http://www.issues2000.org/International/John_Kerry_Free_Trade.htm

There.

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm#Free_Trade

There. The record seems pretty strong to me. That website is pretty good on reporting about records...so why do we have a press corps that talks about people not knowing Kerry's record instead of REPORTING IT!

If I follow what Mr. Black is saying about those who haven't made their mind, it imputes motives to them other than genuine puzzlement about just what Kerry and Bush are likely to do, coupled, interestingly, with little doubt as to what they should do.
Human nature and political affairs being what they are, I see no justification, absent some specific evidence, for the imputation of questionable motives. In Mr. Drazner's case, I think it quite apparent that there is no such motive.
Still, just as Mr. Black is mistaken to doubt that Mr. Drezner means what he says, he's correct that so also do Messrs. Bush and Kerry mean pretty much what they say. It was naive of Drezner not to think Bush meant what he said in West Virginia, for that was not the sort of promise a politician can easily renege on. So also is it naive not to see that when Kerry says he's a free trader, he means it, and the record verifies it. The detailed positions cited in the link in the first comment tell Drezner what he needs to know, and he's most likely mistaken again to think that the candidate doesn't mean what he says. So I agree with Mr. Black that Mr. Drezner could hop off the fence now, if only he were less inclined to heed nothing Kerry and Bush say, on the erroneous supposition that somehow they haven't the skill to stake out positions they can and will stick to. He's mistaken he needs to predict, he need only read.
To revert to my first point, I understand how easy it is, for a variety of reasons, to believe that those who disagree with us couldn't be THINKING their way to as credible a conclusion as they can arrive at. But it's a sound principle in all sorts of discourse, especially when the stakes are as low as they are on the web, to assume only that our opponents are motivated by the same love of truth as we take ourselves to be, and not that their motives are ulterior.

Is it me, or does Atrios always come off as a total prick?

You may, as I do occasionally, agree with him, but he just strikes me a sour-faced bastard.

He says this, he says that, his opinion is always placed in a realm of being a self-rightous asshole. You know the guy, the one you hear making solid points, but being too damn wrapped up in his arguments that he forgets he's making a point about something large, and just condescends on something small.

He strikes me as the type to make up something about your [non-existant] crack-smoking mother, to make a larger point about a person's [existant] policy position.

The sad part in it all is that the *crack-smoking mother* bit attracts more attention than the *policy point.* Thus he and his ilk (on both sides of the aisle) have began to read like the major media outlets on gossip hour.

The dude just makes me want to spit in his face.

Dan, Rubin's style works if you expect the information to be equally distributed (or skewed towards the latter) between the past and the future (until the decision has to be made). However, its quite clear that the majority of the information is alreayd in. In your last post, you took a stump speech quote, and attributed it some ungodly weight -- which is rather foolish. I think all the wingnut hesitation is becacuse you need to prolong the inevitable over enough time to let it digest. I mean, its hard to come (and then swallow) to the realization that "I was worng, and Paul Krugman was right". So I think most of the wingnuts have realized this, but its something pretty bitter to swallow that has to be enough time for desired effects (becoming shrill). I'm sure onen day you plan on posting how AWOL sitting in a room for 7 minutes, while Cheney had to scramble defenses, qualifies him for another four years. Or perhaps, how when those America-first hating Brits say both Iraq and Afghanistan are on the verge of failure, -- well thats really only a p-value swing of 0.01. Most jobs lost since the great depression? Ah, another 0.01. Silly kerry stump speech quote -- make that a 0.04 swing .

Its ok to continue deliberating though -- this national security stuff is serious business. And I know, you want to get all the facts before making this decision. That's why I'm so proud of you for continually pressing for the second half of the senate intel committee report on the Bush admins role in manipluating the intel. I mean, once a mistake is made -- especially on something like war and peace -- you want to get all the facts so you don't repeat it and you want these facts to inform your decision in November. It takes a really big man to admit that they are wrong (especially when the television tells you its undeniable), but then to go all out and make sur eyou learn from it -- thats character. That's why your foreign policy worries are sincere, cause you really want to get to the bottom of things. I look forward to the p-value swing when the republicans tell us its not "humanly possible" to get the report out in time.

No worries though, I think in terms of stages of grief, you're probably in depression, while Sully is still bargainiing. On the bright side, both of you guys are way ahead of InstaIdiot, who just keeps on chuggin the kool-aid.

apps, I think you're confusing outright hostility/contempt/disdain for AWOL and his supporters (those who think should know better by now) with self-righteousness. If people in the wingnut-sphere, who agreed with some of Bush's policies in principle, are thinking its time to bail -- how exactly do you expect the left to react (where his policies wereabhored, and then ontop of it, a dyslexic second-grader with ADD could have executed them better)? Are you forgetting the big-fat-I-told-you-so already? I mean its clear this guy probably couldn't manage a cookie store, and we want him for another term in office?

“I'm sure we'll see a bunch of "reasonable" conservatives writing that if Kerry could just somehow say the magic combination of words, appealing to their idiosyncratic sense of what the Democratic should be (regaining what it has lost, blahblabblah), that they'd support him....”

John Kerry is unable to utter the words to change my mind. I merely need to look at his senatorial record where he has consistently appeased our nation’s enemies. Kerry thoroughly disgraced himself during the Cold War. Was he a brave Viet Nam veteran? I have no reason whatsoever to question his bravery on the battlefield. But it’s not particularly relevant. We should instead focus on his foreign policy decisions made while he was a full grown adult. By the way, why does Drezner seemingly ignore this evidence? Does he suspect that Karl Rove altered Kerry’s votes in the Senate and statements to the press? I’m confused on this point.

Dan Drezner should take a serious look at who supports each candidate. In regards to both free trade and the fight against terrorism, who will be under the most pressure to go along with a radical agenda? The Michael Moore/Howard Dean types represent probably at least a third of the Democratic coalition. They will be yelling and screaming their heads off if Kerry is elected. Does Drezner believe that Bob Rubin and Richard Holbrooke can effectively marginalize these people? Does he really want to take that chance----especially considering that Islamic nihilism is a phenomenon that will not be disappearing anytime in the immediate future.

I read your blog daily and usually leave slightly more enlightened than when I entered. (I seem to add and delete a blog daily from my favorites list in the manner of the car radio). One thing I just can't swallow is your insistance that you're a fence sitter and have yet to have made up your mind. I just can't imagine that to be the case, so it must be some sort of image your attempting to project. Never before in the history of politics can I imagine a more clearer choice. With the polls consistently showing the coin on edge, the future of our very way of life hangs on the whims of voters weak on problem solving skills and bereft of clear vision. These are scary days in deed.

Never before in the history of politics ... the future of our very way of life ... scary days in deed...

So, RD, what flavor is your Kool-ade?

The Republic will survive either Bush or Kerry. But they both have substantial negative characteristics. So why make a big fuss out of declaring support now?

Dan,

I seriously doubt that Atrios was talking about you in that post about "reasonable conservatives" (and I am even more confident he is not talking about David Thomson).

I think that he was mostly talking about people like David Brooks. Brooks will write a column about every other week where he pretends to critisize Bush and the Republicans and then in the course of the same column makes it clear that the Democrats are ten times worse on whatever issue.

Then Brooks will come back with regular posts that are nothing more than GOP talking points. His column on Saturday (I think) was what set a bunch of people off. He got on Kerry for not detailing exactly what he would do in Iraq. Trying to do such a thing would be naive five months ahead of time, and it is also not well-suited to a convention speech.

I think that Dan has shown that he is more than willing to break bonds with the GOP and call them as he sees them. This is in contrast to Brooks and the other "reasonable" conservatives that Atrios was talking about.

He got on Kerry for not detailing exactly what he would do in Iraq. Trying to do such a thing would be naive five months ahead of time,

Why? Is Kerry planning, if elected, to improvise as he goes along? I thought everyone, from Brooks to Atrios, was in agreement that not having a plan is Bad.

and it is also not well-suited to a convention speech.

Why not? There must be at least a few people over in Iraq wondering what sort of help is on the way.

They should also understand that campaign rhetoric is what it is, and has little bearing on how a Kerry administration will actually govern.

This is one of the most obnoxiously stupid statements I've read lately. Guess that's why Idon't spend time reading Atrios. Basically, it comes off as "When Kerry's talking to those swing state rubes, you know he's lying." Geez, what a swell reason to support someone with a reputation for flip-flops.

Also, Kerry is going to have to convince folks he's tough on terror. I'm sure Kerry's so glad to have one of his supporters telling folks to look at his record, rather than his post 9/11 beliefs. Well, if folks need to study Kerry's defense/war record before voting for him, I'm sure Karl Rove will do his best to make sure Kerry's record is out there.

With friendly bloggers like these...I think Kerry would rather have the undecided bloggers discuss why they're having trouble pulling the lever for Bush.

P.S. For those who believe that a candidate's voting record is what really count and that campaign record is a mere bagatelle: Do you regard Kerry's vote to authorize the war in Iraq as a better indicator of what he would do as President than all the things he's said about it since?

I think a voting record is more informative for stuff like free-trade than something like Iraq, i.e. a track record is established in free trade, but foreign policy seems more issue to issue. If we try to cut through Kerry's meandering statements, something like this policy comes through:

He voted to give the President the power to strike Iraq, but would not have advised doing it as he did. Kerry would have wanted Bush to wait longer, truly exhaust all options diplomatically, and go from there. Would Kerry, as President, have invaded Iraq as quickly as Bush? Well, no, but is that the issue over the next 4 years?

On Kerry's vote for the $87 Billion, he basically meant to say, "I supported giving the money necessary for the war, but I wanted to know how much the true cost would be long term and I didn't want debt associated with it," instead of the drivel about voting for before voting against that came out.

So, I guess I don't see the voting record for Iraq being quite as relevant as on other issues, as information and the situation change constantly.

Mickey Kaus is perhaps not the best example to use in questioning Atrios, as Kaus is clearly a writer who is using a facade of being undecided to conceal his actual motives. He does it so blatently that one starts to think of a LeCarre novel...

Cranky

I would note with respect to Kerry's rhetoric that he uses some care to distinguish ends and means. By way of example, it is one thing to say, "We should keep good jobs here in America," and another to say, "We should penalize companies that move jobs overseas." The former admits of considerably more flexibility than the latter, and that's the road Kerry generally takes.

(Question: isn't it a little shifty to talk this way? A little bit, but politicians always talk about priorities in the abstract -- "safe from crime," "fighting terror," "lifting up families." That kind of talk doesn't tell you as much about what an officeholder might do as a specific policy proposal would, but it does tell you something.)

John Kerry will never win when the electorate finds out that two thirds of all Vietnam Veterans can’t stand him.

This is the issue that can determine the outcome of this election if we can get the word out. It will have no impact on the 30% of the electorate who hate Bush and America, but it will keep some Bush haters from voting and it will flip enough of the undecided to totally preclude a Kerry victory.

I recently asked a Viet Vet buddy if he knew any Viet Vets who liked Kerry and he thought for a moment. He then said...

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/john_kerry_will.html

Alkalai:

Good point. Politicians always shade their pitch to their audience. Bill Clinton (yes,I miss him too)was a master of this. The thing to watch out for is "I promise to do thus and so." Politicians have a harder time backing away from specific, programmatic promises, and promises on goals. Generic statements of help being on the way mean little.

Joel W:

You can get a little close to "John Kerry -- He only misleads other people" with your analysis. To me,the fact that the Bush administration absolutely concealed cost information on the Medicare bill to get their bill passed, means that it's more likely that they lied about WMDs, and any number of other things. That line of analysis applies to Kerry too. I'd rather think he's sincere about his trade/outsourcing noises, than to think he's fibbing away just to get them Ohio rubes to vote for him. Because I'm not in the mood this year to choose between and incompetent liar, and a possible competent liar.

People prefer lies to the truth. Politics is no different than sales (at least in the election season).

I didn't see Herbert's column until just after I posted although I'm not as pessimistic as him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/opinion/02herbert.html

I had thought a more valid criticism of David Brooks was that he shades his conservatism to stay on the good side of his newspaper's notoriously liberal readership and management. This only makes conservatives think he's a wimp, while liberal true believers like this Black fellow still see him as the despised enemy.

Dan,

I admit I am puzzled by your inability to come to a decision.

I can understand that neither candidate is perfect and that both have things that you like or dislike.

But what extra information do you expect to appear between now and election day that will help decide your vote?

On Saturday evening, after much tortured reflection, I had just about overcome my intense personal distaste for Mr. Kerry's rhetoric and political philosophy, and was ready to shift my allegiance to him, in a spirit of resignation rather than enthusiasm. Then I found myself at the bookstore, and saw John Edwards's book, Four Trials, so I read most of it.

I know this is another emotional rather than intellectual objection, but after reading from that book, I am unable to shake the feeling that the Democratic ticket simply does not have respect for my profession.

It's really hard to vote for people when you feel like they don't respect you as much as you deserve to respected, or when you feel like they have a low opinion of your profession. I may yet vote for them anyway, but I don't like the feeling of being a "sucker" -- that is, of voting for folks who are poised to stab me in the back.

'I know this is another emotional rather than intellectual objection, but after reading from that book, I am unable to shake the feeling that the Democratic ticket simply does not have respect for my profession'

In my case, I'm convinced that the Republican ticket has no respect all for my religion (or lack of the same). To be more precise, I consider myself culturally Hindu, but a practicising secularist.

I can vote for people with whom I have minor disagreements on economics, but not for people as beholden to the fundamentalist Christian Right as the Republicans.

'Why not? There must be at least a few people over in Iraq wondering what sort of help is on the way.'

There is no magical way to fix Iraq. Everyone recognizes that. There would probably be little difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq going forward. That is not a reason to vote for Kerry. The utter incompetence of the Bush administration in post-war Iraq is a good reason to vote for Kerry.

'To me,the fact that the Bush administration absolutely concealed cost information on the Medicare bill to get their bill passed, means that it's more likely that they lied about WMDs, and any number of other things.'

I'm not entire sure I agree. An administration is not one person, its a group of people, and the pople who made the decision on the Medicare costs (in Treasury) are completely different from the people who made the Iraq decisions (Defence, VP, President). And all administratons fudge costs.

' That line of analysis applies to Kerry too. I'd rather think he's sincere about his trade/outsourcing noises, than to think he's fibbing away just to get them Ohio rubes to vote for him. '

I'm sincerely concerned about trade and outsourcing myself. I personally think its unstoppable, and that it does have benefits, but that doesn't mean that I can't be concerned about those impacted negatively by it. Or suggest incermental changes (which is what Kerry's seem to be, like minor tax code changes) to address
it.

I believe that both China and India benefit greatly from outsourcing any may eventually (in a few decades) become serious rivals to us politically, militarily and financailly. We need to be prepared for that future.

'Because I'm not in the mood this year to choose between and incompetent liar, and a possible competent liar.'

Kerry is not my ideal choice either on many respects, but frankly, I expect all administrations to lie to me to some extent, whether its Kerry, Bush Jr, Clinton, BUsh sr, Reagan, Nixon etc. [ Carter probably lied less than most administrations, but he was also incompetent]. So I have to go with Kerry.

Dan -- weren't you going to put down your probability of voting p ?

erg:

I am not addressing Kerry's trade position, per se, because I think it is something of a moving target. I am curious how far doen the tarriff, anti-outsourcing road he's going to go. There is a point when it becomes politically impossible to disavow what you've promised. But, it's not the same kind of deal-breaker for me as it is for or proprietor. (Put me at Kerry 0.68) I just loathe this very clever line of analysis which amounts to "Don't worry about this bogus trade rhetoric, he's really a free-trader." It amounts to "Hey, I know he's lying, why can't you figure that out and vote for him."

I do not have any reason to believe at this point to believe Kerry is a liar. (And I realize I've probably just given Bithead, D. Thompson and T. Winston thie cues...)

I won't comment on Dan's intentions, but I can understand why some conservative pundits who may simply wish to remain open to continued dialog prefer to seem "on the fence".

Disloyalty to the DFL can be highly scrutinized, but disloyalty to the GOP can get viciously penalized. My example would be the differences in party responses to Sen. Jim Jeffords (actual deserter) and Sen. Zell Miller (virtual deserter).

Unless of course you cross a racial line. Any person of color who is a high ranking republican is immediatly branded a race traitor and the worse sort of invective tossed their way. Ah the progressives.

I am most confident att this point that however I pull the lever in November I'll go home and shower afterwards: I suggest the same plan to Mr. Drezner.

I would probably favor Kerry but some time back adopted the "let John McCain vote for me" strategy. Delegating it seems to be the easiest way to make the decision.

AM

Practically all administrations make statements on the campaign trail that they do not intend seriously.

Eg. Bush said "No nation Building" in 2000. But even before 9/11, Bush did not withdraw from Kosovo or Bosnia, despite this being a clear case of pointy-headed nation building.

Clinton promised to get tougher on Chinese human rights. Dinna happen.

Bush Sr. promised no new taxes. He raised taxes.

Similarly all administrations lie in office. If you're looking for someone completely honest on the campaign trail, you're not likely to find him.

Atrios displays here the mindless arrogance that has caused Dems to lose their hold on every major branch of government. And Rove is no less arrogant. Screw 'em both.

There are conservatives who are appalled at Bush's spending; there are liberals who are appalled at the Dems' embrace of conspiracy-mongering fools like Michael Moore and Howard Dean. Both of these groups are sizable and are not being heard by their respective parties. Karl Rove doesn't give a damn about traditional, fiscally-prudent conservatives, and the Democrats in the age of Soros and the left-wing 527s don't give a damn about the traditional Truman/Scoop Jackson Democrats.

It annoys the hell out of us to hear punks like Atrios dismiss our choice. More and more people are likely to conclude from this election that the parties are rotten at their core, and that neither party is capable of addressing squarely the challenges posed by Iran, China, entitlement spending as the boomers retire, and exposure to foreign creditors.

A pox on the partisans. They have let down this country. I only wish that there was a secular, fiscally-sane, national security party I could vote for.

lex

Anyone remember China? Iran? Entitlement spending?

erg:

Bush Sr's violated pledge is one of the reasons he lost in 1992.

Bush Jr's pledge of humility might have brought him similar hot water if it weren't for 9/11.

Clinton on Chinese human rights? It wasn't important to the voters in 1992, or any later date.

If Kerry goes down a protectionist road, it will be to secure a win in Ohio and the midwest. If he wants to be reelected in 2008, he will have a very hard time not fighting for what he promises to do.

I agree that politicians do practice the "I meant it when I said it" approach to promises. I do not believe they do this with their significant policy ideas. When they do, they get called on it.

Is there a reason one must decide now and publicize one's decision other than to act as an unpaid campaign flack (as opposed to, say, Mr. Black, who is paid by Mr. Soros)?

Agree, Lex. (and erg

AM, the elder Bush got into trouble by making the no new taxes pledge in the first place, not by violating it. In the fiscal environment of the time, rejecting all tax increases meant accepting permanent large deficits, which no one was prepared to do. Bush, who was always something of a lap dog at heart, sought to demonstrate to Republican tax cutters in 1988 that he was one of them and Bob Dole was not, so he signed on to a promise he never had a chance of being able to honor.

He could have foregone that part of his 1988 convention speech and still have beaten Mike Dukakis, one of the weaker Democratic candidates in recent history. Conservatives would have complained, but in the end Republican conservatives always line up behind Presidents they think are strong. Bush, after finally being dragged away from his convention pledge after months of public negotiation, looked like a wimp. It's a lot easier to avoid making that kind of impression if you avoid making promises you can't keep in the first place than it is if you say anything to get applause and have to reverse course.

RD: "One thing I just can't swallow is your insistance that you're a fence sitter and have yet to have made up your mind. I just can't imagine that to be the case, so it must be some sort of image your attempting to project. Never before in the history of politics can I imagine a more clearer choice."

RD, I agree completely with your point about the clearerness of the choice - but what happens when you don't like either choice? I am leaning towards Kerry on the "pro-gridlock" theory, but I really wish that I didn't have to vote for a Bonesman (just as in 2000 I wished I didn't have to vote for a second-generation pol).

I think it's just hard for people who *do* like either Bush or Kerry to imagine what it's like to be someone that doesn't like either.

Cranky: "Mickey Kaus is perhaps not the best example to use in questioning Atrios, as Kaus is clearly a writer who is using a facade of being undecided to conceal his actual motives. He does it so blatently that one starts to think of a LeCarre novel..."

Kaus is about as straightforward about his underlying philosophical bent as a journalist can get. He criticizes Democrats incessantly because he thinks Republicans are hopeless. What's hard to get?

The vitriol directed at Kaus is like that directed at something like Monty Python and the Holy Grail - you can make fun of Jesus all you want, but just try and make fun of the Brethren, and out come the pitchforks.

How many here would support a third party that's resolutely secular, hawkish, pro-free trade, and fiscally restrained?

Such a party could carry California and Colorado and would be very competitive in the NE corridor states and the Pac NW -- it could win perhaps as manyas 100 electoral votes and would therefore force at least one of the two parties to co-opt one or more of the above key pillars.

There's little chance that either party will embrace secularism, esp because even the Dems rely heavily on their own Baptist fundamentalists, in the Afr-Amer churches. Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect the Dems to turn hawkish again, as well, or for either party to embrace free trade openly.

But it's definitely realistic to expect at least one of these two drunken-sailor parties to embrace fiscal restraint in hopes of picking up this "third way" bloc of voters. Worth a try, methinks.

Joel W. makes a pretty good point. I'll have to concede that Kerry's record on trade tells you more about his own inclinations than does his vote on Iraq. I do still think the latter tells us something about the alacrity with which he'll go back on previous stances whenever that's where the main chance seems to lie. Let's not forget that this is a candidate who's managed to find wiggle room in statements ("Life begins at conception") which no one ever imagined contained any.

OK, I'll bite, Alkali: What does "lifting up families" tell us about what an officeholder might do?

Granted, this is not a formula for national unity. African-Americans and white evangelicals would reject it outright. It also has little appeal to non-military, old economy blue-collar workers.

It's attractive to those in both parties who welcome engagement with the broader world, both economic and military, and who reject the fundamentalisms that afflict the two major parties. In other words a formula for attracting maybe 10-15 million "p=0.50, +/- 0.04" voters like Dan and many of those here who find both parties repugnant, who despise both Mel Gibson and Michael Moore.

Not a majority nationally but probably a plurality in the West Coast states, Colorado and New England, and a reliable one as well. I doubt that, given Bush's sorry record on spending and Kerry's sorry record on defense, either party could peel these voters off with Rovian scare tactics.

After watching Mr. Kerry's acceptance speech, I concluded that the centerpiece of his 2004 campaign will be his retrospective and full-fledged opposition to the war in Iraq.

Is it logical for me to vote for a candidate when I disagree with him about the central issue of his campaign?

Perhaps not -- and yet, given other issues, I'm leaning towards precisely that illogical conclusion.

About a third party -- let me remind everyone of something important. Its all about strength on the ground, dedicated party workers, money, organization and the like. That is why 3rd parties don't take off in America, not because people don't want one.

In Perot's case, despite his peculiarities, he provided the money and some of the organization and could have done better if he hadn't bowed out in the middle.

'I concluded that the centerpiece of his 2004 campaign will be his retrospective and full-fledged opposition to the war in Iraq.

Is it logical for me to vote for a candidate when I disagree with him about the central issue of his campaign?'

It is illogical for you to decide what a candidate will make the centerpiece of his campaign and use that to make an election choice, rather than waiting for the campaign, and logically deciding then.

erg,

I agree with you that my "conclusion" about the thrust of Mr. Kerry's campaign was premature, and that I should wait and see before making my decision. Thanks.

How many here would support a third party that's resolutely secular, hawkish, pro-free trade, and fiscally restrained?

Such a party could carry California and Colorado and would be very competitive in the NE corridor states and the Pac NW -- it could win perhaps as manyas 100 electoral votes and would therefore force at least one of the two parties to co-opt one or more of the above key pillars.

There's little chance that either party will embrace secularism, esp because even the Dems rely heavily on their own Baptist fundamentalists, in the Afr-Amer churches. Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect the Dems to turn hawkish again, as well, or for either party to embrace free trade openly.

But it's definitely realistic to expect at least one of these two drunken-sailor parties to embrace fiscal restraint in hopes of picking up this "third way" bloc of voters. Granted, this is not a formula for national unity. African-Americans and white evangelicals would reject it outright. It also has little appeal to non-military, old economy blue-collar workers.

It's attractive to those in both parties who welcome engagement with the broader world, both economic and military, and who reject the fundamentalisms that afflict the two major parties. In other words a formula for attracting maybe 10-15 million disgusted voters who find both parties repugnant, who despise both Mel Gibson and Michael Moore.

Not a majority nationally but probably a plurality in the West Coast states, Colorado and New England, and a reliable one as well. I doubt that, given Bush's sorry record on spending and Kerry's sorry record on defense, either party could peel these voters off with Rovian scare tactics.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Mr. Kerry lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College vote and the U.S. Presidency?

I think it would be wonderful because

1) we'd have peace in the world -- specifically, peace from the interminable harangues of Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, and

2) an amusing spectacle would ensue, with partisans on both sides suddenly switching positions on the relative merits of the popular vote and the Electoral College vote.

Arjun,

Peace is long gone. "Live for conflict" is the new motto of our political class.

AM:
(And I realize I've probably just given Bithead, D. Thompson and T. Winston thie cues...)

I can only state for the record, you're half right, given that Kerry shows up on both sides of any issue under discussion... and that therefore, he's only a liar half the time.

And Dan by that same token, I think you're expecting a bit much here, given that you seem to be making the assumption in your assesment of Kerry's stated positions that he's not going to come out on the other side of them within the next 8.39 seconds.