[Liberation News Service]: Countdown to Electoral Uprising -- 10 Days to Go -- Corporatist Media Complicit w/ Cooked Polls, Former KY Rep. Sen & Virginia Editorial Repudiate Bush, 35 Reasons JFK Will Win, College Overwhelming for JFK

[richard power]

There are only 10 days to go until the national
referendum on the CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE and
CHARACTER of the _resident, the VICE _resident and the
US regimestream news media that fronts for them…There
is an Electoral Uprising coming on November 2,
2004…Here are FIVE stories that provide compelling
evidence…Please read them and share them with others.
Please vote and encourage others to vote. Please
remember that the US regimestream news media does not
want to inform you about this campaign, it want to
DISinform you…The US regimestream news media is a full
partner in a Triad of shared special interests (e.g.,
energy, weapons, media, pharmaceuticals, chemicals,
tobacco, etc.) with the Bush Cabal and its
wholly-owned-subsidiary-formerly-known-as-the-Republican-Party…They
are going to try to steal this election. They cannot
steal it if enough of us vote…”Let us not talk falsely
now, the hour is getting late.”
Paul Krugman, NY Times: But if you get your political
news from cable TV, you probably have a very different
sense of where things stand. CNN, which co-sponsored
that Gallup poll, rarely informs its viewers that
other polls tell a very different story. The same is
true of Fox News, which has its own very Bush-friendly
poll. As a result, there is a widespread public
impression that Mr. Bush holds a commanding lead.
By the way, why does the Gallup poll, which is
influential because of its illustrious history, report
a large Bush lead when many other polls show a dead
heat? It's mostly because of how Gallup determines
"likely voters": the poll shows only a three-point
Bush lead among registered voters. And as the
Democratic poll expert Ruy Teixeira points out (using
data obtained by Steve Soto, a liberal blogger),
Gallup's sample of supposedly likely voters contains a
much smaller proportion of both minority and young
voters than the actual proportions of these voters in
the 2000 election. 
A broad view of the polls, then, suggests that Mr.
Bush is in trouble. But he is likely to benefit from a
distorted vote count.
Florida is the prime, but not the only, example.
Recent Florida polls suggest a tight race, which could
be tipped by a failure to count all the votes. And
votes for Mr. Kerry will be systematically
undercounted.
Marlow W. Cook (Former Republican Senator from
Kentucky), Courier-Journal: I have been, and will
continue to be, a Republican. But when we as a party
send the wrong person to the White House, then it is
our responsibility to send him home if our nation
suffers as a result of his actions…
First, let's talk about George Bush's moral standards.

In 2000, to defeat Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — a man
who was shot down in Vietnam and imprisoned for over
five years — they used Carl Rove's "East Texas
special." They started the rumor that he was gay,
saying he had spent too much time in the Hanoi Hilton.
They said he was crazy. They said his wife was on
drugs. Then, to top it off, they spread pictures of
his adopted daughter, who was born in Bangladesh and
thus dark skinned, to the sons and daughters of the
Confederacy in rural South Carolina. 
To show he was not just picking on Republicans, he
went after Sen. Max Cleland from Georgia, a Democrat
seeking re-election. Bush henchmen said he wasn't
patriotic because Cleland did not agree 100 percent on
how to handle homeland security. They published his
picture along with Cuba's Castro, questioning
Cleland's patriotism and commitment to America's
security. Never mind that his Republican challenger
was a Vietnam deferment case and Cleland, who had
served in Vietnam, came home in a wheel chair having
lost three limbs fighting for his country. Anyone who
wants to win an election and control of the
legislative body that badly has no moral character at
all. 
We know his father got him in the Texas Air National
Guard so he would not have to go to Vietnam. The
religious right can have him with those moral
standards. We also have Vice President Dick Cheney,
who deferred his way out of Vietnam because, as he
says, he "had more important things to do." 
I have just turned 78. During my lifetime, we have
sent 31,377,741 Americans to war, not including
whatever will be the final figures for the Iraq
fiasco. Of those, 502,722 died and 928,980 came home
without legs, arms or what have you. 
Those wars were to defend freedom throughout the free
world from communism, dictators and tyrants. Now
Americans are the aggressors — we start the wars, we
blow up all the infrastructure in those countries, and
then turn around and spend tax dollars denying our
nation an excellent education system, medical and drug
programs, and the list goes on. ... 
Virginia-Pilot Editorial: National security. Bush
greeted the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the
World Trade Center with passion and steely purpose. He
routed the Taliban in Afghanistan, earning worldwide
applause. It was his finest hour. 
But when the bull’s-eye shifted from Osama bin Laden
to Saddam Hussein, the unraveling began. 
But when the bull’s-eye shifted from Osama bin Laden
to Saddam Hussein, the unraveling began. 
>From the start, Bush failed to square with the
American people about the true nature of his bold
gamble to establish a democratic beachhead in Iraq. 
He justified the venture first on the basis of a
nonexistent bond between al-Qaida and Saddam, next on
equally non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Duped by misplaced faith in shadowy Iraqi resistance
figures, Bush wrongly assumed that we would be greeted
as liberators, not occupiers. He failed to protect
Iraq’s infrastructure, failed to foresee the
consequences of disbanding the Iraqi army, failed to
have enough troops on the ground to secure a peace. 
It’s not as if no one warned him. Beginning with Brent
Scowcroft, his father’s national security adviser, a
host of respected leaders in the military and
intelligence communities raised objections, only to be
silenced by Bush’s certitude and the deafening
drumbeats of war. 
Equally troubling, on the home front, Bush asked
nothing in the way of sacrifice — not a halt in tax
cuts, not a delay in Medicare prescription drug
benefits, not even a little less mileage on the SUV. 
The dissembling continues to this day. Earlier this
month the Duelfer report dished up the last word on
weapons of mass destruction. “We were almost all
wrong,” the chief weapons inspector said. Yet Bush
persists in arguing that he got it right. 
Meanwhile, the body count rises, our moral authority
sags and Iraq looks more and more like what we most
feared: a breeding ground for terrorists. 
Economic security. Bush inherited a recession. That is
not his fault. He promised that tax cuts would put
America back to work. 
Congress obliged. But today we have fewer jobs than
when Bush took office. And by cutting revenues and
increasing spending we have traded a record surplus
for a record deficit. 
That’s because when circumstances changed with 9/11,
Bush didn’t. He held fast to tax cuts while beefing up
spending for the war and homeland security, all
defensible. What’s indefensible is that he also
invited an explosion in domestic spending, including
an unaffordable prescription drug plan that is the
largest escalation of Medicare in its history. 
Now, instead of a $4.6 trillion, 10-year surplus, the
nation faces debt as far as the eye can see. 
We are gobbling up more than our children’s
inheritances. We are robbing their future paychecks to
repay our debts. 
Retirement security. That same recklessness has
diminished America’s ability to make good on its
promises to seniors…
Bush should have applied some of the surplus to that
systemic Frankenstein. To keep faith with the future,
he should have been building a financial cushion to
soften the blow. 
He did not. 
He elevated the short-term gratification of tax cuts,
including breaks for the nation’s wealthiest citizens,
over the long-term stability of a critical safety net.
His lack of foresight has made a bad situation worse. 

Tom Ball, www.politicalstrategy.com: Top 35 Trends
that say Kerry will Take the White House in
November..This election is not just any old
presidential election. To Progressives, it's a matter
of life and death. 
It will be the difference between global respect for
America and multilateral cooperation or increased
anti-Americanism and never-ending, preemptive
unilateral war...the difference between American
values of civil liberty and freedom or curbs on
inalienable rights and invasions of privacy...the
difference between a future of hope, health, safety,
peace and prosperity or one of isolation, violence,
debt, and fear.
And this brings me to the reason that we will win in
November...
...because we have to. 
This 'do or die' perception is what is going to drive
progressives and moderates to the polls in record
numbers to end the madness. This is why the
traditionally apathetic 18-24 year old demographic
(Also known as 'Future Casualties of Bush Wars') is
going to put down their cell phones long enough to
pull the lever for Kerry.
So Who's Winning? 
Recently, a couple nationwide polls have shown Bush
with a substantial lead, including some nonsensical
outlier from Fox News and an equally unrealistic poll
from Gallup which showed likely voters favoring Bush
by 8 points. What's going on?
Fear not. It is all a grand load of garbage! 
Remember, a Gallup poll released on October 26, 2000,
less than two weeks before the election, had George
Bush leading Al Gore by 13 points! Numerous Gallup
polls during the final weeks of the 2000 campaign had
Bush with ludicrously large leads. 
And this time, Gallup has Bush ahead by 8 among likely
voters but by 3 among registered voters. 
So how do you go from a 3 point lead among registered
voters to an 8 point lead among likely voters? By
projecting that 89 percent of registered Bush
supporters will vote but only 81 percent of registered
Kerry supporters will vote. But as we know, this is
totally unrealistic.

Reuters:  The majority of U.S. college students favor
Democratic challenger John Kerry over President Bush,
according to a Harvard University poll released on
Thursday that sees a dramatic rise in campus voter
turnout. 
Just weeks before the Nov. 2 election, researchers at
Harvard's Institute of Politics found that 52 percent
of all students want the Massachusetts senator elected
president, 39 percent support Bush, and 8 percent are
undecided. 
In 14 hotly contested swing states, the poll shows
Kerry leading Bush by 17 points among students. 
The data suggest more students are leaning toward
Kerry than six months ago, when Harvard last surveyed
them. That poll, released in April, found Kerry
leading Bush by 48-38 percent with 11 percent
undecided. Independent candidate Ralph Nader (news -
web sites) received 1 percent support in this poll,
down from 5 percent in April. 

Support Our Troops, Save the US Constitution,
Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Restore Fiscal Responsibility in the White House,
Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Save the Environment, Break the Corporatist
Stranglehold on the US Mainstream News Media, Rescue
the US Supreme Court from Right-Wing Radicals, Cleanse
the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup and Its
War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat the Triad, Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html

Voting and Counting
By PAUL KRUGMAN
 
Published: October 22, 2004
If the election were held today and the votes were
counted fairly, Senator John Kerry would probably win.
But the votes won't be counted fairly, and the
disenfranchisement of minority voters may determine
the outcome. 
Recent national poll results range from a
three-percentage-point Kerry lead in the A.P.-Ipsos
poll released yesterday to an eight-point Bush lead in
the Gallup poll. But if you line up the polls released
this week from the most to the least favorable to
President Bush, the polls in the middle show a tie at
about 47 percent.
This is bad news for Mr. Bush because undecided voters
usually break against the incumbent - not always, but
we're talking about probabilities. Those
middle-of-the-road polls also show Mr. Bush with job
approval around 47 percent, putting him very much in
the danger zone.
Electoral College projections based on state polls
also show a dead heat. Projections assuming that
undecided voters will break for the challenger in
typical proportions give Mr. Kerry more than 300
electoral votes.
But if you get your political news from cable TV, you
probably have a very different sense of where things
stand. CNN, which co-sponsored that Gallup poll,
rarely informs its viewers that other polls tell a
very different story. The same is true of Fox News,
which has its own very Bush-friendly poll. As a
result, there is a widespread public impression that
Mr. Bush holds a commanding lead.
By the way, why does the Gallup poll, which is
influential because of its illustrious history, report
a large Bush lead when many other polls show a dead
heat? It's mostly because of how Gallup determines
"likely voters": the poll shows only a three-point
Bush lead among registered voters. And as the
Democratic poll expert Ruy Teixeira points out (using
data obtained by Steve Soto, a liberal blogger),
Gallup's sample of supposedly likely voters contains a
much smaller proportion of both minority and young
voters than the actual proportions of these voters in
the 2000 election. 
A broad view of the polls, then, suggests that Mr.
Bush is in trouble. But he is likely to benefit from a
distorted vote count.
Florida is the prime, but not the only, example.
Recent Florida polls suggest a tight race, which could
be tipped by a failure to count all the votes. And
votes for Mr. Kerry will be systematically
undercounted.
Last week I described Greg Palast's work on the 2000
election, reported recently in Harper's, which
conclusively shows that Florida was thrown to Mr. Bush
by a combination of factors that disenfranchised black
voters. These included a defective felon list, which
wrongly struck thousands of people from the voter
rolls, and defective voting machines, which
disproportionately failed to record votes in poor,
black districts.
One might have expected Florida's government to fix
these problems during the intervening four years. But
most of those wrongly denied voting rights in 2000
still haven't had those rights restored - and the
replacement of punch-card machines has created new
problems.
After the 2000 debacle, a task force appointed by Gov.
Jeb Bush recommended that the state adopt a robust
voting technology that would greatly reduce the number
of spoiled ballots and provide a paper trail for
recounts: paper ballots read by optical scanners that
alert voters to problems. This system is in use in
some affluent, mainly white Florida counties.
But Governor Bush ignored this recommendation, just as
he ignored state officials who urged him to "pull the
plug" on a new felon list - which was quickly
discredited once a judge forced the state to make it
public - just days before he ordered the list put into
effect. Instead, much of the state will vote using
touch-screen machines that are unreliable and subject
to hacking, and leave no paper trail. Mr. Palast
estimates that this will disenfranchise 27,000 voters
- disproportionately poor and black. 
A lot can change in 11 days, and Mr. Bush may yet win
convincingly. But we must not repeat the mistake of
2000 by refusing to acknowledge the possibility that a
narrow Bush win, especially if it depends on Florida,
rests on the systematic disenfranchisement of minority
voters. And the media must not treat such a suspect
win as a validation of skewed reporting that has
consistently overstated Mr. Bush's popular support. 



http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/20/oped-marlow1020-8060.html

A FORMER REPUBLICAN SENATOR FOR KERRY 
'Frightened to death' of Bush

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Marlow W. Cook
Special to The Courier-Journal 


 
I shall cast my vote for John Kerry come Nov 2. 

I have been, and will continue to be, a Republican.
But when we as a party send the wrong person to the
White House, then it is our responsibility to send him
home if our nation suffers as a result of his actions.
I fall in the category of good conservative thinkers,
like George F. Will, for instance, who wrote: "This
administration cannot be trusted to govern if it
cannot be counted on to think and having thought, to
have second thoughts." 

I say, well done George Will, or, even better, from
the mouth of the numero uno of conservatives, William
F. Buckley Jr.: "If I knew then what I know now about
what kind of situation we would be in, I would have
opposed the war." 

First, let's talk about George Bush's moral standards.


In 2000, to defeat Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — a man
who was shot down in Vietnam and imprisoned for over
five years — they used Carl Rove's "East Texas
special." They started the rumor that he was gay,
saying he had spent too much time in the Hanoi Hilton.
They said he was crazy. They said his wife was on
drugs. Then, to top it off, they spread pictures of
his adopted daughter, who was born in Bangladesh and
thus dark skinned, to the sons and daughters of the
Confederacy in rural South Carolina. 

To show he was not just picking on Republicans, he
went after Sen. Max Cleland from Georgia, a Democrat
seeking re-election. Bush henchmen said he wasn't
patriotic because Cleland did not agree 100 percent on
how to handle homeland security. They published his
picture along with Cuba's Castro, questioning
Cleland's patriotism and commitment to America's
security. Never mind that his Republican challenger
was a Vietnam deferment case and Cleland, who had
served in Vietnam, came home in a wheel chair having
lost three limbs fighting for his country. Anyone who
wants to win an election and control of the
legislative body that badly has no moral character at
all. 

We know his father got him in the Texas Air National
Guard so he would not have to go to Vietnam. The
religious right can have him with those moral
standards. We also have Vice President Dick Cheney,
who deferred his way out of Vietnam because, as he
says, he "had more important things to do." 

I have just turned 78. During my lifetime, we have
sent 31,377,741 Americans to war, not including
whatever will be the final figures for the Iraq
fiasco. Of those, 502,722 died and 928,980 came home
without legs, arms or what have you. 

Those wars were to defend freedom throughout the free
world from communism, dictators and tyrants. Now
Americans are the aggressors — we start the wars, we
blow up all the infrastructure in those countries, and
then turn around and spend tax dollars denying our
nation an excellent education system, medical and drug
programs, and the list goes on. ... 

I hope you all have noticed the Bush administration's
style in the campaign so far. All negative, trashing
Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Democrats in
general. Not once have they said what they have done
right, what they have done wrong or what they have not
done at all. 

Lyndon Johnson said America could have guns and butter
at the same time. This administration says you can
have guns, butter and no taxes at the same time. God
help us if we are not smart enough to know that is
wrong, and we live by it to our peril. We in this
nation have a serious problem. Its almost worse than
terrorism: We are broke. Our government is borrowing a
billion dollars a day. They are now borrowing from the
government pension program, for apparently they have
gotten as much out of the Social Security Trust as it
can take. Our House and Senate announce weekly grants
for every kind of favorite local programs to save
legislative seats, and it's all borrowed money. 

If you listened to the President confirming the value
of our war with Iraq, you heard him say, "If no
weapons of mass destruction were found, at least we
know we have stopped his future distribution of same
to terrorists." If that is his justification, then, if
he is re-elected our next war will be against Iran and
at the same time North Korea, for indeed they have
weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, which
they have readily admitted. Those wars will require a
draft of men and women. ... 


I am not enamored with John Kerry, but I am frightened
to death of George Bush. I fear a secret government. I
abhor a government that refuses to supply the Congress
with requested information. I am against a government
that refuses to tell the country with whom the leaders
of our country sat down and determined our energy
policy, and to prove how much they want to keep that
secret, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court.



Those of you who are fiscal conservatives and abhor
our staggering debt, tell your conservative friends,
"Vote for Kerry," because without Bush to control the
Congress, the first thing lawmakers will demand Kerry
do is balance the budget. 


The wonderful thing about this country is its gift of
citizenship, then it's freedom to register as one sees
fit. For me, as a Republican, I feel that when my
party gives me a dangerous leader who flouts the
truth, takes the country into an undeclared war and
then adds a war on terrorism to it without debate by
the Congress, we have a duty to rid ourselves of those
who are taking our country on a perilous ride in the
wrong direction. 

If we are indeed the party of Lincoln (I paraphrase
his words), a president who deems to have the right to
declare war at will without the consent of the
Congress is a president who far exceeds his power
under our Constitution. 

I will take John Kerry for four years to put our
country on the right path. 

The writer, a Republican formerly of Louisville, was
Jefferson County judge from 1962-1968 and U.S. senator
from Kentucky from 1968-1975. 


http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=77017&ran=214061

A course change: The Virginian-Pilot endorses John
Kerry
The Virginian-Pilot
© October 21, 2004 
Last updated: 5:07 PM

Guestbook discussion: Who's your choice for president?
Why? 
 
George W. Bush oiled the troubled waters of his 2000
election by promising to govern as a unifier and a
compassionate conservative. 

Four years later, the nation is more bitterly split
than ever. That is because the president abandoned the
middle ground of the Republican Party in favor of its
ideological edge. 

He discourages internal dissent, equates disagreement
with disloyalty and presents the terrorist attacks of
9/11 as an unassailable justification for whatever
course the administration takes. 

If polls are correct, half of America stands ready to
reward his performance with a second term. Their trust
rests on faith in the transparency of Bush’s
character, that you get what you see, that no one
believes more fervently than Bush that freedom is
rising abroad and prosperity is around the corner at
home. 

In anxious and uncertain times, his confidence and
clarity carry undeniable appeal. 

But Americans must approach this election governed by
their heads as well as their hearts. 

Resolve is no substitute for results. Americans need
to answer honestly: Has Bush strengthened our national
security? Our economic security? Our retirement
security? Or have his judgments jeopardized all three?



National security. Bush greeted the terrorist attacks
on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center with
passion and steely purpose. He routed the Taliban in
Afghanistan, earning worldwide applause. It was his
finest hour. 

But when the bull’s-eye shifted from Osama bin Laden
to Saddam Hussein, the unraveling began. 

>From the start, Bush failed to square with the
American people about the true nature of his bold
gamble to establish a democratic beachhead in Iraq. 

He justified the venture first on the basis of a
nonexistent bond between al-Qaida and Saddam, next on
equally non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Duped by misplaced faith in shadowy Iraqi resistance
figures, Bush wrongly assumed that we would be greeted
as liberators, not occupiers. He failed to protect
Iraq’s infrastructure, failed to foresee the
consequences of disbanding the Iraqi army, failed to
have enough troops on the ground to secure a peace. 

It’s not as if no one warned him. Beginning with Brent
Scowcroft, his father’s national security adviser, a
host of respected leaders in the military and
intelligence communities raised objections, only to be
silenced by Bush’s certitude and the deafening
drumbeats of war. 

Equally troubling, on the home front, Bush asked
nothing in the way of sacrifice — not a halt in tax
cuts, not a delay in Medicare prescription drug
benefits, not even a little less mileage on the SUV. 

The dissembling continues to this day. Earlier this
month the Duelfer report dished up the last word on
weapons of mass destruction. “We were almost all
wrong,” the chief weapons inspector said. Yet Bush
persists in arguing that he got it right. 

Meanwhile, the body count rises, our moral authority
sags and Iraq looks more and more like what we most
feared: a breeding ground for terrorists. 


Economic security. Bush inherited a recession. That is
not his fault. He promised that tax cuts would put
America back to work. 

Congress obliged. But today we have fewer jobs than
when Bush took office. And by cutting revenues and
increasing spending we have traded a record surplus
for a record deficit. 

That’s because when circumstances changed with 9/11,
Bush didn’t. He held fast to tax cuts while beefing up
spending for the war and homeland security, all
defensible. What’s indefensible is that he also
invited an explosion in domestic spending, including
an unaffordable prescription drug plan that is the
largest escalation of Medicare in its history. 

Now, instead of a $4.6 trillion, 10-year surplus, the
nation faces debt as far as the eye can see. 

We are gobbling up more than our children’s
inheritances. We are robbing their future paychecks to
repay our debts. 


Retirement security. That same recklessness has
diminished America’s ability to make good on its
promises to seniors. 

In 1960, the ratio of workers to retirees was better
than 5 to 1. By 2030, it will be just over 2 to 1. By
2018 the Social Security system will start paying out
more in benefits than it takes in through taxes. 

Bush should have applied some of the surplus to that
systemic Frankenstein. To keep faith with the future,
he should have been building a financial cushion to
soften the blow. 

He did not. 

He elevated the short-term gratification of tax cuts,
including breaks for the nation’s wealthiest citizens,
over the long-term stability of a critical safety net.
His lack of foresight has made a bad situation worse. 

To our regret, Massachussetts Sen. John Kerry has also
over-promised with the nation’s resources. 

Kerry has yet to square his pledge to never raise
taxes on the middle class with the reality that
revenue to rescue Social Security and Medicare will
have to come from somewhere. 

But at least Kerry proposes to return to the principle
of pay-as-you-go for ordinary federal spending. And he
doesn’t advocate destabilizing Social Security by
allowing personally owned retirement accounts, as does
Bush. 


We have misgivings about Kerry’s ability to connect
with ordinary people. We were frustrated by his
long-winded explanations. And he hasn’t been as
forthright as we’d like on America’s slim hopes for
reclaiming lost overseas jobs. 

But on balance, Kerry is a better choice. He has shown
more substance than the flip-flopping caricature drawn
by his opponents. He demonstrates an admirable
seriousness of purpose, steadiness under fire, and a
grasp of the complexities of domestic and foreign
policy issues. 

Contrary to claims that he tilts with the prevailing
winds, Kerry has throughout his lifetime charted an
independent course. His zigs and zags reflect his
digestion of new information and his arrival at new
insights, not slavish devotion to public opinion. 

There is no better example of his convictions than his
decades-long involvement with Vietnam. 

As a young man he elected to go to war at a time when
few of his economic and social class took such
personal risk. Disillusioned by the experience, he
came home to challenge the moral justification for
that war at the highest levels of government. 

Over time, the prevailing historical view of the
Vietnam War has aligned with Kerry’s. But when he
spoke out in Washington, his was a minority voice.
Then, as decades passed and the nation wanted nothing
more than to forget Vietnam, Kerry insisted on a more
honorable conclusion. 

With Republican Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire, he
scoured the countryside for evidence of surviving
American captives. With GOP Sen. John McCain of
Arizona, he led in persuading President Clinton to
normalize relations with the country. 

Common sense and practicality rank high among Kerry’s
attributes. He supports importing prescription drugs
from Canada, expanding embryonic stem cell research
and rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy to finance
an innovative answer to high health-insurance
premiums. 

In poll after poll, Americans say that the nation is
on the wrong track. They are right. It is time for
fresh leadership at the Pentagon, time for a president
who will hold subordinates accountable, time for a
chief executive with the wisdom to recognize fatal
miscalculations. 

If you want the same results, you keep doing the same
thing. We do not doubt George Bush’s good intentions.
We doubt his judgment. The results speak for
themselves. 

John Kerry has demonstrated the personal courage and
intellectual stamina to put the nation on a sounder
course. 





© 2004 HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000580.php

Top 35 Trends that say Kerry will Take the White House
in November
By Tom Ball
10/20/04

This election is not just any old presidential
election. To Progressives, it's a matter of life and
death. 

It will be the difference between global respect for
America and multilateral cooperation or increased
anti-Americanism and never-ending, preemptive
unilateral war...the difference between American
values of civil liberty and freedom or curbs on
inalienable rights and invasions of privacy...the
difference between a future of hope, health, safety,
peace and prosperity or one of isolation, violence,
debt, and fear.

And this brings me to the reason that we will win in
November...

...because we have to. 

This 'do or die' perception is what is going to drive
progressives and moderates to the polls in record
numbers to end the madness. This is why the
traditionally apathetic 18-24 year old demographic
(Also known as 'Future Casualties of Bush Wars') is
going to put down their cell phones long enough to
pull the lever for Kerry.

So Who's Winning? 

Recently, a couple nationwide polls have shown Bush
with a substantial lead, including some nonsensical
outlier from Fox News and an equally unrealistic poll
from Gallup which showed likely voters favoring Bush
by 8 points. What's going on?

Fear not. It is all a grand load of garbage! 

Remember, a Gallup poll released on October 26, 2000,
less than two weeks before the election, had George
Bush leading Al Gore by 13 points! Numerous Gallup
polls during the final weeks of the 2000 campaign had
Bush with ludicrously large leads. 
And this time, Gallup has Bush ahead by 8 among likely
voters but by 3 among registered voters. 

[...]

So how do you go from a 3 point lead among registered
voters to an 8 point lead among likely voters? By
projecting that 89 percent of registered Bush
supporters will vote but only 81 percent of registered
Kerry supporters will vote. But as we know, this is
totally unrealistic.


Anyway, a Democracy Corps Poll released concurrent to
the ridiculous Gallup poll showed Kerry with a 3 point
lead.

Remember, in 2000, Democracy Corps' final poll,
released five days before the election, was right on
the money. In fact, every D.C. poll in the final weeks
of the 2000 campaign showed the race to be very, very
close.
Also...

* CBS News/NYT (10/19): Kerry 47%, Bush 47% among
likely voters (Bush approval at 44%)

* NBC News/WSJ (10/19): Kerry 48%, Bush 48%

* Zogby, the most accurate pollster of the last two
presidential elections has the race exactly tied at
45% with 7% still undecided. (Remember. Undecideds
tend to break for the challenger. More on that below.)

The national polls however, are just one part of an
extensive mosaic of influences on this election. And
you might be heartened to know that virtually all the
rest favor John Kerry.

Continue reading to discover the...

Top 35 Trends that say Kerry will Take the White House
in November

1) Bush must lead by 4%: Professor Alan of the
Emerging Democratic Majority shows that Bush must go
into November 2 with an average of at least a 4% lead
in such polls if he is to have any sort of hope for
four more years. 

2) The 'Cell Phone Polling' Phenomenon: Traditional
polling relies almost exclusively on landline
telephone. Unfortunately, according to Charlie Cook of
the Cook Political Report, as much as 18% of the
electorate don't have land lines and instead rely
exclusively on cell phones. The Hill gives us a little
something about this demographic:

In-Stat.MDR, a wireless market-research firm based in
Scottsdale, Ariz., conducted a survey of wireless
users in February of this year. Of the 970 people
questioned, 14.4 percent were cell-phone-only users,
the majority of whom were single Americans between the
ages of 18 and 24, living in mostly urban areas.
Anyone care to venture a guess as to how this
demographic overwhelmingly votes?

Yup. According to Newsweek (10/16/04), Young voters
(18-29) favor Kerry/Edwards by 9 points.

3) Zogby is the Most Accurate Pollster: Zogby, which
touts the most accurate polls for the last two
presidential elections, calls for a very strong Kerry
victory. He has referred to the race as "Kerry's to
lose."

In 2000, Zogby was one of several pollsters that was
only two cumulative percentage points off from the
actual, but it was the only one in that group to
actually choose Gore as the winner (which we all know
he was). 
In 1996, Zogby hit the nail right on the head. Sure,
everyone predicted a Clinton victory, but Zogby
predicted the exact percentage totals for Clinton,
Dole...and even Perot at 8%.


4) Kerry Has Large Lead in Swing States: Kerry is
doing extremely well where it matters, leading Bush by
10% in the swing states. According to the Washington
post.

5) PA Goes to Kerry:Pennsylvania is NOT in play! (and
neither is New Jersey. Don't let the GOP Poll
'Strategic Vision' fool you.) That leaves Ohio and
Florida as the next target.

6) Seniors Favor Kerry: Also, Among Registered Voters
in a 3-way matchup, seniors favor Kerry over Bush by a
large margin. According to Newsweek, Seniors (65+)
favor Kerry/Edwards by 15 points, 54-39. The 65+
Category is particularly important in Florida where
this age group make up a disproportionately large
percentage of the voting population.

7) Kerry Appeals to Independents in the Debates: Polls
showed that Kerry gained favor from swing voters as a
result of his performance. Many more people had
increased positive perceptions of Kerry as a result of
the debates than the number of people who an increased
positive perception for Bush. Conversely (I think),
The number of those whose perception of Kerry grew
more negative was less than the number of those whose
perception of Bush grew more negative as a result.

8) Kerry Appeals to independents... Period.: In
polling, self-proclaimed independents favor
Kerry/Edwards by 11 points, 51-40.

9) New Standard for GOTV: GOTV efforts were allocated
$25 million by the DNC in the 2000 election cycle.
This year they will commit about the same. The
difference, however, comes with a new 527 called
America Coming Together, a group that will be devoting
at least $125 million toward the GOTV effort. They
will also be adding an expertise, coordination and
organization unseen in prior years.

10) Democrats Won the Registration Wars: Voter
Registrations have heavily favored the Democratic
party this cycle. Dems have made significant gains on
Republicans in numbers of party affiliated
registrations in practically every swing state.


Debate Effect

11) Kerry Erased Doubts About Himself: The Debates
erased many of the doubts held by undecideds as Kerry
showed a man that was poised, consistent, tough,
intelligent, able to think on his feet and keep his
cool. He was a man with a plan for everything. Dare I
say - He was 'presidential'...and he didn't need a
transmitter to pull it off. Kerry was also successful
in countering the nonsense charges of 'flip-flopping'.

12) Bush Increased Doubts About Himself: The debates
raised doubts about Bush. He was inept, incoherent,
repetitive, negative, inconsistent and lacking in
identity. (Which debate had the 'real' Bush?). He was
unable to defend his record and unable to conjure any
meaningful new attacks on Kerry. Bush did succeed in
one facet of the debates. He succeeded in spurring two
rumors that might explain his dubious debate
performances. One, that he was "hooked up" to his
handlers via a transmitter hidden under his suit coat.
And two. That he had suffered a mild stroke or some
sort of onsetting dementia.


Now (Election 2004) vs. Then (Election 2000)

13) Ralph Nader: Nader is less of an issue this year,
although he could still quite probably throw some
swing states to the evil one. In any event, Nader is
on the ballot in fewer states (but still on in
Florida) than in 2000, and hopefully most Naderites
will realize by Nov 2 that four more years of bush
will finish the job of destroying everything that they
claim to hold dear.

14) Howard Dean: The Dean Revolution has given rise to
a new generation of Democratic voters and activists.
It has given hope to a previously undercounted,
underappreciated and underestimated demographic. It
has rewritten the book on how elections are played.
Long live Howard Dean. Yaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrhhh!!!

15) Michael Moore: The 'Moore Effect' and Fahrenheit
911. Love it or leave it, polls show that the film had
significant influence on the impressions that
'uncommitted' voters had of Bush. In addition, most
anecdotal evidence suggests that those self-proclaimed
independents who saw it were 'disgusted and disturbed'
with Bush - not exactly words of likely Bush voters. 

16) George Soros: The Republicans have always had
their sugar daddies to fund all their wacky pet
projects -- Scaife, Coors, the Waltons, and others.
Now we have one that, if not funding all our wacky pet
projects, is at least putting his considerable
resources toward the same goals. Thank you George
Soros.

17) The 527's: The Joint Victory Campaign 2004, a
consortium of organizations including Moveon.org,
America Coming Together, the Media Fund, America
Votes, and the Thunder Road Group along with others
have turned this election cycle into one where
Democrats have been able to manage a virtual and
unprecedented financial parity with the GOP. At the
same time, these groups have supplied Democrats with
an enormous, talented, organized ground army as well
as attack dogs that are able to proxy for the Dems
when they couldn't involve themselves directly.

18) Newspaper endorsements: ...not they mean much by
themselves, but as a group, an interesting phenomenon
is occurring that might cause people to take notice.
It seems that those newspapers across the nation that
endorsed Gore are now endorsing Kerry - and those
papers that endorsed Bush are now
endorsing.....uh...well, some are endorsing Bush and
some are now endorsing Kerry. Seems quite one-sided.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that the editorial pages
of America's newspapers represent Joe and Jane voter.
But, the fact that prior Bush supporters, whomever
they should be, are moving into the Kerry camp, while
none of the Gore supporters are turning to Bush seems
at least a tad bit telling.

19) The New Progressive Media: Beginnings of a true
progressive media: The addition, since the 2000
election, of such institutions as Air America, the
Center for American Progress, the Rockridge Institute,
and Media Matters, along with the rise of the
"progressive web" (Blogs, news and opinion sites, and
headline aggregators) have given a new voice and a new
outlet with which to air it. This emerges from the
cloud of trash emanating from right-wing hate radio,
Fox News, the Washington Times, the NY Post, etc. Of
course this is just the beginning.

20) Better Informed Public: Voter fraud and
intimidation has come under greater scrutiny.
Hopefully this will cause the GOP to pause when they
enact their schemes.

21) Better Educated Florida Electorate: Florida Voters
are more aware and informed. Hopefully, that means
that there will be fewer overvotes and undervotes.
Hopefully people will know what to do if they feel
they are a victim of voter intimidation. Hopefully
Jewish seniors won't vote for Pat Buchanan. Hopefully,
counties won't dabble in 'Butterfly' ballots. 

22) Log Cabin Republicans: Log Cabin Republicans have
abandoned Bush. This administration's flagrant and
disgraceful bigotry targeted at gays has led the
primary GOP organization for gays to forego any
endorsement.. This means that the group, instead of
sending out literature urging their members to vote
for Bush, will be sending out information explaining
that the administration's push to amend the
constitution to define them as a second class
citizenry has forced them to suggest that members stay
home on election day. In 2000, one million
self-described gays and lesbians voted for Bush (Most
were not members of the Log Cabin Republicans
organization). Nevertheless, the impact of this
refusal to endorse Bush was felt across the
demographic. 

True, this doesn't mean that Bush will automatically
lose one million votes, but consider this. Suppose 95%
of those who voted for Bush in 2000 are likely to show
up in 2004 as well. Now suppose only 30% of those are
fed up enough not to vote (A reasonable, if not
conservative estimate). That means 95% x 30% x
1,000,000 = 285,000 fewer votes will make it into
Bush's electoral coffers than would otherwise have
made it. To counter this effect, one might consider
the increased number of votes from Bush's bigoted
constituency, those who support the gay marriage
amendment and who would not otherwise vote but for
this issue.

23) Arab Americans: Arab Americans are abandoning
Bush. This demographic went solidly for Bush in 2000.
He will not receive their votes this year. 

"In just the four battleground states we're polling,
over 200,000 Arab American voters have switched from
the Republican to the Democratic column," said Jim
Zogby, senior analyst for Zogby International, which
specializes in Muslim and Arab polling. 
A Zogby poll of the four states in September projected
a turnout of 510,000 Arab American voters. That
includes 120,000 in Florida and 85,000 in Ohio - both
of which went to Bush in 2000, along with their
combined 46 electoral votes. The poll showed Kerry
leading Bush in these states, 47 percent to 31.5
percent, with 9 percent backing independent candidate
Ralph Nader.

A second Zogby poll of 1,700 Muslim voters nationwide
conducted for Georgetown University showed Kerry
leading Bush, 68 percent to 7 percent, with 11 percent
backing Nader.

Zogby and other analysts estimate the Muslim
electorate at around 2 million voters.


24) Cuban Americans: Bush owes much to the
Cuban-American voters, particularly in Florida. Cubans
are the only Latin American demographic which clearly
favor Republicans and they are a voting force in
Florida -- a necessary constituency if Bush hopes to
pull Florida out of the bag once again. Recently, the
Cuban American Commission for Family Rights announced
their disfavor with the administration's policies in
the following statement: 

President Bush's new Cuban sanctions policy creates
more hardship for Cuban Americans, his voting
constituency, than to the Cuban government and opens
itself up to serious discriminatory legal actions,
aside from loss of votes. 
This is the first time in the history of U.S.
reunification policies that such policy goes against
family reunification, discouraging visits and
redefining the definition of who is family.



Coattail Indicators

25) Senate Races: NON-incumbent Democrats are running
uncharacteristically strong in traditionally
conservative strongholds. Dems are favored in such
right-wing bastions as Alaska, Colorado, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Oklahoma. And now we can
add Kentucky to that list. The same is NOT true for
NON-incumbent Republicans in traditional democratic
strongholds.

26) Conservative Strongholds: Some conservative
strongholds are in play, offering Kerry some
nontraditional electoral opportunities including
Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Colorado.

27) Vote Banking: Vote banking, voting prior to
November 2nd (Not all states allow this), helped Gore
take Iowa in 2000 and continues to help Kerry. This
also helps alleviate long lines that typically occur
in heavily populated Urban areas (i.e. Democratic
Strongholds) on November 2nd and theoretically ensures
that your vote gets counted. 'Irregularities' can be
addressed prior to election day and voter intimidation
is a more difficult prospect for the GOP during this
period. Reports indicate that Vote Banking is in full
stride, far outpacing any prior year. 

Along these lines, early voters, favor Kerry/Edwards
by 9, 52-43 (Meaning those voters who voted prior to
the official election day).


Common Wisdom 

28) The 50% Rule: If an incumbent is experiencing
approval ratings below 50%, he or she usually loses.
The latest CBS News/NY Times poll gave Bush only a 44%
approval rating. The average of the last 5 polls shows
Bush's job approval even further below 50%: 

* Approve: 46%
* Disapprove: 48.1%

29) Right Track, Wrong Track: Polls say that more
people think the country is on the wrong track than
those who say the right track. This can hardly work in
Bush's favor. People believe the nation under Bush is
headed in the wrong direction. The average of the last
11 polls citing whether the nation is heading in the
Right/Wrong direction heavily disfavors Bush: 

* Right direction: 42% 
* Wrong Direction: 52%

30) Incumbent Rule: 'Undecideds' break at least 60-40%
for the challenger. Also, an incumbent president
rarely gets even more than 1% of the popular vote than
the final polls show. If an incumbent is polling, 47%,
48% just before the election, that is probably what he
will get. In contrast, the challenger always does much
better than the final polls indicate!

31) Reelect: Bush's Reelect numbers are terrible. The
average of the last 6 independent polls shows Bush's
reelect numbers at: 

* Yes: 46.7%
* No: 49.2%


Fire in the Belly

32) Rocketing Gas and Energy Prices: The price of gas
serves as a constant reminder of Bush's failures in
both foreign and domestic policy. Common wisdom says
that people vote their pocket. Indeed, nobody cares
what the price is for a barrel of oil ...unless it
filters into higher gas and energy prices. This is a
material impact on their pockets of average Americans
and even if some won't admit it, they blame the
problem, at least in part, on the government
(currently headed by George W. Bush). People also
understand that the invasion of Iraq has 'something'
to do with these prices. Sure, Bush supporters are
unlikely to vote for Kerry because of this, but it
might subconsciously give reason for some to find
themselves just a touch too busy to make it to the
polls on election day. 

33) The Bush Draft: The administration and its minions
are trying desperately to quash the spreading
speculation of a 'Bush Draft'. Despite their best
efforts, the word continues to spread -- and with ill
effects for Bush. Bush is helping us to get out the
'cell-phone-only' demographic - people aged 18-24. 

34) Expatriates: Non-military expatriates are
motivated to remove Bush (as are non-career military
personnel). These are the people who have had to deal
directly with the lashback from the rampant,
Bush-inspired anti-Americanism that has flourished
during the last four years.

35) The left is fired up!: This is the key ingredient
to ensure maximum turnout by the left on election day.
This is one thing we can all thank Bush for. The left
is so outraged and disgusted with the policies, lies
and crimes of this administration, that we wouldn't
stay home on election day if it was raining darts
(which is something I'm sure the GOP is working on.)

The bottom line is that Kerry will win on November
2nd.

Remember… life or death -- if not for us, then for our
children.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041021/pl_nm/campaign_youth_dc_3

Most College Students Favor Kerry -Harvard Poll

By Svea Herbst-Bayliss 
BOSTON (Reuters) - The majority of U.S. college
students favor Democratic challenger John Kerry (news
- web sites) over President Bush (news - web sites),
according to a Harvard University poll released on
Thursday that sees a dramatic rise in campus voter
turnout. 
	 
Just weeks before the Nov. 2 election, researchers at
Harvard's Institute of Politics found that 52 percent
of all students want the Massachusetts senator elected
president, 39 percent support Bush, and 8 percent are
undecided. 
In 14 hotly contested swing states, the poll shows
Kerry leading Bush by 17 points among students. 
The data suggest more students are leaning toward
Kerry than six months ago, when Harvard last surveyed
them. That poll, released in April, found Kerry
leading Bush by 48-38 percent with 11 percent
undecided. 
Independent candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites)
received 1 percent support in this poll, down from 5
percent in April. 
"Kerry had a lead in April, but it was a soft lead,
and now students seem to know him better and are
aligned with him on issues like the economy, the war
in Iraq (news - web sites) and terrorism," said David
King, the institute's director of research. 
Forty-five percent of the students polled feel the
country is headed in the wrong direction. Forty-one
percent feel it is headed in the right direction. 
Students feel Kerry, criticized in the past as aloof
and failing to take a firm stand on issues, leads Bush
in understanding what matters most to them. Kerry also
edges Bush 49 percent to 42 percent on which candidate
is better qualified to be president, the poll said. 
HEAVY CAMPUS TURNOUT SEEN 
The poll also found 84 percent of college students
plan to cast a ballot, as both candidates woo young
voters. 
"The tide has changed from apathy to engagement and
excitement," King said. "Students are no longer just
watching politics on the West Wing," he said referring
to the popular U.S. television show. 
Even as researchers predicted a surge in turnout among
college students, they cautioned that many who say
they will vote will not show up on Election Day.
Still, they expect over half of all college voters to
go to the ballot box, up from 42 percent who voted
four years ago. 
"There are over nine million college students in
America, and their vote will matter this year --
especially in swing states," Institute Director Philip
Sharp said in a statement. "Neither campaign can
afford to ignore them." 
While Kerry led Bush in overall support, Bush was
viewed as the stronger leader by 49-36 percent. Bush
also outpaced Kerry by 57-27 percent on which
candidate takes a clear stand on the issues. 
"The poll shows Bush is a strong leader but also shows
they do not want to be led where he's going," King
said. 
The poll was based on interviews with 1,202 people
chosen at random from a database of nearly 5.1 million
students across the country. Conducted between Oct.
7-13, it has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8
percent. 
A Reuters/Zogby three-day tracking poll released on
Thursday showed Bush edging Kerry 46-45 percent, a
statistical dead heat.