"Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt called in this morning to talk about a story he's had about George W. Bush for quite a while now. Larry claims that he has some people who are backing up a story that Bush got a girl an abortion back in 1970. Larry said that they have 5 women who were friends with the woman who apparently had the abortion and they're backing up the story. The one thing they don't have is the woman who had the abortion. Howard said that this should be a huge bombshell of a story but none of the major networks or news agencies are picking up on it. Howard said that after Larry appeared on ''Crossfire'' and spoke about it they deleted all of the references to the abortion thing from their transcripts. Larry said he doesn't expect the news agencies to take Bush down over the issue but they should, at least, ask the question. Howard said that he would call Bush's campaign headquarters later in the morning and ask them himself. Everyone in the studio agrees that this should be a big story because Bush claims to be against abortion. Larry had also pointed out that the abortion took place before the Roe vs Wade decision was made. So technically the abortion would have been illegal. Later in the show, around 9:30, Howard said he tried calling all of the Republican headquarters and none of them were answering their phones.... A short time later Howard tried again to get someone from the Republican headquarters in New York to comment on the situation. Gary ended up talking to them but they told him he had to call the Austin offices. Gary tried them and they said they were busy and would have to call them back later. At 10:10am Gary came in and said that the Bush people told him that they wouldn't be able to get a spokesperson before the end of the show but they'd have someone for tomorrow's show. Howard said that's bull and had Gary call them back again but nothing happened." --Mark Mercer, 11/2/00
Paraphrase of Bill Maher on the Presidential Election today on NPR's "Fresh Air." I'm for Nader, although I know he's not going to win. Al Gore is smarter than Bush and would make a better president, but he's too much of a compromiser. Bush is stupid and he's running on the basis of family entitlement. George Bush will be a disaster to the country. He will be a disaster to the environmental movement. But sometimes things have to really get bad before anyone does anything.
Politex on Bill Maher's Endorsement of Bush's Election. Thanks for taking the bully pulpit of your entertainment position to push for Bush's election, even though you know he would be a disaster. How much money do you make, Bill? If you lived in Houston, could you afford to move? Would you give your money to the working poor who would suffer under Bush? Would you be willing to sacrifice women to a Bush supreme court? Would you keep the ads of corrupt corporations off your show as a protest of Bush's corporate practices. Of course not. Like Nader, you don't really mind having others suffer for your ideals. Like Nader, you have more to gain from a Bush presidency, poor people, minorities, and women be damned. --10/31/00
Bush's "Self-deprecation...has its appeal and can be a way of connecting with ordinary voters. But one can't shake the feeling that something else is going on here. Take, for example, the issue that Bush identifies as his top priority - education reform. He promises that, if elected, his ''education improvement package'' will be the first legislation he sends to Congress. Concerning schools, he complains about what he calls the sly bigotry of diminished expectations. But the real questions are whether George W. Bush's own candidacy is a manifestation of a nation's seriously diminished expectations for itself, and whether Bush, to advance his prospects, has played a part in that diminishment? It is not that his intellectual mediocrity sets him so far apart from other political leaders. We expect our geniuses to be the president's advisers, not the president. What makes the Bush campaign unusual is the way it claims the candidate's ignorance as an asset.
"Implicit in running gags of late-night comedians is the fact that where Dan Quayle was shamed by what he did not know, Bush is qualified by it. His thin grasp of basic knowledge necessary to world leadership is presented as part of his charm, and his proven inability to move below the surface of any question is passed off as essential to what makes him likeable. Thus, he derides his opponent's budget proposals, but only by denouncing them fuzzily as ''fuzzy math.'' He dismisses the crucial business of acute political argument as partisan bickering, and offers mere assertion - ''I'll get it done'' - in place of rational plans of action. Oddly, he is an establishment act of revenge against the feely-deely anti-intellectualism of the long-gone counter-culture, co-opting its emotive style while faking its heart. Indeed, much about George W. Bush is palpably fake. He is a Connecticut Yankee posing as a Texas good old boy; a tribune of privilege pretending to be a populist; a moral opportunist in the clothing of an ethical absolutist; a careless executioner who claims to be compassionate; and, most tellingly, a self-anointed education advocate who has not only disdained education in his own life, but brags about having done so.
"His attitude, recognizable as the blase smugness of a willful underachiever, conveys bushels more to students about ''educational improvement'' than any ''package'' his aides might concoct ever will. The question, however, is not about Bush, but about the electorate. Why does such acknowledged superficiality have wide appeal? What will it say of this nation if we elect this 21st century know-nothing as president? To paraphrase the cartoonist's punchline, I believe that a vote for Bush is a vote against the world we find ourselves living in now. It isn't that Americans are fooled by his shrugging amiability, but that many see in his absence of gravitas a way to flee the grave challenges of the new era. So sure, pull the peacekeepers back. Sure, build a missile defense. Sure, hand Social Security funds over to stock brokers. Sure, kill criminals. And as for hostile weapons sites - take 'em out.
"A vote for Bush is a vote against complexity; a vote against multilateral partnerships with other nations; a vote against the independent moral integrity of women; a vote against the idea of social structures evolving toward justice; a vote against the habits of mind that characterize literacy. Whether the subject is the future of the economy or the plight of the impoverished or the real needs of schools or the threat of nuclear catastrophe, a vote for Bush is a vote against adult responsibility for things as they are. George W. Bush's most winning characteristic is his anarchic boyishness. That says it all. A vote for Bush is a vote not for his immaturity, but for ours." --James Carroll, 10/31/00
Reuters, Monday 10/30/00 "Former President George Bush sought to solidify support for his son in Republican-leaning Louisiana on Monday by promising that a vote for George W. Bush (news - web sites) was a vote for dignity in the White House.... The former president spoke to about a thousand supporters in this affluent and largely white New Orleans suburb."
AP, Monday 10/30/00 Appearing on the Jay Leno show this evening, George W. Bush told Leno that voters don't want to be reminded of Clinton's past problems in the White House and that surrogates are irrelevant. "Bush said, 'I think we ought to just move on,' suggesting people were getting tired of hearing about it. He said he didn't think Clinton would necessary help Gore by campaigning because he said people will make up their own minds."
The darlings of the 2000 Presidential Campaign are fast becoming those hard-working, selfless guys and gals who have worked out legal methods of trading Gore and Nader votes in key states. (Those we have communicated with turned out to be Naderites, which explains the popular choice of the color Green on two of three web sites visited. Perhaps the other was a Republican. Bush watchers have reported that GOP tricksters are getting in on the act.) This weekend the national radio shows featured young people with clean-cut voices recounting how they came up with this great idea. Now, as the race winds down into its final days, supposedly pro-Gore, anti-Bush, and neutral web sites are being bombarded with e-mailed pleas to join in on this crusade to make both the Gore people and the Nader people winners. Live in Texas and voting for Gore? Why waste your vote, just trade it with a Nader person in Oregon and you're both winners. Nader stays on the road to his 5% of the popular vote goal so that the Green Party will get federal funding in 2004, and Gore gets his vote in a battleground state that's up for grabs. How trusting do you feel, Lucky, given the rhetoric of the Naderites and/or the Green people? Or how's this one? Go to your polling place 30 minutes before the deadline and listen to the radio. If you think your state is strongly going Gore or Bush based on whatever is said, keeping in mind that it's illegal to report any polling results prior to the closing of the polls, then vote for Nader. Right. Uh-huh. Sure.
Let me see if I've gotten this straight. Nader began his campaign by telling anyone who cared to listen that his run for president would mainly attract those non-voters who are fed up and would never vote for Gore or Bush. Then, six months ago, Nader went on record that he wanted Bush to win, even though he claims there's no difference between Gore and Bush. Then , after the conventions, Nader began heavy attacks on Gore while attacking Bush from time-to-time to give the appearance that he was not showing favoritism. This, of course, has forced Gore to spend his money and time in Dem-leaning states such as Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and now even California, while he should be fighting for the presidency with Bush in Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Ohio. Nader's fight to get Bush the win has become so transparant that Bush has even joined in, spending his last full week in states where Nader's causing the most damage. Even Bush's backers are in on the deal, making a pro-Nader ad and spending money for TV time in key cities.
And now that Nader has done his maximum damage against Gore, we have Nader's youth brigade setting up web sites to entice Gore voters in language suggesting we're all in this together to vote for Nader to get him the coveted 5% of the popular vote so the Green Party is given federal funds in 2004. What gall ! Notice that the Nader campaign has sought to destroy Gore, not Bush, and wants to give the American people 8 years of Bush in return, apparantly thinking that after 8 years of that the voters will flock to Nader and his Green machine. But in a turn of the screw that is the rival of any election ploy in our recent memory, the Nader folks want the Gore voters to actually vote for Nader. They say, "Trust us." They say, "Keep your eye on the clock." We say, "Forgedaboudit !" Once fooled, shame on them; twice fooled, shame on you.
How's this for a foolproof voting plan, Gore voters? If Gore wins in Michigan and Maine, the Gore folks in Texas will vote for Nader. It's up to you, Nader folks in Michigan and Maine! No trades, just do it! Then if Gore wins in Wisconsin and Minnesota, the Gore folks in the mountain states will vote for Nader. Also, if Gore wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, the Gore folks in Washington and Oregon will vote for Nader, providing Gore has 270 electoral college votes by then. No Nader Traders, but More for Gore. --Politex, 10/30/00
#1. Global Warming. Global warming? Gore knows it's happening, Bush[-Nader] isn't sure. Gore wanted a tax on fossil-fuel energy -- a tax that was blocked by Republicans and always will be -- while Bush[-Nader] governs over the worst air in the country and justifies it on the grounds of industrial growth. Gore knows the arguments against oil drilling; Bush[-Nader] looks at Alaska and sees barrels. Gore's an environmentalist who makes political deals; Bush[-Nader] is half of an all-oil-company team. No difference? --Tod Gitlin, 10/29/00
One of the most cynical techniques of the presdential campaign is Bush attacking Gore for things Bush does. For example, Bush has attacked Gore for exaggerating the number of days a female Florida teen had to stand in a science class because she didn't have a seat, while Bush exaggerated the number of backers he had within a group of Lousiana lawmakers. It turned out that Gore was right and Bush was wrong. The female Florida teen only had to stand for one day because a male Florida teen gave her his seat and ended up standing for days after, proving Gore right. In the case of the Lousiana lawmakers, however, around half of the group of lawmakers came forward, saying they never backed Bush. End of case. Bush accused Gore of exaggerating, but it was Bush, not Gore, who was doing the exaggerating. Representatives of the national mainstream media, such as ABC's Cockie Robert, went on record about such Bush exaggerations two weeks ago, stating that many of their colleagues report supposed Gore exaggerations, but none by Bush, because Bush exaggerations do not fit into their fictional scenario; whereas, supposed exaggerations by Gore do. The implication, of course, is that the role of the media is not to report what is actually happening during a political campaign, but to flesh out a fictional scenario that reporters use to fit portions of what supposedly goes on during the campaign day into their deadlined stories. Something similar appears to be going on in Nader's case.
"'As I listen to the vice president espouse his views on campaign finance reform, I look at his investment portfolio and have to ask how that might influence public policy,' [Nader Veep nominee Winona] LaDuke has said, slamming Gore erroneously for 'own[ing] substantial stock in Occidental Oil Co.' If LaDuke is looking for Occidental stockholders to criticize, reports Salon's Jake Tapper in a 10/28/00 follow-up to an earlier story on Bush Watch by Jeff McMahon, she might want to look a little closer to home. In the financial disclosure form Nader filed on June 14, the Green Party presidential candidate revealed that he owns between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of shares in the Fidelity Magellan Fund. The fund controls 4,321,400 shares of Occidental Petroleum stock"
Jumping on Gore's back with both feet, Patrick Reinsborough, grass-roots coordinator for the Rainforest Action Network, says, "'The Occidental projects are so beyond the pale about what's reasonable and moral in this modern era,'that his group has been primarily targeting Gore and Fidelity Investments in general, Fidelity Magellan being part of the Fidelity Investments mutual funds network, as well as the one with the largest quantity of Occidental stock. 'We have called upon Ralph Nader -- as we would call upon any citizen -- to either divest from Fidelity or to participate in shareholder activism,' Reinsborough says. 'Gore has much more long-standing links to Occidental Petroleum,'" Reinsborough notes, even though Gore does not own nor does he control a single share of stock in Occidental, either directly or through mutual funds, as does Nader. Why, then, is Gore being attacked by such groups as Rainforest, even though it is Nader who owns the stock? Because it fits the fictional scenario that has been constructed in Nader's favor. And since Nader does nothing to disabuse his backers, Tapper's conclusion seems appropriate, if limited: "Even if Fidelity were to divest its holdings in Occidental, it holds shares in so many companies Nader has crusaded against, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Nader's participation in the fund is supremely hypocritical." What is even more hypocitical, we think, is for Nader to allow Gore to be attacked for the very thing Nader, not Gore, is doing. --Politex, 10/29/00
"Ralph Nader's Green Party called this week for a suspension of United States aid to Israel and blamed the Jewish state for the current violence in the Middle East. The statement paralleled a series of recent declarations by Mr. Nader, in which the third-party presidential candidate reportedly accused Vice President Gore of being 'cowardly' in his stated support of Israel and criticized Mr. Gore and Governor Bush for 'taking sides' on Israel's behalf in the Middle East conflict. Mr. Nader, a son of Lebanese immigrants who is said to be fluent in Arabic, is best known as a consumer advocate. His views on the Middle East were not commonly known until a recent series of appearances," reports the Forward magazine in its 10/27/00 issue. While Gore is considered pro-Israel, Bush, like his father before him, is not, possibly because of the Bush family's long history of financial dealings with the oil-rich Arab states.
"Democratic activists are calling the Green Party's statement one of the most anti-Israel ever attributed to a party engaged in a presidential campaign. They are demanding that Green Party Jews abandon Mr. Nader and his running mate, Winona LaDuke, a Native American activist whose mother is Jewish. Some 3% of Jews said they planned to vote for Mr. Nader, according to a recent survey by the American Jewish Committee. The Green Party holds a 'distorted view of Israel that is naive at best and malevolent at worst,' the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman, told the Forward. The party's statement, he said, 'is representative of Ralph Nader's own views on the Middle East.'"
Some Naderites have offered creative reasons for voting Nader in spite of his anti-Israel position. One said the Nader campaign is not about foreign policy, others have implied that Nader can say whatever he wants to about the Jews and they'll still vote for him because he'll never be elected anyway, another said she's voting for the Green Party, not Nader, thinking that if 5% of the votes goes to Nader the Green :Party would be awarded Federal funds in the next voting cycle. Since Nader is apparantly not an actual member of the Green Party, but has accepted its nomination , some have wondered where the money would actually go if Nader were to reach 5%.
"Mr. Nader's Jewish supporters, including some of the party's top officials, expressed surprise at their party's positions on the Middle East, most saying that they had not been aware of them. Most, however, said they would continue to support Mr. Nader based on his views on the environment," and his other positions. None of his supporters offered comment on George W. Bush's weak, anti-Nader environmental policies, which will be the law of the land if Nader manages to get Bush elected. Other Jewish Naderites have been recently moving away from Nader on grounds other than his anti-Jewish rhetoric. "As much as I sympathize with what the Green Party stands for, I'm afraid that the new Supreme Court picks will be detrimental if Bush is elected president," the executive director of the Los Angeles-based Progressive Jewish Alliance, Daniel Sokatch is quoted as saying. --Politex, 10/29/00
NADER SAYS HE WANTS BUSH TO WIN
In June of this year reporter Jay Heinrichs asked Nader "if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose." Here's what was answered "without hesitation"...
RALPH NADER: "BUSH." Outside Magazine, August 2000
Ralph Nader's goal to get George W. Bush elected got a push from a pro-Bush committee yesterday, the Republican Leadership Council. According to a 10/27/00 AP story, the RLC has made an ad consisting of footageof Nader attacking Gore and is buying $10,000 worth of ad time to be used to keep the Bush lead in Oregon and to move Bush ahead in Washington and Wisconsin, two states that are up for grabs. The ads will begin Monday. "Advertising experts say they can't recall another time when a major party organization has run ads helpful to a minor party candidate." The RLC hopes to make similar ad buys for Nader in Minnesota, Michigan, and Maine, three other states that Bush hopes to win with Nader's help. This new Republican strategy to elect Bush by backing Nader is believed to be a winning idea, according to the AP: "In this extraordinarily tight national race, one or two states could make the difference in who is elected."
The AP also noted that the RLC ad buy for Nader comes at a very good time for the Green Party candidate, since he doesn't have the money to afford the cost of the ad campaign the Republicans are launching for him: "Nader, running a low-budget campaign, is not currently airing any television commercials of his own and it's possible that the RLC will end up spending more on pro-Nader media than Nader himself." The AP reports that "The Gore campaign labeled the ads deceptive. Vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman said he was confident the public won't be fooled. 'For Republicans to be putting Ralph Nader on television in a paid ad, certainly might lead your average observer to be cyncial,' he said." According to Mark Miller, the executive director of the Republican Leadership Council, "the ads are partly a response to commercials being run [in the swing states against Bush] by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League." The AP reports that when asked about the ads Nader said that outside groups have the right to run them. Nader's lukewarm response to news of the ads is seen by some as giving further credence to the charge that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. --Politex, 10/28/00
Did you know that Ralph Nader has a financial interest in Dick Cheney's success and has financial ties to Enron, one of George W. Bush's major campaign contributors? While Nader attacks corporations such as Halliburton, Raytheon, Boeing, Ford, Phillip-Morris, Pfizer, MacDonalds, and Occidental as being harmful to mankind, he makes investment profits off of all of these and more. What's the point, you ask? If corporate contributions corrupt candidates, can't corporate investments corrupt candidates? And if Mr. Nader questions Mr. Gore's populist rhetoric and his mother's oil holdings, shouldn't he also question his own?
GEORGE W. BUSHNADER, SPACE CADET...at a campaign rally in LaCrosse, Wis. last week..."Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." --NYT, 10/26/00
GEORGE W. BUSHNADER, SPACE CADET...speaking to an audience of school kids about the Clinton-Monica affair..."That was the last chapter of the Twentieth...err...Twenty-first Century." --NPR, 10/24/00
THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAT BUCHANAN AND RALPH NADER
Sunday evening a surprised Bush watcher reported that Larry Flynt's Friday evening Crossfire allegation that George W. Bush was "involved in" an early 1970's abortion and that he had proof of it was removed from the transcript posted on the CNN web site at http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0010/20/cf.00.html. Here's how the relevant portions of the two transcripts read:
BUSH'S "HELL-RAISING" YEARS IN HOUSTON
Bush's Secret Summer in Alaska
"I'm from Fairbanks and worked on the pipeline during that period. The place was awash with oil money, prostitutes and drugs. Cocaine was relatively new to the scene but was easy to obtain and commonly used. Frankly, I can't think of another reason that Bush would never have mentioned this summer job [in '74, since he has refused to comment on his possible drug use up to '74]. (See AP, 8/19/99..."Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said the Republican presidential front-runner was saying that he has not used illegal drugs at any time since 1974, when the 53-year-old Bush was 28.") He has talked about delivering mail at a law firm and selling sporting goods but never mentioned that he worked on the Alaska Pipeline? It doesn't make sense." --e-mail from a Bush Watcher
e-mail...TO ANDREW SULLIVAN, SENIOR EDITOR, THE NEW REPUBLIC
Bush Had Advance Warning...excerpt from TV reporter Del Walters' L.A. interview with Larry Flynt for ABC Ch.7 in Washington, D.C which aired on Thursday, 10/19/00, one day previous to the Crossfire interview (see below).
Bush Watch broke an in-house record for Saturday readership yesterday, effortlessly chalking up substantial readership numbers. For what? Because Larry Flynt indicated he had proof of an early '70's Bush involvement in an abortion and because the NYT reported that Bush has kept a summer of '74 episode in Alaska secret, possibly having relevance to his earlier comments on drug use. As Bush might say, "Guess what?" If there is anything to them, like young cheese, these stories would take longer to ripen and stink than there is time left in the campaign. We see the stories as just another form of political entertainment.
In her Boston Globe story this morning, Ellen Goodman writes about the evolution of politics into just another form of entertainment. (See "news") From most accounts in the media, that's what it's gotten down to. Based on tracking polls over the last few days, those independents who are supposedly left to decide the election appear to be making up their minds on the basis of entertainment values as emphasized on Oprah, Regis, Letterman, and Saturday Nite Live, not issue values as emphasized on PBS and C-Span. Guess what? We're more interested in someone who can count than someone who can schmooze well. Keep in mind that when Bush wants to have a beer, he won't be having it with you. We've already had the disaster of a movie actor being elected because he can play the role of president. Now we have bad actors trying out for the role on giddy talk shows. Goodman suggests that West Wing's President Bartlett could outpoll both of them, although we understand he's campaigning for Gore.
To get back to our initial point, we've gotten more e-mail than ever before from folks asking us to vigorously pursue the new charges against Bush, because the mainstream media seems disinterested. We don't think that's particularly productive at this point. For those of you who wrote in and are wanting Gore to win, as we wrote in a recent editorial (below) and as Johnson and Abraham suggest in another story in today's Boston Globe (See "news"), the key to a Gore election is turnout, particularly African-American turnout. You want Gore to win? Take people to the polls. You're in a safe state? Go to one that isn't, and if you can't do that, write and call your friends who are at ground zero. (Although we haven't been called upon to give campaign advice to Bush backers lately, we stand by, ready to serve.) And, finally, for that reader who asked, "Who are 'we'? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?" No, I don't, but there is one next to my keyboard. --Politex, 10/22/00
As the days dwindle down and the excitement grows, we're getting an equal flood of e-mail from Bush and Gore backers. Many Bush backers lace their messages with obscenities, threats of physical harm, and prayers for our eternal souls, and a like number of Gore backers give dire warnings about what America would look like if Bush were to be elected. In our usual spirit of bi-partisanship, we have suggestions for both sides. To the Bush backers, we suggest they tone down their language for more effective communication. To the Gore backers, we suggest they activiely involve themselves in get out the vote campaigns in the poorer neighborhoods of their towns. Interestingly enough, according to Morton Kondracke at "Roll Call," if the third debate created another dead heat, he believes the election will be decided on the basis of Republican ads (words) vs. Democrat get-out-the-vote campaigns. --Politex, 10/19/00
Editorial Follow-Up. Here's a look at battleground states and why the Democratic Party hopes to reach black voters: * Michigan: 958,000 black people of voting age, or 13 percent of the state's voting-age population. In 1996, 82 percent of them voted for President Bill Clinton. The state has 18 electoral votes. * Florida: 1.53 million, or 13 percent of state's voting-age population; black voters made up 10 percent of the state's 1996 turnout, 86 percent of them voting for Clinton. It has 25 electoral votes. * Louisiana: 932,000, or 30 percent of voting-age population; 29 percent of them voted in 1996, 94 percent for Clinton. It has 9 electoral votes. * Ohio: 879,000, or 10 percent of voting-age population; 9 percent of of them voted in 1996, 81 percent for Clinton. It has 21 electoral votes. * Pennsylvania: 804,000, or 9 percent of voting-age population; 9 percent of 1996 vote, 90 percent of them for Clinton. It has 23 electoral votes. * Missouri: 410,000, or 10 percent of voting-age population; 4 percent of 1996 vote, Clinton share not available. It has 11 electoral votes. * Arkansas: 270,000, or 15 percent of voting-age population; 9 percent of them voted in 1996, 90 percent for Clinton. It has 6 electoral votes.
TIME Reports Bush Lies More Than Gore, 57-23.
to...GORE WINS BIG, 84-61.
Reporter Turns Up Alternate Debate Transcript
On His Tax Plan (NYT)
On His Voucher Plan (LAT)
His Judicial Selection(SB)
CNN First Debate Transcript
"This man (Gore) has outspent me." p.56 (B-$93M, G-$46M).....
"I want to get a better return...than the paltry 2% that the current Social Security trust gets." p.50 (It's 4%.).....
"I don't think a president can...try to overturn the FDA's approval [of an abortion pill]." p.18 (He talked about trying in a speech.).....
"We've got too much polling and focus groups going on in Washington today." p. 30
"A recent poll was taken amongst 1,000 enlisted personnel..." p.28
today's polls Presidential Race.
zogbyDaily Tracking Poll.
gallup Rolling Average.
unweighted 4-Way Composite.
electoral college All-State Projections
headlines Days, Weeks, Months, Years of Previous Bush Headlines.
cunningham Daily Doings
tom tomorrow Tomorrow Sways the Nation Each Monday
what do you think? About the "Cheney Resigning" Rumor?
doris dirt Bush Isn't Dyslexic, He's Possessed.
the english patient Here's the Latest Bushism. (October 1)
poppy and junior Have Their Heart-to-Heart.
gore-tex Stiff Jokes Meet Dumb Jokes.
what do you think? About the What do You Think? Archives?
old 'toons Laugh for Days, Weeks, Months.
27 bush flubs In Second Debate's 90 Minutes.
bush's soft-core Economic Porn Sale Catalogue
by request. The Day Bush's Compassion Died.
ads don't Mean a Thing If They Ain't In a Swing State.
midland, texas Bush's "Shining City on the Hill."
book Review: Is Our Children Learning?
smoking Pistols: George "Rats Ad" Bush and the Subliminal Kid
hundreds of Previous Stories
"Usually reporters favor whomever they are covering, but I think the people on this race believe that Gore's going to win," says a witness to the straw poll [that took place on Friday 10/6 while the Bush entourage was flying from Marion, Ill. to Tampa, Florida]. According to a reporter who was on the plane, a straw poll...question was not who should win, but who would win -- and 26 reporters suggested Gore will be the last man standing on Nov. 7, while just 5 voted for a Bush victory. (Another reporter confirmed that the poll had occurred, but declined to go into specifics.)...
According to the reporter, writers from such publications as the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune and three Texas papers -- the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle and the Austin American Statesman -- all voted. The source did not know whether the reporters from the Washington Post or the New York Times participated. The reporter, who described the events only after being promised anonymity, thought the vote was extraordinary. "You just don't see that kind of stuff happening, (but) even then, it's surprising that Gore won by so much. Usually reporters favor whomever they are covering, but I think the people on this race believe that Gore's going to win. He's a fighter and just will not give up." --Inside, 10/7/00
APPLETON, Wis., Oct. 5 — Mr. Bush was asked by a woman what she could tell a Democratic friend who did not like Vice President Al Gore but feared upsetting the economy through a change in administrations. The governor tried several times for an answer. "Tell her to keep an open mind," he said first. "No. Tell her governments don't create wealth," he said to some applause from an audience at the McKinley Elementary School here. "You know, as I said, the economy's done more for this administration than the administration's done for the economy. I really believe that." He took another tack, saying, "Here's what I'd tell her — fellow's got a pretty good record and he's done in office what he said he would." He started to argue that the administration must be changed in order to bail out Social Security and Medicare, then said, "I'm groping for the right answer, you can tell." --Alison Mitchell, NYT, 10/6/00