Wednesday, July 21, 2004

More on Minnesota

(Rereading the article, it appears Minnesota does not identify party registration on its lists of eligible voters, so the GOP's effort does make some sense, but still....aren't they flirting with the possibility of a backlash?  Is it that hard to target their base?  What is really going on?)
Wilson's Veracity

One thing that is beginning to bother me regarding the entire Joseph Wilson truth-telling brouhaha is whether or not the combatants are talking about different periods of time.  Most of the supposed contacts between Iraq and Niger were said to have taken place in 1999 or earlier.  In 2002, Wilson was dispatched to evaluate whether anything recent had happened in Niger.  So - what period of time are we discussing here - old news (1999 or earlier) or new news (2000 and later)?

In any event, to me, the damage done to Wilson so far appears slight.  The Republicans don't have a lot going for them, and the continued sniping just brings unwanted attention again and again and again to those precious 16 words.
Getting a Grip

Dealing with the WWSJ paranoia.

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

The Party Wants to Know!

"But it's not as if we're asking for Social Security number and make and model and serial number of car. We're asking for party preference," he said. "Party preference is not something that is such a personal piece of data." 

Actually it's the most important thing to know, isn't it?  But that's available on the list of registered voters anyway.  So why ask?  I suspect the point is not to identify party preferences, but rather the snoopiest, most effective volunteers.  For more important missions, to come soon! 



Ad Buys and Battleground States
 
There was an interesting article in the Sunday New York Times showing where the Bush and Kerry campaigns are buying television advertising (maps unfortunately appear only in the print edition).  Not surprisingly, most of the money is going into places considered electoral toss-ups.  Nevertheless, there are some battleground areas where very little money is being spent, and I find that a puzzle. 
 
For example, despite large TV ad buys in New Mexico (my home state), there appears to be nothing happening in the Las Cruces area (second-largest city in the state).  That's no doubt because Las Cruces is far from Albuquerque, the state's largest city, but much closer to El Paso, Texas, and since Texas is considered a Bush lock, little advertising is coming their way.  Nevertheless, the state went for Gore by just a few hundred votes in 2000, and it would seem just prudent for both campaigns to toss some money into the El Paso TV market.  What gives?
 
Similarly, entire states are being neglected that have shown rather close margins in recent polls.  For example, Tennessee.  Or North and South Carolina.  Arizona too (I wonder how solid those recent polls are that showed a Bush surge there after McCain squelched the Democratic veep talk, given how equivocal the polls had been before?  Times, they may be a changin'.)
 
There's a lot of room for mistakes here!

What a Crock!
 
July 20, 2004    Cedar Rapids, Iowa -- President Bush said Tuesday his re-election will ensure safety for Americans as well as for those in the rest of the world in the war against terrorism.

"After four years more in this office I want people to look back and say, 'The world is a more peaceful place,"' Bush told supporters at a community college in Iowa. "Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be at peace."

Monday, July 19, 2004