing he was trailing by 10 points.

Recent polls indicate the race will be tight again. Several surveys earlier in the year showed Mr. Kerry with a slim margin. A more recent poll in The Cleveland Plain Dealer had Mr. Bush with a 47 percent to 41 percent lead.

Eric Rademacher, co-director of the Ohio Poll at the University of Cincinnati, said Ohio had closely reflected national attitudes and demographic trends for decades. The rural South, the agricultural Midwest and the industrial Great Lakes flow together here.

Labor unions, though shrinking, remain influential. So do conservative Christian groups. The Republican Party, which has dominated the state for a decade, has a history of moderation, as embodied in its senators, George V. Voinovich and Mike DeWine.

But this year, Ohio could be different in one crucial way, Mr. Rademacher said: its economy was harder hit by the downturn than most states and has been slower to recover.

Since 2001, the state has lost 200,000 jobs. It is ranked among the bottom states in personal income growth and retaining college graduates. And though there are signs of new job growth, the 5.6 percent unemployment rate in May was still well above the 4 percent of December 2000.

"The real challenge for both Bush and Kerry is convincing Ohioans that they have an economic plan that will put the state back on track," Mr. Rademacher said.

The lagging economy has energized Democrats, who have maintained a laser-like focus on the issue. Mr. Kerry has been in the state eight times since wrapping up the nomination in March, usually to talk about the economy.

"It will all boil down to jobs," said Dennis L. White, the chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. "Try sending your kid to college working at a Taco Bell."

For months, union workers and canvassers from private liberal groups, like America Coming Together and MoveOn.org, have been going door to door across the state registering new voters and criticizing Mr. Bush's policies, like lifting tariffs on imported steel.

Democrats are hoping their efforts will generate a huge turnout of angry and anxious voters determined to oust Mr. Bush. One of their targets has been Stark County, a swing county surrounding Canton in the northeast, which was rocked by the recent announcement that the Timken Company would be closing three plants and laying off 1,300 workers. The company, whose founding family are major contributors to the Republican Party, has been an economic mainstay in Stark County for nearly a century.

Dave Drummond, 48, is a line supervisor at a Timken bearing plant in Canton who expects to lose his job. He did not vote in 2000. But his union, the United Steelworkers of America, registered him this year and there is little doubt about how he will vote.

"Bush is out the door," he said. "Kerry, some of his views are good, some are bad. I just want him for the change."

Republicans argue that the economy is stabilizing and that voters will focus on national security and character issues. Both play to Mr. Bush's strengths, they contend.

"He's had a horrible couple of months," said Mike Allen, the Hamilton County prosecutor and director of the Bush campaign in southwestern Ohio. "But the numbers show he's weathered that storm. I think it's because people trust the guy."

Still, Republicans say they are taking no chances. They have mounted their largest get-out-the-vote operation in history, recruiting more than 40,000 volunteers and organizing registration drives in Republican-leaning suburbs and rural areas. Their goal, which they say they are close to exceeding, is to add more than 100,000 pro-Bush voters to the rolls.

"The Democrats had a much better ground operation than us in 2000," said Robert T. Bennett, chairman of the state Republican Party. "That's not going to happen this year."

The Bush-Cheney operation in Brown County, one of several rapidly growing exurban counties ringing Cincinnati, exemplifies the kind of well-oiled operation the Republicans hope to replicate in dozens of other counties.

Almost weekly, Republican organizers gather in local businesses to call unregistered voters, recruit volunteers and put together lists of people who are likely to vote for President Bush among the upscale, mostly white and independent voters who have moved into their county.

"We can't win if we just get out 3,000 Republicans to the polls," said Paul Hall, chairman of the Brown County Republican Party. "We need to get 10,000 independents to counterbalance Cleveland."

In their bastions, the two parties are mostly focusing on the core issues of jobs, trade, national security, character and experience. But the race is a bit different in rural areas, like southeastern Ohio, where cultural issues are likely to play a larger role.

The National Rifle Association will be influential here, with its anti-Kerry message. But so will labor unions. Recently, the Rev. Jesse Jackson; Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America; and a host of other labor leaders rolled into Portsmouth to deliver the Democrats' central message.

"This fight is not about the right to bear arms, the right to pray in school, the right to choose," Mr. Jackson told a crowd of several hundred people gathered around a Civil War memorial to Union soldiers. "This fight is about the right to have a job."

In the rear of the crowd, Edward Shouse, 61, listened intently. The pastor of a local African-American church, he has seen his congregation fall on hard times because of layoffs. It has affected him, too: he cannot afford health insurance for his wife.

Yet he remains undecided about the election. He admires Mr. Bush's character, though he is unhappy with administration policies on Iraq and the economy. But while he is open to Mr. Kerry, there is something about the Democrat he does not quite trust.

"I haven't heard either man say the right thing yet," he said.


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[jyhugikuhih]

What a couple of losers we have to choose from.

I didn't think we could stoop any lower than Bush vs. Gore, but Bush vs. Kerry must be the true low watermark in the history of American politics.

Have both America and the free world ever been in such need of leadership at a time when our options present such a vacuum.

[loginereQQ]

October 1, 2004
NEWS ANALYSIS

Standing Firm for 90 Minutes

By TODD S. PURDUM

In the end, it was a real debate: sharp, scrappy and defining, just what the nation seemed to be yearning for during a wartime election campaign. Again and again, President Bush defended his conduct of the war in Iraq, insisting, "there must be certainty from the U.S. president." Over and over, Senator John Kerry asserted that Mr. Bush had led the country into a debacle in Iraq and it was time for a "fresh start, new credibility" in foreign affairs.

From the very first question last night, Mr. Kerry was determined to show, as he put it, that "I can make America safer than President Bush has made us." He was cool, respectful, rational in offering a detailed brief that Mr. Bush had embarked on a diversion from the war on Al Qaeda and global terror by invading Iraq, and his answers never exceeded the time limits.

By the time the debate ended, Mr. Kerry appeared to have accomplished his primary goal for the evening: establishing himself as a plausible commander in chief.

Mr. Bush, who seemed defensive and less sure of himself at the outset, quickly gained his footing, counterpunching effectively by repeatedly charging that Mr. Kerry was inconsistent and lacked the resolve to defend the nation against terrorism.

He was just as relentless as Mr. Kerry, and perhaps more emotional, never ceding ground in his insistence that he had used every available means to defend the nation after Sept. 11. At times, he seemed to lean into the camera, pursing his lips, at some pains to disguise his apparent exasperation at Mr. Kerry's attacks, insisting, as he did at the outset, "People know where I stand."

At one point, Mr. Bush burst out a spontaneous answer to a question that Mr. Kerry had posed only rhetorically, declaring before the moderator, Jim Lehrer, had recognized him, "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America." At another point, after Mr. Bush justified his use of pre-emptive military action by saying "the enemy attacked us,'' Mr. Kerry pointed out that that enemy had not been Saddam Hussein, leading Mr. Bush to jump in to say, "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us."

The two agreed that the threat of unconventional weapons in the hands of rogue actors would be the biggest challenge facing either of them as president, and that Mr. Hussein had seemed to pose such a threat. They agreed that the United States could not pull out of Iraq precipitately. But they disagreed on virtually all else, from how to handle what both called genocide in Sudan to nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran.

Perhaps their sharpest disagreement on future actions came over North Korea, with Mr. Kerry favoring direct talks with Pyongyang intended to halt its development of nuclear weapons and Mr. Bush contending that two-party talks would be unwise and wreck the regional six-party talks in which the United States is counting on China's leverage to pressure the north.

Facing by far the largest national audience of the campaign to date, with polls suggesting that something between one-fifth and one-third of voters might be influenced by last night's encounter, Mr. Kerry was at pains to rebut the Bush campaign's portrayal of him as a fickle flip-flopper who has repeatedly changed his position on the war in Iraq and would cede too much control of the nation's defenses to foreign allies.

When Mr. Bush noted that Mr. Kerry had voted against an $87 billion appropriation for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, then said he had initially voted for another version, Mr. Kerry's rebuttal could hardly have been crisper.

"Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war," Mr. Kerry said. "But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse? I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war, I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say so. But I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory."

Mr. Bush was just as blunt in his insistence that Mr. Kerry's criticism of the conduct of the war had demoralized the troops and the interim Iraqi leaders struggling to impose some stability on that country.

"What kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way 'wrong war, wrong place, wrong time,' '' Mr. Bush said, echoing Mr. Kerry's recent formulation. "That's not what a commander in chief says when you're trying to lead troops."

After the debate, each man's backers claimed victory, with Mr. Kerry's adviser Tad Devine declaring that viewers "saw somebody who could be president, and who could step into that role," and Ken Mehlman, Mr. Bush's campaign manager, declaring, "George Bush spoke plainly," and insisting that Mr. Kerry's "credibility gap became a chasm."

Indeed, each man was true to type, and gave his committed supporters comforting lines of argument to cling to, with Mr. Bush using tested lines from his stump speeches to argue that his course was simple and direct and Mr. Kerry doing the same to argue that only a greater awareness of complexities and more support from allies could keep the nation safe.

As the challenger, Mr. Kerry had the greater burden, and his performance was more disciplined and controlled than usual. He may well have struck undecided voters as not much like the Republicans' worst caricatures. He spoke plainly, politely, but did not shrink from direct and pointed criticism of Mr. Bush's policies.

"You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra, and the reason he didn't is he said - he wrote in his book - because there was no viable exit strategy," Mr. Kerry said. "And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today." He added: "Almost every step of the way, our troops have been left on these extraordinarily difficult missions. I know what it's like to go out on one of those missions where you don't know what's around the corner, and I believe our troops need other allies helping."

Mr. Kerry did not explain how he would secure international help, beyond calling an international conference, and by not being Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush's response was skeptical.

"What's the message going to be?" he asked. "Please join us in Iraq for a grand diversion? Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time? I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with world leaders frequently, and talk to them on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody who says this is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."

The more immediate question is whether voters will continue to follow a president who insists the war was right, in the face of polls suggesting widespread doubt about whether it was worth the cost. Mr. Bush is banking almost everything on his belief that they will, as long as they believe he is clear and resolute.

It is too soon to know whether Mr. Kerry, trailing in pre-debate polls, accomplished what Mr. Bush did four years ago when he came out of his first debate against Al Gore stronger than when he went in (or what Ronald Reagan did when he leapfrogged ahead of Jimmy Carter). But he is hoping that voters will agree with his own succinct assessment of Mr. Bush last night: "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong."


October 1, 2004
ON TELEVISION

Candidates Most Telling When They Aren't Talking

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

When President Bush leaned over his lectern and talked directly into the camera, he had the same firm, squared-off look he brings to a presidential address from the Oval Office.

When the networks (flouting the debate rules) cut to Mr. Bush while Senator John Kerry was speaking, the president had the hunched shoulders and the peevish, defensive look of an incumbent under heavy attack.

And it was body language as much as rhetoric and one-liners that distinguished the two candidates in last night's debate. The networks were right to disregard the campaigns' ban on cutaways and reaction shots. Instead, all the networks, including Fox News, lavished viewers with split screens and shots of the candidates from almost every angle, including shots from behind the president's tensely knotted back.

Television homes in on feelings hidden beneath rehearsed words and reveals instinctive responses and glimmers of personality.

The cameras demonstrated that Mr. Bush cannot hear criticism without frowning, blinking and squirming (he even sighed once). They showed that Mr. Kerry can control his anger and stay cool but that he cannot suppress his inner overeager A student, flashing a bleach-white smile and nodding hungrily at each question.

Mr. Kerry's confident, calm manner may have paid off. CBS was one of several news organizations that conducted instant focus group surveys during the debate. A few minutes after the candidates finished their closing statements, CBS News said 51 percent of the 200 uncommitted sample voters thought that Mr. Kerry had a clear plan for Iraq. Only 38 percent thought the president did.

Even Fox News analysts thought Mr. Kerry did well. Mort Kondracke of Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, said Mr. Kerry looked like a "commander in chief" and Ceci Connolly of The Washington Post said she thought the polls would tighten a bit after the debate.

The moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, asked polite, obvious questions that failed to take either candidate by surprise. Going into the showdown, Mr. Bush had clearly planned on seizing the offensive. He walked out first, moving so fast that he met Mr. Kerry past the midpoint of the stage, in front of Mr. Kerry's lectern. Face to face, Mr. Kerry told a joke, and clung to Mr. Bush's hand, perhaps seeking to hold him in close enough to flaunt his greater height. Bush gave a polite laugh, turned away from the handshake, and his body had left while Mr. Kerry was just letting go of his finger tips.

The decision to have the two lecterns be of matching height (50 inches) turned out to work against Mr. Bush. The agreed-upon lectern cut the president mid-chest, and made him look smaller, as if he were in a bunker. He did not extend himself beyond its confines, but instead kept his arms in front of him, barely peeking above the lip of the lectern.

If Mr. Bush looked too testy when his opponent spoke, Mr. Kerry looked a little too engaged. He kept picking up his pen and scribbling notes and smiling to himself, like an overly confident prosecutor in court.

But he moved gracefully. Mr. Bush slouched and stayed coiled tight, but Mr. Kerry seemed at times to be waltzing with his partner, the lectern. Mr. Kerry moved his hands almost continuously, at one point folding them over his heart like a French mime as he explained that he felt "nothing but respect" for Tony Blair and British soldiers serving in Iraq.

At the end of the debate, the candidates' wives had their own moment of nonverbal oneupmanship. Both wore white silk suits, and both tried to be gracious. Laura Bush smiled and whispered something in Teresa Heinz Kerry's ear; Mrs. Heinz Kerry turned their hug into a jaunty joint wave to the crowd. Mr. Kerry got into the shot with the two women. Mr. Bush went to his daughters in the corner and rushed offstage.

Mr. Bush, who seemed to grow tired as the night wore on, repeatedly used the phrase "hard work" to describe the war in Iraq. Mr. Kerry repeatedly referred to his first-hand experience sending men into battle in Vietnam, and that seemed to unnerve Mr. Bush. The president said he understood that fighting was hard work and added, "I see on the TV screens how hard it is."

TV debates are also hard work.

October 1, 2004
THE VIEWERS

Around Swing-State TV's, Armies of the Undecided

By JAMES DAO

SOUTH CHARLESTON, W.Va., Sept. 30 - Mary Lou Wiegand came into the Teamsters hall here Thursday night knowing why she didn't like President Bush. She was searching for reasons to feel good about Senator John Kerry.

"Until now, I've been really disappointed with the clarity of his views," Ms. Wiegand, 55, said moments before the debate began. "It's been back and forth."

By the end of the night, she seemed to have gotten some of what she wanted. Each time Mr. Kerry called the invasion of Iraq a mistake, each time he accused Mr. Bush of having misled the country into war, she muttered "yes!" or pumped her fist or nodded her head vigorously.

"I was so glad to hear Kerry say what I've believed all along: that the war was a mistake," she said.

The New York Times watched the debate with voters in five swing states, listening for the arguments that seemed to sway the undecided or energize the committed.

This blue-collar town along the Kanawha River, lined with auto parts stores, chemical factories and fertilizer plants, has seemed to be moving toward Mr. Kerry. The city has lost 1,500 jobs in the past few months, and even its Republican mayor has said he might vote for Mr. Kerry.

In this union hall, filled with Kerry-Edwards posters, there was little doubt about the crowd's sentiments. Each time Mr. Bush made a face or struggled to find a word or uttered the line, "It's hard work," people burst into derisive laughter.

But like Ms. Wiegand, who works with disabled people, some attendees were searching for answers about Mr. Kerry.

Her husband, Pat, for instance, wanted to see if Mr. Kerry could defend himself. At times he was disappointed. When, for instance, Mr. Bush criticized Mr. Kerry for having voted for and then against a bill to finance the war, Mr. Wiegand, a chemist, groaned, feeling that Mr. Kerry hadn't answered the charge directly enough. But he laughed when Mr. Kerry likened the invasion of Iraq to attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

"He needed to take the gloves off, and I think he did a bit," Mr. Wiegand, 49, said. "But it might be too late. It should have happened a long time ago."

Pennsylvania: Some Hoots First,but Questions Linger

WAYNE, Pa., Sept. 30 - Some two dozen neighbors sitting Thursday evening in front of a large-screen television in the basement of State Representative Daylin Leach, a Democrat, had near-universal praise for Senator John Kerry, calling him eloquent. And they criticized the president for verbal gaffes.

But few of those who watched, including the handful of voters who were undecided, walked away with their minds changed.

"I was a bit disappointed in how the president communicated his message," said Shlomi Leon, 30, a human resources consultant and a supporter of Mr. Bush. "He seemed a bit confused compared with Kerry.

"But they each have different strengths and weaknesses,'' Mr. Leon continued. "Bush is very decisive. Kerry is a better communicator, but he is not as decisive and in leadership decisiveness is more important. I remain with the president."

The middle-class crowd of men and women gathered with Mr. Leach had different opinions about the validity of the war in Iraq, but all said they remained confused about the solutions offered by the two candidates.

Some viewers considered the proposals vague. No viewers were swayed far from the opinions they held when they arrived to sit on the carpeted floor or take one of a ring of chairs.

"I am agonizing over this election," said Adrienne Redd, 43, who teaches at Cabrini College and has two children. "I wanted to hear something specific from Kerry or something specific from Bush to help me make my decision.

"I wanted to see if President Bush understood that his refusal to build alliances had done 10 years of diplomatic damage," Ms. Redd added, "and I wanted to hear Kerry talk about our relationships with nations around the globe who are not our traditional allies. I am worried we may face a war in which half a billion Muslims get killed."

The group found Mr. Bush's expressions amusing, but many also pointed out his effective use of emotional images in his answers.

When he praised Mr. Kerry for his service to the country and for being a good father, Rob McCord, 45, who has voted for candidates from both parties, shook his finger at the screen and shouted, "This is smart! This is his best answer yet!"

Mr. McCord said he voted for Vice President Al Gore in 2000, but he also said he thought that Mr. Bush would be a moderate "like his father."

"I was reassured when Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld joined the administration," he said. "I thought that with the president's impulse to delegate we would be fine."

"But I have been shocked at the way the president has veered away from the moderates,'' he continued, "and the fantasies he has about the war and turning Baghdad into another Berlin."

Well before the first debate of this presidential campaign, Mr. McCord said, he had decided to vote for Mr. Kerry; he said that nothing he saw had made him change his mind.

Florida: An Immigrant Votes for Nader's Presence

MIAMI, Sept. 30 - Like so many other Floridians, Didier-Laurent Paris moved here from somewhere else, immigrating to Miami from France in 1984. He became a partner in a beauty salon and eventually an American citizen because, he said, he wanted a say in the national political dialogue.

But after watching 90 minutes of dialogue between President Bush and Senator Kerry on Tuesday night, Mr. Paris, who voted for Al Gore four years ago, said he still hadn't made up his mind about this year.

When Mr. Paris, 48, voted here for the first time in 2000, he disliked Mr. Bush's father and the Bush family's "attachment to oil," he said.

Mr. Paris said he likes President Bush better now, but remains skeptical of both candidates because, he said, neither has a strong plan for reducing the cost of health insurance.

Though friends have attacked him for it, Mr. Paris said he might vote for Ralph Nader, the Reform Party candidate.

"He doesn't have any big special interests to please," Mr. Paris said of Mr. Nader, "so he can say, 'We're going to do national health care tomorrow.' "

As the candidates condemned each other's positions on Iraq, Mr. Paris said Mr. Kerry appeared more focused and better versed in facts. But he said Mr. Kerry did not respond adequately when Mr. Bush kept pointing out his early support for the war.

"He doesn't explain it," said Mr. Paris, who said Mr. Bush should have worked more closely with the United Nations before invading Iraq. "He could tell us, 'I made a mistake.' "

He said that Mr. Bush's defense of the war appeared heartfelt, and that the debate highlighted one of the president's best qualities. "When he goes to what he believes in, George Bush is good and he gets his message across," Mr. Paris said. "In times of turmoil, this is what people want to lead them."

But toward the end, Mr. Paris decided that Mr. Bush went on the defensive too often. Mr. Kerry, he said, appeared "too evasive." Mr. Paris said he would need to see a debate about domestic policy before making up his mind. Having Mr. Nader participate would help, he said.

"He would force the two others to go to a higher level," he said.

Missouri: A Strong Turnout by College Students

WEBSTER GROVES, Mo., Sept. 30 - So many people showed up to watch the presidential debate at Webster University here that surprised organizers had to bring in more chairs.

Many of the nearly 100 people who gathered before a large-screen television at a campus student center said they thought that Mr. Kerry came across more effectively. They did not all say, though, that they would vote for him.

Kerry backers said the debate strengthened their support. "I was probably going to vote for Kerry anyway, but I definitely will now," said Maggie Gardiner, a 21-year-old senior. "I have a better idea of what he wants to do, especially in Iraq. Bush definitely turned me off. I really don't like his idea of America always being on the offensive."

One of Mr. Bush's supporters, Brandon Glen, an 18-year-old freshman from Wyoming, agreed that Mr. Kerry performed better. He quickly added that he didn't care.

"President Bush isn't really great at debating," Mr. Glen said. "He's not the best at thinking on his feet. But in theory and in practice, he's a great leader and commander in chief, and that's what this country needs now."

Another freshman who is leaning towards Mr. Bush, Peter Fanson, said the debate raised his doubts about Senator Kerry.

"Bush didn't strengthen himself tonight, but Kerry's the one who needed to, and he didn't, or at least not enough," Mr. Fanson said. "He does seem like he changes his mind a lot. It doesn't give you confidence."

Several audience members complained about the candidates' criticisms of each other. "They spend most of their time cutting down the other guy," said Jessica Neal, a 20-year-old junior. "To me, it doesn't seem like they're getting the priority right."

Perhaps the happiest people in the room were the student organizers who expected no more than a few dozen to come to watch.

"This shows that college kids really do care," said Trevor Zickgraf, a student activities manager who helped organize the event. "The stereotype is not true."

Colorado: Veterans in Denver Lean Toward Bush

DENVER, Sept. 30 - Tom Kottenstette counted the take from Spaghetti Night as the debate began, glancing at the television over the glasses perched at the end of his nose.

About 60 people had come to the American Legion Post No. 1 on Denver's South Side for a $5-a-plate dinner of pasta and garlic bread, but most were gone by then. The dozen or so who remained were there to watch the debate, or nurse their drinks at the bar, or both.

The military veterans here - Mr. Kottenstette, the post commander, served in Korea in the early 1950's - mostly don't talk politics. It's post policy. Tonight, as the candidates battled on the post's three televisions, people made exceptions.

"John, it's not a commercial, will you just respond to what he said?" asked Brian K. Wagner, speaking to Mr. Kerry on the screen and rolling his eyes. Mr. Wagner, who served in the Army in the early 1980's, is undecided and seemed exasperated equally by both Senator Kerry and President Bush.

Many of the former soldiers here - probably the majority, post members said - support Mr. Bush.

Eddie Smith, a veteran of World War II who intends to vote Republican, sat close to the post's big screen and didn't move for the full 90 minutes. He said it bothered him how much Mr. Kerry used the personal pronoun.

"All the time it was this 'I, I, I, I'll do this, I'll do that,' " Mr. Smith said. "Bush spoke for his administration."

Joe Torti, another World War II veteran, sat at the bar through the debate nursing a drink and smoking a big cigar. He described himself as a Democrat, but an undecided one.

"I thought Bush was on the defensive all night," he said. "But I'll wait until the week before the election to make up my mind."

Mr. Kottenstette said he thought both men promised more than they could deliver. He added that he'd probably vote for Mr. Bush, though not with overwhelming enthusiasm.

"I still like his approach," he said. "But there's some party loyalty in that statement."


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[KJnbceja]

June 6, 2004

Potential Kerry Running Mates Vie to Sing His Praises Loudest

By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

WASHINGTON, June 4 — On Tuesday morning, Senator Bob Graham boarded a plane in Virginia, flew to Florida with John Kerry, and introduced him to an overheated crowd outside Palm Beach as "a man of high intelligence, great energy and a sincere commitment to what's important to us today for our children and grandchildren."

In Des Moines the same morning, Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa stood outside the state capitol behind a "John Kerry for President" lectern and next to men wearing "Firefighters for Kerry" T-shirts and accused the Bush administration of cutting spending on domestic security.

Back in Washington, meanwhile, a top fund-raiser installed by Senator John Edwards inside the Democratic Party picked up the phone for another day of raising money for his new client, Mr. Kerry.

The campaign for the vice presidential spot on the Democratic ticket is on, and Mr. Kerry is reaping the benefits every day, as several men widely mentioned as possible running mates, including Mr. Graham and Mr. Vilsack, crisscross the country and wallpaper the cable networks on his behalf, talking up Mr. Kerry and talking down President Bush, raising money for Mr. Kerry, and shoring up his position in contested states and with constituent groups that might not have supported him in the primaries.

It seems hard to imagine that only a few weeks ago Democrats, worried that Mr. Kerry was being hammered regularly by Vice President Dick Cheney, were urging him to name a running mate quickly. But with his position in the polls strong, a decision is now unlikely until July, according to aides, and Mr. Kerry is able to unleash a kennel full of attack dogs, all standing to gain from impressing the man who could be their boss.

"Each of them has been very gracious, and they all understand that the name of the game here is to win the White House back for the Democrats in November," said Fred Baron, a Dallas trial lawyer who led Mr. Edwards's fund-raising and now is a chairman of Kerry Victory '04, the Democrats' coordinated campaign.

The process of picking a running mate can be a humiliating one for those who had or still have presidential aspirations, as it reportedly was for Mr. Kerry when he was closely considered four years ago but not chosen by Vice President Al Gore. Unlike Mr. Kerry then, Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri find themselves in the humbling position of hoping to be tapped after running presidential campaigns of their own.

But it is in the interests of nominees if running-mate hopefuls think they can improve their chances. Mr. Gore's campaign let it be known, for example, that people on his short list might help their appeal by raising money for him, said a Democrat close to Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, and Mr. Lieberman took the hint, holding a major fund-raiser for Mr. Gore in the final days before he made his decision, just as Mr. Kerry and the other senator on the list, Mr. Edwards, had done.

Mr. Baron said there were no fund-raising goals for those seeking the No. 2 spot on Mr. Kerry's ticket, nor was anyone keeping count of how much they were bringing in. And in general, Mr. Kerry is being even more discreet about his decision-making than Mr. Gore was. His campaign is doing little to encourage speculation about running mates; reporters traveling with Mr. Kerry only learned about a three-hour meeting he had on Thursday night in Minneapolis with James A. Johnson, the Minnesotan and veteran Democrat operative who is overseeing his selection process, when Mr. Johnson was spotted in an elevator afterward.

Those who have been vetted by Mr. Kerry to one degree or another deny, of course, that they are competing for his favor. "This is not a job for which a person runs," said Mr. Graham, who endured the screening process with Michael S. Dukakis, Bill Clinton and Mr. Gore. "It's not something that you audition for."

Like any presumptive nominee, Mr. Kerry has many more surrogates at the ready, from fellow members of Congress to governors to his own campaign officials and even his crewmates from the Vietnam War.

But those who have been considered by Mr. Kerry or still hope to be — a list that includes Mr. Edwards, Mr. Gephardt, retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark of Arkansas, and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico — may have more cachet, aides acknowledge, and they have been quick to comply with requests from Mr. Kerry's campaign.

General Clark, for example, who formed a political action committee last month and quickly set to attacking Mr. Bush as having "chosen the easy life" over combat, has carried Mr. Kerry's flag in the South, speaking in Little Rock, Ark.; Birmingham, Ala.; and Jackson, Miss., in the weeks since.

Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who has frequently accompanied Mr. Kerry on campaign swings there, raised about $300,000 for Mr. Kerry over the telephone in the past week, Mr. Nelson's spokesman said. And Mr. Vilsack has already drawn criticism in Iowa for his work for Mr. Kerry, which last month included trips to Kentucky, Arizona, Boston and New York, and will take him to Wisconsin to give a keynote address at a Democratic dinner on June 11.

Mr. Edwards has been a whirlwind of activity, speaking on Mr. Kerry's behalf in Columbus, Ohio; Cleveland; and Duluth, Minn., in the past two weeks. On Thursday he sent out an appeal via e-mail to his own list of supporters to "reach deep down and work nonstop to support John Kerry." Next weekend he will speak at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner held by the Florida Democratic Party and raise money for Mr. Kerry on the west coast of Florida, and he plans political and fund-raising swings for Mr. Kerry to Houston; Baton Rouge, La.; and Alabama later this month, aides said.

If Mr. Edwards seems the most eager — or at least the most available — of the bunch, Mr. Gephardt could be said to be striking a pose of studied nonchalance. Though he spoke at a Washington fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee on Thursday night, he has taken a relatively low profile of late. In May, he participated in two conference calls with reporters, and gave the keynote address at the Michigan Democratic Party's annual dinner in Detroit, aides said, but he has nothing more on his calendar at the Kerry campaign's behest until late August.

Each vice presidential aspirant, by this point, has a practiced nonanswer to questions about whether he wants the job, but their friends and confidants are less constrained.

"His view of all this is that you don't campaign for this job," said an associate of Mr. Gephardt's. "Running around and saying `me, me' isn't Dick's style and isn't going to help your cause. Obviously he'd like to be vice president, but if he isn't, he'd be comfortable going off and enjoying his life and making some money, as opposed to some younger candidates for whom this is an important step in keeping their political career alive."

But Carter Eskew, a consultant to Mr. Gore in 2000, said there was more than one way for aspirants to position themselves for the job. "Playing it cool, that's fine as a strategy," Mr. Eskew said. "You don't egregiously lobby for the job. There are some people who say that lobbying doesn't matter, anyway. But if it's done skillfully enough, people respect it."

It is unclear if either the Democrats' posturing or their actual performance on Mr. Kerry's behalf will influence his decision much, if at all. While members of Mr. Kerry's staff work with surrogates to book them at political events and on television and radio, Mr. Kerry is seldom aware of their activities unless they slip up and draw criticism, or show up to share a plane ride or a microphone.

Besides, Mr. Eskew said, "Getting chosen to be V.P. is a little bit like what it used to be like to get into Harvard. All the extracurricular stuff — being president of the band — there are many paths to get to be considered for admission, but in the final analysis the interview matters most."


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[ROYMANgo]

This remark is now a major topic on TV news. Regardless of how it turns out, it takes the spotlight off Bush. His position on gay marriage is quite clear, and nothing that comes out of this will make voters change their opinion of him.

Bush doesn't have to look presidential - like it or not, he is president. Voters have to visualize Kerry as president. It's always a problem for challengers in a 2nd term election.

Latest Reuters/Zogby poll numbers show Bush/Cheney have opened up a 4 point lead. While not much, it shows a reversal in the momentum (something polls are good at indicating) that Kerry/Edwards had after the 1st debate.

[Bridgester]

October 5, 2004

THE POLL

Poll Finds Kerry Assured Voters in Initial Debate

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
and JANET ELDER

Senator John Kerry came out of the first presidential debate having reassured many Americans of his ability to handle an international crisis or a terrorist attack and with a generally more favorable image, but he failed to shake the perception that he panders to voters in search of support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll also found significant doubts about President Bush's policies toward Iraq, with a majority of the public saying that the United States invaded too soon and that the administration did a poor job thinking through the consequences of the war. But Mr. Bush maintained an advantage on personal characteristics like strong leadership and likability, as well as in the enthusiasm of his supporters.

Four weeks from Election Day, the presidential race is again a dead heat, with Mr. Bush having given up the gains he enjoyed for the last month after the Republican convention in New York, the poll found. In both a head-to-head matchup and a three-way race including Ralph Nader, the Republican and Democratic tickets each won the support of 47 percent of registered voters surveyed in the poll.

Last month, Mr. Bush led Mr. Kerry by 50-42 in a two-way race and 50-41 in a three-way race.

The results, which parallel those of several other national polls in the past few days, are likely to intensify interest in tonight's debate in Cleveland between the vice-presidential candidates, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as the two additional presidential debates, on Friday and Oct. 13.

Aides to both campaigns said yesterday that the running mates' debate, which begins at 9 p.m. Eastern time, was unlikely to have a major impact on the vote in November. That did not stop them, though, from trying once again to set high expectations for the other side, as each campaign pointed to the debating strengths of its opponents.

Some of the drop in Mr. Bush's numbers appeared to reflect the traditional cycle in which a candidate's standing surges after his nominating convention and then declines somewhat. Both the Bush and Kerry campaigns have said for months that they expect the race to be tight at the very end.

But Mr. Kerry also scored notable gains in several areas that could be vital in a campaign being largely fought over the war in Iraq and the threat of terrorism.

Forty-one percent of registered voters said they had confidence in Mr. Kerry's ability to deal wisely with an international crisis, up from 32 percent before the debate. Thirty-nine percent said they had a lot of confidence that Mr. Kerry would make the right decisions when it came to protecting against a terrorist attack, up 13 percentage points.

On both scores, however, Mr. Kerry still trailed Mr. Bush. Fifty-one percent of voters said they had confidence in Mr. Bush's ability to deal with an international crisis, unchanged from before the debate, and 52 percent said they had a lot of confidence in his ability to protect against a terrorist attack, up slightly from 50 percent last month.

Mr. Bush's strategy of portraying Mr. Kerry as an unprincipled flip-flopper appears to have stuck in the national consciousness. Sixty percent of registered voters said Mr. Kerry told people what they wanted to hear rather than what he really believed, about the same level as throughout the spring and summer. The corresponding figure for Mr. Bush was 38 percent.

It is unclear whether the race for the White House has merely reverted to a steady state in which neither candidate can establish a clear lead, whether Mr. Bush can regain the advantage with a strong performance in the next debates or whether Thursday was a turning point at which Mr. Kerry seized the initiative.

There is also considerable uncertainty over whether national polling numbers reflect the state of play in the 18 or so swing states where the election will be decided and where the relative success of get-out-the-vote efforts by both sides could prove to be the difference. In recent weeks there has been a surge of new voter registrations in many states as the two campaigns and their allies seek to ensure that every possible supporter goes to the polls on Nov. 2.

The Kerry campaign said the poll showed that the race was moving in its direction. The nationwide telephone poll of 979 adults included 851 registered voters. The margin of sampling error for the entire sample, and for registered voters, is plus or minus three percentage points.

"The public took a measure of John Kerry standing next to the president, and came to the conclusion that he had the strength, judgment and experience to be the commander in chief," said Joe Lockhart, a senior strategist for Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Bush's team said he remained ahead in the ways that would count most on Election Day.

"We always said this race would be close," said Matthew Dowd, Mr. Bush's chief campaign strategist. "When style fades quickly, leadership and policies remain, and that is where the president has the advantage."

Over all, Mr. Kerry appears to have come off well in the debate, which respondents to the poll said, 60 percent to 23 percent, that he won.

The proportion of registered voters saying they viewed Mr. Kerry favorably jumped to its highest level, 40 percent, from 31 percent in mid-September, while the number of people who said they did not view him favorably, 41 percent, did not change appreciably.

The percentage of voters who said their opinion of Mr. Bush was favorable dipped slightly, to 44 percent from 47 percent last month, while the percentage of voters who said they did not view Mr. Bush favorably increased to 44 percent from 38 percent in that period.

Mr. Kerry, who sought to emphasize during the debate how aggressive he would be in hunting down terrorists and protecting the nation from attack, made some headway in winning back women who had been drifting toward Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry led Mr. Bush 48 percent to 46 percent among women; last month Mr. Bush led among women 48 percent to 43 percent.

The results show not only how closely divided the nation is, but also how clearly defined the differences are between the candidates, especially on foreign policy. Just under half of voters said both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry would bring the right balance to judgments about when to go to war. But 46 percent said Mr. Bush would not be careful enough and 31 percent said Mr. Kerry would be too careful.

The poll indicated that Americans continued to have doubts about both candidates. Mr. Bush's job approval rating, at 47 percent, was little changed from last month and close to what has traditionally been a danger zone for an incumbent seeking re-election. His approval ratings for his handling of foreign policy, Iraq and the economy were even lower, and a narrow majority of respondents, 51 percent, said the country was on the wrong track.

The poll suggested that the daily bloodshed in Iraq and Mr. Kerry's strategy of hammering away at Mr. Bush's handling of the war might be resonating among voters. Asked what kind of job Mr. Bush had done in anticipating what would happen in Iraq as a result of the war, 59 percent said he had done a poor job and 34 percent said a good job. A slight majority, 52 percent, said the United States had been too quick to go to war in Iraq, compared with 37 percent who said the timing was about right.

But Mr. Bush maintained his reputation as an effective leader in confronting terrorism, with 57 percent of respondents saying they approved of his handling of the issue and 37 percent disapproving. Asked whether they thought of Mr. Bush as someone they would like personally, even if they did not approve of his policies, 61 percent said yes, versus 48 percent for Mr. Kerry. Asked whether both candidates have strong qualities of leadership, 62 percent said yes for Mr. Bush and 56 percent said yes for Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Kerry continued to generate increased levels of enthusiasm for his candidacy among those who said they supported him, with 48 percent saying they strongly favored him, up from 40 percent last month. But, in a race that could hinge on turnout, Mr. Bush maintained a strong advantage on that measure, with 70 percent of his backers saying they strongly favored him, up from 63 percent.

Fifty-five percent of voters said Mr. Bush had made clear what he wants to accomplish in the next four years, a five-point increase since last month, while 45 percent of voters said Mr. Kerry had a clear agenda, up seven points in the same period.

The poll found that 65 percent of voters did not think Mr. Bush had a clear plan for getting American troops out of Iraq, and that 59 percent of voters did not think Mr. Kerry had one. Half of voters said they thought Mr. Bush made the situation in Iraq sound better than it is, and 43 percent said Mr. Kerry made it sound worse.



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[vekiuytyh]

Bush Fails to Stem Kerry Momentum in Second Debate, Polls Show

Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush failed to gain a victory in the second presidential debate to stem the momentum built by John Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator, since their first match-up last week.

Two polls gave Kerry an edge in the 90-minute contest at Washington University in St. Louis. An ABC News survey of registered voters showed 45 percent considered Kerry the winner and 41 percent picked Bush. In a CNN poll, 47 percent said Kerry won and 45 percent favored Bush. Both are within the margin of error.

Bush, 58, took aim at Kerry's 20-year record in the U.S. Senate, saying he voted to slash intelligence spending. Bush told the audience of undecided voters, that Kerry, 60, would raise their taxes to fund his health care proposal and other spending plans. Kerry said Bush turned his campaign into ``a weapon of mass deception.'' Bush doesn't have a plan to ``win the peace'' in Iraq, Kerry said.

``I think Kerry got the better of the president,'' said Alexander Lamis, a professor of political science at Case Western Reserve in Cleveland. Bush ``did not detract from whatever momentum Senator Kerry is building up.''

National Tie

Ten national polls taken this week showed Kerry pulling into a statistical tie after trailing Bush by as much as 13 percentage points before the first debate on Sept. 30.

Bush and Kerry each have the support of 45 percent of 886 likely voters surveyed Oct. 6-7 by Time magazine, the most recent of the polls. Independent candidate Ralph Nader won the backing of 3 percent of respondents. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points. In a Time poll before the first presidential debate, Bush led by 6 points.

The first half of last night's event was devoted to foreign policy, and Iraq was the main topic, even when the questions weren't directly about the conflict.

`Mass Deception'

For the first question, Kerry was asked what his response is to people who think he is ``too wishy-washy,'' a charge Bush makes in speeches and campaign ads.

``The president didn't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so he's really turned his campaign into a weapon of mass deception,'' Kerry said. ``And the result is that you've been bombarded with advertisements suggesting that I've changed a position on this or that or the other.''

Bush returned the criticism.

``I can see why people think that he changes position quite often, because he does,'' Bush said. ``I don't see how you can lead this country in a time of war or a time of uncertainty if you change your position because of politics.''

Defending his handling of the planning for the war, Bush said he asked U.S. generals the day before sending troops, ``Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?''

The generals told him they did, Bush said.

Responses on War

``You rely on good military people to execute the military component of the strategy, but winning the peace is larger than just the military component,'' Kerry said. ``The military's job is to win the war. A president's job is to win the peace.''

At one point, Bush stopped moderator Charles Gibson of ABC News and walked forward on the stage to respond to Kerry's remarks that Bush had rushed to war in Iraq without building a broad enough alliance. Kerry pressed the issue, saying he wouldn't ``go alone like this president did.''

``Tell Tony Blair we're going it alone,'' Bush said. ``Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going it alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going it alone.''

Kerry said eight countries have left the coalition, and that if Missouri were a country it would be the third-largest member of the coalition behind the U.S. and Great Britain.

Some analysts said all Bush needed to do in this debate is improve from his Sept. 30 performance, which polls showed Kerry won.

`Restore Confidence'

Bush ``did what he needed to do to restore confidence to Republicans who were beginning to panic,'' said James Lucier, a political analyst at Prudential Equity Group Inc. in Washington. ``Kerry came in with high expectations, Bush came in with low.''

``I think the president looked angry from the get-go,'' said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster with the Washington firm Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates.

Evans Witt, chief executive officer of the polling firm Princeton Survey Research International said the debate produced no clear winner.

``It was one of those debates where you're going to see what you want in it,'' Witt said. ``If you are undecided I don't think the debate pushed you one way or the other.''

Thomas Foley, a Democrat who is a former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, called the debate ``balanced.''

``The president was much more animated and effective tonight than in the first debate,'' Foley said. ``Senator Kerry maintained the same very high level of clarity and performance.''

Drugs Prices

Bush and Kerry took questions on their plans to bring consumer prices down for pharmaceutical drugs and improve the availability of health care.

``I haven't yet'' made a decision on whether to import drugs from Canada, Bush said. ``I just want to make sure they're safe,'' he said. ``I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you.''

Last month, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said the safety of drug imports from Canada and other countries was ``a huge problem.''

Kerry said that Bush said four years ago he thought imports from Canada made sense. ``Ladies and gentlemen, the president just didn't level with you right now, again,'' Kerry said. He said he would fight to allow drug reimportation.

Bush supported a drug benefit for seniors under Medicare legislation passed by Congress. Kerry said the Republican-backed bill helps drug companies more than patients.

Health Care

Kerry said health insurance premiums and the number of uninsured increased under Bush's presidency. Kerry plans to offer to pay for companies' health care bills for employees whose hospital bills exceed $50,000. Bush said Kerry didn't have the money to pay for his program.

``He's going to tax everybody here to fund his programs,'' Bush said. ``That's what liberals do. They create government- sponsored health care,'' Bush said.

During one exchange, Bush said Kerry's plan to cancel tax cuts for families earning more than $200,000 a year would force 900,000 small businesses to pay more to the Internal Revenue Service.

Kerry said that isn't true because Bush was counting partnerships and businesses that include holding companies rather than active companies. As an example, he said the president is counted as a small business owner under his own definition because he owned an interest in a timber company.

``I own a timber company?'' the president responded, turning to the audience. ``That's news to me. Want some wood?''

Bush did report income from a timber company, according to copies of his tax returns on a Web site operated by Tax Analysts, an Arlington, Virginia, publisher of tax information. Bush earned $425,000 in income from partnerships in 2003, more than his presidential salary of $400,000.

The debate may have appealed mainly to the core Republican and Democratic supporters of both candidates, said former U.S. Senator Donald Riegle of Michigan. Riegle, 66, who started his political career as a Republican and ended as a Democrat, is chairman of government relations at Apco Worldwide, a Washington- based consulting firm.

``I don't know if the debates at this point are going to make that much difference,'' Riegle said. ``The realities the country is facing with Iraq and domestically loom much larger.''

[RlUbQU3R]

http://www.observer.com/index_go.html

The Trouble Is, So Far Kerry Stinks On TV

by Joe Hagan

In recent weeks, even Senator John Kerry’s closest friends have been at a loss as to why the Democratic Presidential candidate has failed to communicate the most humanizing part of his biography: his war record as a decorated Vietnam veteran. "I know he’s quite capable of it," said Bob Kerrey, the president of New School University, former Nebraska Senator and fellow Vietnam veteran. "I don’t know why it’s not working now."

But there seems to be a very clear reason why: Mr. Kerry is terrible on TV.

"Abysmal," said John Weaver, the former strategist for Senator John McCain’s Presidential run and the man who coined the "Straight Talk Express."

Watching Mr. Kerry on TV, he said, "I don’t know if it’s a stream of consciousness or stream of unconsciousness."

"It’s a lot of words and no clarity, a lot of presence and no warmth," said Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s Hardball, who was preparing to interview Mr. Kerry for an hour on April 27. "And I think he’s got to deal with that."

Take a look, for example, at NBC’s Meet the Press on April 18. Tim Russert aired a tape of Senator John Kerry’s appearance on the show 33 years earlier, when he was a young, jut-chinned veteran, 27 years old, full of baleful gravity, expressing a sense of shame for his actions in Vietnam. The camera cut back to Senator Kerry, now a man running for President of United States.

"You committed atrocities," said Mr. Russert gravely, asking Mr. Kerry to address the statements of the young man on the screen.

Suddenly, the current John Kerry, of 2004, gave a stumbling, inexplicable guffaw.

"Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That’s a big question for me."

And suddenly, inexplicably, the question showed up: Where did all that gravitas go, John? That’s the big question for the viewer. The appealing young veteran disappeared, the angry, vengeful Democratic candidate disappeared, and John Kerry, the callow Swiss-prep-school boy returned, as vividly as George Bush the smirking frat boy makes his appearances on national television. "Awful," said MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. "Just awful."

In recent appearances, Mr. Kerry’s digressions and obfuscations about whether he threw a war medal or a ribbon on the White House lawn in 1971—or whether the young Mr. Kerry should have used the word "war crimes" to describe actions in Vietnam—have obscured the candidate. At every turn, he has managed to turn the TV screen into smoked glass: He’s right in front of you, but you can’t … quite … make … him … out. With his morose patrician mien and robotic delivery—parodied with precision by Jon Stewart on the Monday, April 24, Daily Show, surely not a good thing for the candidate—Mr. Kerry’s TV performances are sounding a gut-level alarm about his ability to inspire confidence in the electorate. "He needs to speak the truth and speak from the heart and not try to calibrate his views or his actions," said Mr. Weaver. "The public catches on to these things, and they can see through whether there’s a calibration going on or not. He needs to stop that."

He didn’t need to speak the name of former Vice President Al Gore. But a media strategist for another Democratic Presidential candidate said that Mr. Kerry had to lose the "legislative speak" and begin talking "like a normal person communicates, speaking in simple, more declarative sentences that have a clearer meaning for people." Compared to President George W. Bush, he added, Mr. Kerry appeared more intelligent, "but there are many instances in which George Bush communicates more clearly."

The Republican attack ads about Mr. Kerry that have run in 18 battleground states have set the tone for Mr. Kerry’s appearances. Since April 15, they’ve speared Mr. Kerry for having said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion—before I voted against it." The context, of course, was important: Mr. Kerry was criticizing Vermont Governor Howard Dean at the time, arguing over how to balance the budget in the context of the war in Iraq. But instead of squelching that image with a decisive blow, Mr. Kerry has continually cemented it with distended, lumbering TV appearances.

But it also showed the power of simplicity: a single one-liner could define an entire interview. Mr. Kerrey said the candidate needed to reconnect with his own history.

"I think he’s got to go back to remember what it felt like and help people understand what it was like in 1971," said Mr. Kerrey. "It was a terrible time, and he was a kid. And he just said some indefensible things. How unusual does that make him for a 25-year-old? Not very. Especially during that time. He served honorably, with great distinction."

But even when Mr. Kerry attempts to let his passion fly, he becomes hectoring and aggressive. On Monday, April 26, Good Morning America host Charlie Gibson asked Mr. Kerry to explain his inconsistent stories about whether he once tossed war medals or ribbons onto the White House lawn in 1971. Maybe it was a quibbling issue, all things considered. But was this the best way to tackle it?

Senator Kerry: Charlie, Charlie, you’re wrong! That is not what happened. I threw my ribbons across. And all you have to do is go back and find the file footage.

Charlie Gibson: And someone else’s medals? And someone else’s medals, correct?

Senator Kerry: Later, after, excuse me—excuse me, Charlie!

It hadn’t helped that the first live shot of Mr. Kerry was of him shaking his head in disgust at Mr. Gibson’s setup to the interview. On TV, Mr. Kerry projects a subtle disdain for the medium while he is appearing on it. He doesn’t even plan on answering the questions, if he can help it. "There’s no such thing as a trick question with Kerry, because he just won’t answer it," observed Mr. Matthews. "‘Well, let me put it this way, Chris,’ or ‘Well, the real question here, Chris …. ’ See, that’s the problem with him. And I find afterward, we’ll be having conversations afterward, and it’s hard to get to him even then."

Not only has Mr. Kerry not relayed his ideas with clarity, he has failed to relay the visceral presence of an unaffected personality. On his Meet the Press outing, he told Mr. Russert: "Now, we’re in a position now to be able to respond and introduce myself to the country. I look forward to that. I look forward to Americans getting to know who I really am." But why was he looking forward? There he was, live on television, with every chance to be himself.

"I’m not sure what the message is—that may be the essence of the problem," said Joe McGinniss, the author of The Selling of the President, the best-seller that detailed Richard M. Nixon’s media strategy. As a Massachusetts resident, Mr. McGinniss said he had never seen Mr. Kerry do well on TV—or even in public, for that matter. "When he sits down one-to-one with somebody, he’s not good," said Mr. McGinniss. But then again, he added, neither was Mr. Bush, or Mr. Nixon. "They knew Nixon was never going to be good in a situation like that. The shows that Roger Ailes directed had the appearance of spontaneity, but it was all carefully scripted. You put Nixon in a thing where he looks like he’s taking a risk where he’s not. They’re going to have to dress up the set for John Kerry, but he can’t do it on his own. He’s not Jack Kennedy, although he wishes he were."

Mr. Matthews described Mr. Kerry as more like Kennedy’s speechwriter, Ted Sorenson. "He’s kind of, like, world-weary, and he has that voice of wariness, almost like a Scandinavian winter," he said. "It’s cold and it’s weary. That’s what he sounds like when he’s interviewed."

Despite Mr. Kerry’s problems, a number of observers said it was still very early in the race. And it’s also not clear that the crucial voters even watch shows like Meet the Press or Hardball with any regularity, or even interest. "Typically, for the swing-voter type, when you’re asking somebody about the choice of words 33 years ago, those people have a 100 percent record of either forgiveness or completely not giving a ****," said Lawrence O’Donnell, the MSNBC political analyst. "Have we learned nothing from George Wallace’s career?"

Mr. O’Donnell said these TV appearances were simply testing grounds.

"The reason we stare at John Kerry in April is that Tim is the best indicator there is on how rough it’s going to be on you in a Presidential debate in October," said Mr. O’Donnell, who like Mr. Russert once worked for Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. "‘Oh, look at that, there’s a vulnerability there.’ And, ‘Oh, by the way, he’s got several months to work on that.’"

Still, Mr. Kerry has a lot more history to contend with—TV history. "You create a tremendous number of obstacles in the obstacle course of life by going on television for 27, 30 years," said Mr. Matthews. "Because the age of television has created this incredible archive system. No matter what you’ve ever said, it can come popping out at you. But the only way you can replace old stuff is with new stuff, so you have to constantly make your new stuff more compelling. That’s how you do it. So television has a permanence, but you almost have to do battle with your old tape."

Meanwhile, everyone is waiting for Mr. Kerry to transform.

"The Democratic friends I have keep saying, ‘Wait, wait, he’ll get better,’" said Don Hewitt, the executive producer of 60 Minutes. "Well, I’m waiting, and I don’t know if he will or not. He may yet surprise me and make it apparent why he’s the guy I’d like to see as President of the United States. I haven’t seen it yet.

"Maybe he needs some good professional advice," he added, "if he’s in a mood to take it."


COPYRIGHT © 2004
THE NEW YORK OBSERVER

[UKkoXJvF]

New York Times July 12, 2004

Mr. Cheney's Troubled Doctor

The doctor who regularly vouched for Vice President Dick Cheney's good health had a secret debilitation of his own — a grievous addiction to prescription drugs that has recently been thoroughly aired in public. Unfortunately, we now know a lot about the medical history of Dr. Gary Malakoff but very little about that of his patient, the vice president.

Skimpy, upbeat generalizations have always been offered about Mr. Cheney, who has a history of heart ailments and complex ongoing treatment. In contrast, President Bush, by all accounts a picture of health, has released full details about his own checkups.

In the face of Dr. Malakoff's failings, candor is more urgent than ever from Mr. Cheney. Even as Dr. Malakoff pronounced his patient "up to the task of the most sensitive public office" four years ago, the doctor was spending tens of thousands of dollars on his addiction and making hollow promises of rehabilitation to colleagues.

Dr. Malakoff has been dropped as Mr. Cheney's personal internist. The vice president reportedly has known about the doctor's five-year struggle with addiction but has no concerns about the care he received, according to his press office.

The favorable summaries may have been the best collective judgment of a team of doctors, including cardiologists, but Dr. Malakoff was the lead doctor offering ringing reassurances about Mr. Cheney's health. In retrospect, voters are entitled to question the rosy prognoses. The vice president must put aside his obsession with secrecy and finally offer a detailed report on his medical history. For that matter, so should Senator John Kerry, who has not yet fulfilled promises to release his own records.

[Ebjjrxrd]

Well, I am voting for Bush - because he prays a lot. George W. Praysalot. Anyone else is voting for him because he prays a lot? Wait, I cannot vote. Never mind. Disregard...

[bunkalapa]

It's all about the states. Here's how they roughly stand prior to the Democratic Convention.

The following maps don't agree on which party is represented by red or blue - be forwarned.

First, the 2000 Election:






Here are some websites showing current maps based on the latest state polls. Results vary, but taken together they tell a similar story; it is very close. The candidate with the advantage depends on which polls are used and how heavily each are weighed.


http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html






http://www.electoral-vote.com/






http://www.dalythoughts.com/ecb.htm







State polls also available here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bus...erry_sbys.html


Electoral College Calculator

[Duaceanceksm]

Well, it is goingto be a slugfest between the Democrat's "Get out The Vote" plan and the Republican's "Suppress the Vote" plan. Can anyone tell me which of these plans is a direct threat to democracy in America?

[theatadug]

Official campaign slogan of Kinky Friedman, running for Texas governor in 2006:

How hard can it be?

[Dogxzysl]

Just a general perception: Kerry is starting to sound like he did in late 2003. Maybe that's why his poll numbers have remained static on key issues.

There may be a unfriendliness between Kerry and Edwards, but he should just pick him for VP. Edwards didn't have the experience and organization to win the nomination, but his campaign style connected with many uncommitted voters.

[Farson]

Comeback Kerry delivers the goods...

Newsweek poll puts Kerry ahead 49-46% as Bush fights back

61% say Kerry easily beat Bush in debate

Sydney Morning Herald
October 3, 2004 - 2:05PM


Eyes on the prize ... John Kerry campaigning in Florida

US presidential candidate John Kerry, buoyed by a strong showing in his televised debate with George Bush, has recaptured a small lead in their White House race.

A Newsweek poll, the first survey released on the race since the debate, gave Kerry a 49-46 per cent edge over Bush among registered voters in a two-way matchup, and a 47-45 per cent margin in a contest also involving independent Ralph Nader.

The poll, conducted among 1,013 registered voters, reversed the findings of the last Newsweek study three weeks ago that put Bush six points up in a three-way race at 49-43 per cent.

Bush had been leading since the August 30-September 2 Republican national convention in New York that wiped out a modest Kerry advantage and turned the race the President's way.

The new turnaround in the Newsweek poll, with a margin of error of four points either way, came after the debate at the University of Miami on foreign policy and homeland security which the magazine said Kerry clearly won.

Its poll showed 61 per cent of those who watched the showdown thought the Massachusetts senator came off better and 19 per cent felt the Republican president had prevailed.

The Democrats have hailed the debate as a turning point in the campaign after weeks of Republican attacks on Kerry's command capacities, Vietnam war experience and record as an alleged flip-flopper that had him on the ropes.

Bush yesterday claimed Kerry would put US national security in the hands of foreign leaders, and Kerry slammed huge White House tax cuts as a gift for the rich.

The rivals revved up the rhetoric which erupted in their televised head-to-head clash on Thursday night, ahead of a potentially decisive 12 days which will see two more presidential contests and a vice presidential debate.

The President refused to let Kerry move the argument on from questions of statesmanship to bread-and-butter economic issues, where he is considered more vulnerable.

He lambasted what Republicans are calling the "Kerry doctrine" after his challenger said Thursday that US action abroad should be put to a "global test" to prove to Americans and the world that it is legitimate.

"Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions.

"I'll continue to work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of freedom and peace," said Bush, who pioneered a pre-emptive US policy to meet global threats at a rally in Columbus, Ohio.

"But our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals," he said.

Kerry has repeatedly vowed not to give foreign states veto power over US military action - indeed, it was one of the first things he said in Thursday's debate. His campaign staff says the Bush team took Kerry's remark out of context in a sign of desperation.

The veteran Massachusetts senator, hoping to move out of Bush's slipstream in opinion polls, linked what he said was Bush's stubborn failure to change course in Iraq to his style of economic policy.

"It's not just on Iraq. Over the past four years, he has made a series of serious misjudgments here at home, choices that have hurt middle-class families," Kerry told supporters at a school in Orlando, Florida.

Meanwhile, a new Democratic ad accused Bush of lying about their candidate's defence policies after the president accused Kerry of a readiness to give other countries a veto over US military action.

"George Bush has lost the debate. Now he's lying about it," said the advertisement, which the Kerry campaign planned to run wherever the Bush camp airs spots on what it called the "Kerry doctrine" of appeasing allies.

[interznakinfo]

August 15, 2004

Styles Similar in Bush and Kerry Duel on Deficit Numbers

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, Aug. 14 - For months, Senator John Kerry and his top advisers have accused President Bush of pushing through tax cuts and big spending that have added trillions of dollars to the federal debt.

Then early last week, Mr. Kerry's campaign boasted that he would offer "more than twice as much in new tax cuts" as the president and still follow through on his promise of a $653 billion health care plan.

The campaign trumpeted its proposal for "more than $400 billion of new tax cuts" in a news release that declared "these tax cuts are fully paid for without increasing the deficit by one dime," before going on to list a variety of tax breaks for college tuition costs, health care and investment in new technology.

While Mr. Kerry carefully listed ways he would pay for the new tax cuts, totaling $419 billion over 10 years, he has also called for permanently extending Mr. Bush's tax cuts for middle-income families. Because those tax cuts are set to expire under current law, making them permanent would cost the Treasury about $425 billion over 10 years.

Budget analysts see striking similarities in the ways Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush have glossed over major omissions in their goals to reduce the deficit.

Each candidate has promised to cut the deficit by half over the next four years, from its level this year of roughly $400 billion. And each has proposed major tax cuts without saying how he would pay for them. Each has also avoided the subject of the future costs of war in Iraq and the much bigger fiscal problems that lie just beyond their four-year horizon, when 76 million baby boomers begin to reach retirement age.

Nor has either candidate budgeted for changing the alternative minimum tax, which was originally created to prevent the wealthy from taking too much advantage of sophisticated tax breaks.

But the alternative minimum tax is not indexed to rising incomes and is expected to snare millions of middle-income families over the next few years. Both candidates have said they want to prevent that from happening. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that doing so could cost $549 billion over 10 years.

"It's unclear to me that either candidate is better," said Robert Bixby, director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan research group that has denounced the Bush administration's budget policies for years as reckless and misleading. "Both of them have the same goal, and both of them are avoiding many of the same issues."

Last week, the two battled over who would do more to cut taxes for middle-income families. Citing new calculations by the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Kerry denounced Mr. Bush's tax cuts as overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

The Bush administration fought back, saying the tax cuts had reduced tax burdens at every income level. Each candidate has accused the other of fiscal irresponsibility and playing with the numbers.

"John Kerry only has a patchwork of proposals that simply don't add up," said Terry Holt, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign. "He has spent what he would raise from taxes a half-dozen different ways."

Democrats have accused Mr. Bush of presiding over the worst fiscal deterioration in history, from projected surpluses of $5 trillion over 10 years to projected deficits of $5 trillion if all of Mr. Bush's tax cuts become permanent.

"The difference is between night and day," said Gene Sperling, a top economic adviser to Mr. Kerry. "George Bush didn't just run up the deficit. He completely changed the climate in Washington from a rare moment of bipartisan fiscal discipline to a 'deficits don't matter, pay for anything' kind of culture."

Mr. Bush's tax plans would cost about $1.13 trillion over 10 years, according to the White House's own estimates. Mr. Bush would freeze spending on domestic discretionary programs outside of the military and domestic security, but that would affect only about 20 percent of the federal budget.

Mr. Kerry's plan would raise $860 billion over 10 years by reversing recent tax cuts for families with incomes above $200,000 a year; he would use that money to finance his $653 billion health care plan and a host of other programs.

Compared with Mr. Bush's plans, Mr. Kerry's proposals would amount to an increase in taxes. But the full panoply of Mr. Kerry's proposals would lead to tax cuts totaling $425 billion over 10 years, which would rank him as one of the biggest tax-cutters in history.

Under pressure to shore up his fiscal credibility, Mr. Kerry has in recent weeks scaled back some proposals, including one for a national service corps, and warned that other proposals may have to wait if there is no money to pay for them.

But he still offers an ambitious list. Mr. Kerry would spend $207 billion on education over the next 10 years, from expansion of after-school programs and school modernization to tax credits for college tuition costs. Other major proposals include $55 billion for veterans' health care and military families; $30 billion in tax cuts and spending for high technology; and up to $80 billion for an extra 40,000 soldiers.

In a tacit admission that the numbers are hard to reconcile, Mr. Kerry's supporters argue that the crucial issue is not so much the numbers as the commitment of the candidate to reduce the deficit.

"It is imperative that the next president has an internalized sense of how important this is," said Robert E. Rubin, who was Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and is an informal Kerry adviser. "The only way you are going to deal with it is if you have a very committed president."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[AnIInWon]

Kerry, Bush Even in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, Polls Show

Oct. 24 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senator John Kerry pulled even with President George W. Bush in election polls in Florida, partly helped by a surge in newly registered voters, according to a survey done for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel newspaper.

The two candidates also are in statistical ties in surveys taken in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Both campaigns say the three states, which together have 68 of the 270 Electoral College votes need to win the presidency, are among the key battlegrounds for the Nov. 2 election.

Bush was in Ohio on Friday and is attending a rally today in Alamogordo, New Mexico. Kerry is speaking in the Florida cities of Fort Lauderdale and Boca Raton. Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio are the states most frequently visited by Bush and Kerry over the past six months, according to travel summaries released by the campaigns.

The Oct. 18-21 Florida poll shows Kerry supported by 48 percent of registered voters and Bush supported by 47 percent. The survey of 600 adults who have a history of voting in statewide elections has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, according to the Sun-Sentinel. The survey was conducted by Rockville, Maryland-based Research 2000.

Kerry is backed by 53 percent of voters age 18 to 34, compared with 44 percent for Bush. The Fort Lauderdale, Florida- based Sun-Sentinel reported that Kerry has strong support among the record number of newly registered voters in the state.

Other Polls

Polls by Quinnipiac University and Mason-Dixon Polling and Research released last week showed Bush with an edge of 2 to 3 percentage points in Florida.

Florida decided the 2000 election after the U.S. Supreme Court halted a recount of ballots in the state, leaving Bush with a 537-vote winning margin out of about 6 million ballots cast. That gave Bush 271 electoral votes to Democrat Al Gore's 267. The electoral votes, apportioned among the states based on congressional representation, decides the election rather than the national popular vote tally.

In Ohio, which Bush won in the last election, Kerry was backed by 50 percent of likely voters and Bush was supported by 46 percent in a poll conducted by Ohio University's Scripps Survey Research Center for the Cincinnati Post. The result is within the poll's 5.3 percentage point margin of error.

The survey of 358 adults identified as likely to vote was conducted Oct. 17-21.

No Republican has won the presidency without also winning Ohio.

Kerry and Bush also are waging a close battle in Pennsylvania, a state that went for Gore in 2000.

Kerry led Bush 48 percent to 46 percent in a poll conducted by the Morning Call newspaper and Muhlenberg College, both in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The results are within the poll's 3.5 percentage point margin of error. The poll of 787 registered voters was taken Oct. 17 through Oct. 21.

A poll in May by the Morning Call and Muhlenberg gave Kerry a 48 percent to 43 percent advantage over the president, the paper said.

Bush and Kerry plan campaign stops in Pennsylvania this week.

[illilmicy]

May 25, 2004

Campaign Ads Are Under Fire for Inaccuracy

By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, May 24 — A record year for political advertising has brought with it a hail of televised exaggerations, omissions and mischaracterizations that pollsters say seem to be leaving voters with mistaken impressions of Senator John Kerry and President Bush.

The degree to which the advertisements push the facts, or go beyond them, varies by commercial. While Mr. Bush's campaign has been singled out as going particularly far with some of its claims, Mr. Kerry's campaign has also been criticized as frequently going beyond the bounds of truth.

In three of its advertisements, Mr. Bush's campaign has said Mr. Kerry would raise taxes by at least $900 billion in his first 100 days in office. Mr. Kerry has no such plan.

In an advertisement for Mr. Kerry, an announcer said, "George Bush says sending jobs overseas makes sense for America." Mr. Bush never said that. A report to Congress by his top economic adviser said cheaper production of goods overseas had long-term benefits but did not make the plain case that domestic job losses were a good thing.

Outside groups are getting into the act as well.

The League of Conservation Voters, which has endorsed Mr. Kerry, is running an advertisement in Florida warning that "President Bush opened up Florida's coast to offshore drilling." But the drilling area that was opened under Mr. Bush is 100 miles off the coast, much farther than it would have been under a Clinton administration proposal.

Of course, it is a time-tested practice to make one's opponent look as bad as possible in a political campaign, whether the race is for town council or the presidency of the United States. And the campaigns and outside groups say they are under no obligation to present defenses for their opponents in their own advertisements, all of which are at least tenuously based in fact.

But this campaign season, with total advertising spending at roughly $150 million since early last summer, the number of distortions and omissions is worrying some good-government groups, which say they fear that the big money behind the claims is leaving indelible impressions.

"Even people who don't think there is much information in these ads and say they don't learn anything from them tell us they believe factoids they could only have gotten from these ads, and they're wrong," said Brooks Jackson, director of Factcheck.org, an Annenberg Public Policy Center Web site that vets political advertisements for accuracy. "It's beyond subliminal — it's something else I haven't come up with a name for."

This month the Annenberg Center, at the University of Pennsylvania, released a poll of voters in battleground states that found many believed misleading statements made in the advertisements.

In a survey conducted from April 15 to May 2, 61 percent of the 1,026 voters questioned in the 18 swing states where most of the advertising has run said they believed Mr. Bush favored sending jobs overseas. And 72 percent said they believed that three million jobs had been lost during Mr. Bush's presidency. Mr. Kerry made that claim in a spot in late February, when the most commonly used Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed the actual net job loss to be closer to 2.3 million, down from 2.7 million in late summer. That number is now less than 1.6 million. (Mr. Kerry's figures did not include government jobs.)

In the same survey, 46 percent of those questioned said they believed Mr. Kerry "wants to raise gasoline taxes by 50 cents a gallon." Three spots for Mr. Bush have said that Mr. Kerry supported a 50-cent-a-gallon tax hike on gasoline, an assertion based from comments Mr. Kerry that appeared in two newspapers 10 years ago regarding a position he never acted on and has long since abandoned.

More than half of those surveyed also said they believed Mr. Kerry had "voted for higher taxes 350 times." That idea, Annenberg researchers concluded, is based on a commercial for Mr. Bush in which an announcer said, "Kerry supported higher taxes over 350 times." While Bush campaign aides say the contention is accurate and have made public a list of instances to which it refers, they acknowledge that in several of these cases Mr. Kerry had in fact either voted to maintain tax rates or even to cut them, but not by as much as Republicans had proposed.

"Each of these votes amounted to higher taxes than an alternative," said Terry Holt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign. "We expect that voters will reach the obvious conclusion that John Kerry will increase your taxes or will oppose efforts to cut taxes."

Asked why the spot did not simply say that Mr. Kerry has consistently voted for higher taxes than Republicans have proposed, which even the Kerry campaign would not dispute, Mr. Holt said, "We said `supported higher taxes,' as provably true and totally accurate."

Several other commercials this year have been criticized for pushing past the facts when they could have indisputably conveyed similar points with less sensational-sounding claims.

For instance, one of Mr. Kerry's new commercials boasts that he provided "a decisive vote" for President Bill Clinton's 1993 economic plan, which, it maintains, "created 20 million new jobs." The bill passed by a single vote in the Senate, giving anybody who voted for it a claim to have provided a decisive vote. But at the time, it was the last-minute support of Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, that was considered decisive. And even economists who credit the plan with playing a significant role in the 1990's boom say Mr. Kerry's spot goes too far.

"To say that any one economic package was responsible for all of the stuff going on in the 90's is kind of ridiculous," said L. Douglas Lee, president of Economics From Washington, an economic policy analysis firm. Still, Mr. Lee said, the 1993 package was an important factor in the boom.

Asked why the spot did not simply say Mr. Kerry voted for a package credited with helping to set the conditions for the boom, Michael Meehan, a Kerry spokesman, said: "That's why we have elections. People get to decide. We said it created 20 million jobs. If people don't believe that, they should vote for someone else."

Aides on both sides said privately that it was hard to fit all the nuance of complex policies into a vehicle designed to convey thoughts no more complex than "Tastes Great, Less Filling."

"There's only so much you can do in a 30-second ad," said an aide to Mr. Kerry, making a point that was echoed by a senior strategist for the Bush campaign.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, does not accept that. "When they could make the 30-second ad accurate and they don't, you've got to believe that they're intentionally misleading you," she said.

Kenneth M. Goldstein, an associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, said it was to be expected that the campaigns would take liberties, and that with both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush flush with cash, there was plenty of time for them to answer each other's claims.

"Politics is about putting your best foot forward and putting the other person in the worst light," Mr. Goldstein said. "Do we expect someone who's advertising to say, `You know, I really don't want to put this person's record in the worst light because that's not fair'?"

In the end, Mr. Jackson of Factcheck.org said, all that can be done is to continue to vet commercials for accuracy and try to set the record straight as publicly as possible. That, he said, is an occasionally thankless task:

"I've had consultants tell me, `Your ad watch runs once, my ad runs many times; who's going to win?' "


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[icyfreshy]

* 2004 Compact Voter's Guide *
Bush / Cheney: pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war, pro-death penalty.
Nader / Comejo: see above.
Kerry / Edwards: just in case the rapture will not be televised.