Buy Yagara Without Prescription

There's lots of endorsements flying around out there. Some are surprising, some not so much. Very much in the latter category, here's the editorial position of this group blog: John Kerry for President. I do want to add, though, that I'm not in the camp of those who don't like Kerry but really don't like Bush. I live in the bluest of blue states, so I could comfortably vote my conscience and cast my ballot for a third party, or for David Ortiz, and not worry about it affecting the election. However, I am going to proudly vote for John Kerry, who I believe will make a very good president. I think he's the right man for the moment, and, recognizing the realities of national party politics, I trust him in the Oval Office. I don't think anyone should feel the need to qualify their vote (ie "I'm voting for Kerry, but it's more of a vote against Bush"). I'm ready for November 2nd.

My entire world is in a cloud of disbelief. After all this waiting, the Sox are in the World Series? After over a year's worth of closely following the presidential election, there's only seven days til we know who wins (I hope. Please.) Since I did it for the playoffs, I figure I should make my election predictions too. We won't discuss how close I came on my baseball postseason picks, ok? This post is also motivated by a request for predictions from Hal Meyer's RIPolitics listserv. Hal is like a Republican cartoon character, so he's predicting a landslide for Bush, with spotty losses in RI and MA. Remember, you can pretty much ignore national polls, because there's no national election. It's all about the electoral college and the swing states. Here's my map (click to enlarge): You can play with the map for yourself here, among many other places. Predictions are welcome in the comments (I'm not holding my breath) That's a Kerry win. I think he'll eke out a small plurality in the popular vote, too, based on what I read about turnout and new voters. I think it's clear to most pundits that New Hampshire is not going Bush again, after his decidedly not conservative first term. I put Colorado in the Dem column becuase it's close there and it really shouldn't be. Plus my brother lives in Colorado and I think he's voting Kerry, and he's a white, 30-45 year old father. That's a Bush demographic. I'm switching Nevada and New Mexico from 2000, since NM was so close last time, and because of Yucca Mountain and the urban growth of Las Vegas. Wisconsin goes to Bush because... I don't know why. Security moms and George Bush likes cheese. Whatever. Kerry is going to win Ohio for one reason: jobs (or the lack thereof). There's some hinky stuff going on there now, but in the final count, Ohio is going Dem (and no Republican has ever been elected president without winning Ohio. Get ready to hear that over and over and over). In Florida, I think more of the people who go to the polls will intend to vote for the Democrat, and once again that won't matter. Florida, close as it may seem today, is locked up for Bush. So those are the changes I see. Kerry wins 283-255. Unfortunately, there's all sorts of scenarios where we won't know who wins on November 3rd. We could even get a 269-269 tie in the electoral college! (which means Bush wins). Someone is going to get sued in Ohio. Just as I feel with the Sox, I am cautiously optimistic. Things are looking good for my team(s), but anything can happen, and there's no underestimating the competition. I've read quite a few Bush fans predicting a landslide, which is fine by me. I hope they're so sure of a big win that they stay home. There's an idea out there that a lot of people are lying about supporting Kerry for one reason or another, and once they get into the privacy of the voting booth they'll pull the lever for Bush. I think this is ridiculous, but we'll see. And remember, historically, most undecided voter on election day end up voting for the challenger. And, as they say, all bets are off in the event of another terrorist attack or the capture of Osama bin Forgotten. It's going to be some week. I promise to have local election stuff before the weekend.

Once again, if you expected me to miss the Sox-Yanks game last night to give my undivided attention to Bush and Kerry, well then you don't know me very well. That said, I did flip back and forth, and caught a lot of the debate. I guess it's good that neither New York nor the Red Sox Nation states are swing states, but Missouri is and St. Louis had a playoff game too. Looking back, I am really surprised at the way these debates transpired. Even though Bush was pretty good in what I saw last night, the composite picture of the president from all three tilts is not good. Kos called it as "from pouter to shouter to doubter." John Kerry was very consistent throughout, and really just outdid Bush in the "presidential" category. I didn't see the part where Bush, responding to Kerry's assertion that the president said he was not concerned with Osama bin Laden, said "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations." I did read about it after the debate, and thought, hahah, I'm pretty sure they have you on video dismissing bin Laden. Then, this morning, I saw the video of Bush saying that in the debate, and the way he said "exaggeration." My first thought was "wow. Our president is a dick." And I think that was the lesson I took away from the debate. If you watch Bush on the campaign trail, he makes a lot of snide jokes about John Kerry, being a flip flopper, being for the $87 billion before being against it, etc. The crowds, all Bush partisans, eat it up, cheering wildly. If you've seen this, Debate Bush makes more sense, in a sad way. He makes a lot of the same jokes, but to people who don't spend their days thinking about how much they hate Democrats, the lines fall flat. For instance, last night, Bush made an aside about "leading news organizations," a dig at CBS and "that liberal media," that I'm sure made most people scratch their heads. The partisan joke lines don't work when the audience isn't already on your side, and worse, they make you look like a dick (there's that categorization again). I did see Kerry bring up Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter in the question about gays. I thought it was a little weird, but then afterwards on MSNBC the panel was apoplectic. Despite MSNBC being absolutely awful (and just plain wrong) on the post-debate analysis, I still like them better than Larry King, and of course, Fox News is Fox News. I also saw Lynne Cheney, Dick's wife, get huffy and declare that John Kerry is "a bad man." I think it says a lot about Lynne, as if pointing out that the completely open Mary Cheney is gay is an affront to her as a mother. So I guess Senator Kerry won all three debates. That's pretty incredible, I think. Now, if only his fellow Massachusetts-dwelling ballplayers could go on a similar winning streak. Oh yeah, here's the video of Bush saying he doesn't think about Osama too much. Boy that Kerry is sure an exaggerator. Speaking of exaggeration, wasn't that the 2000 election's Democrat smear? I'm surprised at how many flat out lies came out of these debates. "I never met John Edwards before today." "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden," the tax cut going mostly to middle- and low-income Americans stuff. In 2000 Al Gore got hammered on minor untruths (like going to that disaster area with FEMA) and the still-repeated-despite-never-happening thing about inventing the internet (seriously, Gore never said that.) Every day you had pundits saying things like "this really speaks to a fundamental character flaw in the Vice President." In a fair and balanced world, the press would be killing the president on his gross distortions. And speaking of Al Gore, this is my new favorite song. I especially love the guest vocals at the end.

Uh, sorry, I missed this debate. Too busy jumping around and celebrating David Ortiz's BOMB with some Union Station Brews. Mmmm. I actually tried to tape it, but I screwed up setting the VCR. MSNBC says Bush won, which I think makes it a tie. I'm seeing lots of stuff about Bush yelling. I'm interested in reading the paper tomorrow, since I didn't actually get to see this one live.

Some people will vote for their party, no matter who the candidate is. Some people vote for who they agree with on the issues. Some people vote against the person they like least. Some people vote for the candidate with better hair. If you're still undecided, here's a couple ways you can figure out who to vote for this November 2nd. First, this game voter's guide that boasts "our visual method is scientifically proven to produce the correct results." It's conservatively biased, for reasons you'll see once you play. More seriously, here's a quiz that presents you with statements from the candidates without telling you who said what. Choose the statement you agree with most and you'll see who you should vote for on the issues. I took it and agreed with Bush twice (and once without realizing it!) And make sure you catch tonight's debate so that you can better determine whose positions are whose.

You may have heard (and certainly will hear) that it's good that all those terrorists are killing people in Iraq because that means they aren't killing American children (and puppies!) in suburban elementary schools. It's known as the flypaper theory. We attract terrorists to Iraq and we pick them off. If you share the Bush administration's worldview, this is a good idea because apparently there is some finite number of freedom-haters and once they are gone, "mission accomplished." That is, in reality, an incredibly stupid way to wage the War on Terror, but James thought seriously about this for a second and came up with a stunning observation: Wow.

You had to know this was coming: You forgot Poland! Now, there's some question as to who, indeed, forgot Poland...

Reading around the net today, John Edwards did better than I thought. And apparently MSNBC, which I generally watch more than the other news channels, was alone in strongly declaring Cheney the runaway winner. Last night, Em and I took turns yelling "liar!" at the TV screen, but the more I see today, I can't believe how fast and loose the VP was with the facts. From "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11" to "This is the first time I met the man" to "Senator Gone." I don't know if he'll get fact checked on this, but I hope so. I like this line, from Daily Kos: Hey, has anyone picked up on the fact that last night Cheney both accused Kerry and Edwards of being inconsistent (the immortal "flip-flop") and of being "consistently on the wrong side of the issue"? Which is it, Dick? Are Kerry and Edwards inconsistent, or are they consistently wrong? They can't be both, it's a logical impossibility. Some polling suggests that among undecided voters liked Edwards last night, and that's huge. I think Kerry is in pretty good shape heading into debate two this Friday. It's all so close, though, and there's so much play in the potential events for the next month. Fun stuff! My local trifecta: Absit Invidia [anti-Bush right]: "We've now seen three men who would make a better president than the one we have now." That's a great observation. Dust in the Light [pro-Bush right]: "Both candidates behaved as would be expected; both have the strengths and weakness that one would expect." This is definitely true, and it is hard for non-partisans to gauge these things. Aces Full of Links [pro-Kerry left]: "In the balance, I can't really say this debate itself will have much of an effect on the election. I think it will neither enhance or slow down the momentum Kerry gained from the first debate, though it could be used by both sides to pull out specific quotes for throwing words back at opponents in a future debate." Yay! I agree with everyone!

And only 38 minutes into it! Sen. Edwards: [some stuff, Bush bad, some numbers, blah blah] VP Cheney: That's false. ... VP Cheney: [Some stuff, John Kerry bad, blah blah] Sen. Edwards: No, that's untrue ... This is pretty boring so far. Go Twins. UPDATE: OK, it got better after I posted this. It still seemed to me that not much happened. I thought the candidates came out more or less even, given the vast disparity between the two men. Apparently I am just biased, though, because Joe Scarborough and Andrea Mitchell just told me that Cheney steamrolled the outmatched Edwards. I figured beforehand that a Cheney "win" would be good for the great election story of 2004, so maybe that will happen. Also on MSNBC someone said that they would be lampooned for the split screen reactions, but was I alone in only noticing one remarkable reaction shot for each candidate? Compared to Thursday, there was nothing to talk about on that front, I thought. I'll probably have other people's reactions tomorrow.

From the left, Aces Full of Links From the (pro-Bush) right, Dust in the Light From the (anti-Bush) right, Absit Invidia And from Em, in the angry middle: "I can't deal with COMMENTARY. eff all you people, I don't care what you think" (note, this was directed at the TV, not the above linked "group of folks") Anyone else?

After about 45 minutes of generally positive reviews of Kerry, I had a fairly cynical thought. There better not be an Orange Alert in the next 7 days.

Before the media gives me my opinion, here are my first reactions (slanted as they may be). Kerry did slightly better than I expected. I expected him to do well, and I think he did. Bush did not do as well as I expected. I was surprised, actually. There were no major flubs at all. Bush was halting in his speech sometimes, but nothing new there. Kerry looked better for talking opposite Bush. There was one point (on NBC10's coverage) where Bush looked like he got punched in the face. Kerry looked better when listening, except when he was stupidly nodding at some of Bush's points. Both candidates looked pretty good. Kerry was less tan than earlier this week, Bush dyed his hair a little bit, I think. No funky ties, no sweating. Kerry made a lot of points that I was screaming at the television, so I was very happy about that. I still wish someone would ask Bush, when he talks about defending us from Saddam, what weapons exactly were threatening us? Other than that, I think the out and out lies and mischaracterizations were at a minimum (At least for this type of thing). I don't think the "wrong war, wrong time" thing was a winner. Bush kept hammering it. But then, I have no idea what independents think about this. Bush keep putting words in Kerry's mouth, I don't like that. Bush did a much better job of repeating his themes, which any advertiser will tell you is a must. Kerry's close was very good, I think, "looking in the voter's eye." Bush's was also good, though he seemed to be answering unasked questions/addressing what Kerry wasn't saying. Based on that (modeled loosely on this), I think Kerry won that debate. Not by a blowout, by any means, but I would give him the edge. I'm sure everyone is shocked. Now, let the spin begin...