Whenever people talk about how Social Security needs to be cut, I think of a story that goes something like this:
Imagine you run a lemonade stand downtown. People give you money, you promise to give them lemonade when they need it, and you use the money to buy lemons and sugar to make lemonade, which you then give to the people for refreshment on those hot summer days.....
I'm sick of Iraq. I'm sick of Al Qaida. I'm sick of Vietnam and TANG. And most of all I'm sick of hearing "Kerry's not that different from Bush," and "I'm not sure whether to vote for Kerry or Nader/nobody/myself," and "Let's get someone other than a Democrat or Republican."
I try to tell these people that they need to accept that either Bush or Kerry will be president in January, and they might as well vote their preference. Sometimes I'll try to explain that for anyone other than Bush or Kerry to win, they would've had to have built strong support a long time ago, starting at least two years ago. From there, I started thinking about who might have any chance of taking it at this late date. So let's have a little fun.....
This week, we've had reports of people (primarily in swing states) getting phone calls with a recording of George W. Bush encouraging them to vote absentee, which may be illegal at least in some states. Diaries on this have been written by me
, and Sedge
Thanks to Sedge and her answering machine, I'm now able to provide an MP3 file of the call.
I've also scanned the mailer he referenced in the call. For complete details and larger images, see the web page I set up.
Transcript and thumbnails after the cut.
I'm a registered Democrat sitting here in North Canton, Ohio, a Republican-leaning suburb in a swing county in Jeff Seemann
's district. And I just got a phone call from George W. Bush.
So last year you got enthusiastic about beating Bush, and found just the candidate to do it. You even put that candidate's bumper sticker on your car.
But your guy (or Carol) didn't win the nomination. And you were a bit nervous about some of the potential VP picks that were floated.
Now we have a two-man ticket. So of course the vital question of the day is: What happens on the bumper?
So many people seem to think that the Iowa results are the death knell for the Dean campaign. But in USA Today's Iowa coverage today (print edition; I couldn't find this part online), they included a summary of Iowa results since '72.
Check out what happened to the Republicans in 1988:
- Bob Dole 37%
Pat Robertson 25%
George Bush 19%
Jack Kemp 11%
- The buzz:
- Front-runner Bush was upended. He fought back and won New Hampshire.
Looks like Tuesday was a day of positive Dean stories
, but I haven't seen anyone mention this one
yet, though it was USA Today's main cover story:
"Being a doctor shapes Dean's politics, manner
Patients, aides, friends and critics see self-assurance and impatience in the Democrat"
So let's assume for the moment that in a hard-fought election year, Dean beats W in November. No recounts necessary. Then Dean starts planning to take office two months later.
Will the Bush administration take a scorched-Earth line, doing as much damage as they can in that two months?
In 2000, for many reasons, Nader voters were a factor in the final results. This time around, Kucinich is getting many of those people back into the Democratic party -- for now. But there's still a possibility that Nader or someone else will run as as a Green; Nader has said he'll decide by the end of 2003. (The Natural Law party has endorsed Kucinich already.)
Now, we all know that Kucinich is not going to get the nomination. (And if he somehow manages to, conventional wisdom is that Bush would stomp him.) So what will his supporters do next November?