April 16 2004
NEW JERSEY AND THE 9/11 EFFECT:
A couple more thoughts on New Jersey. As noted below, the
Fairleigh-Dickinson Public Mind poll showing Bush up 4 was
a survey of registered voters, which makes it that much
more interesting because this usually favors Democrats.
New Jersey is such a reliably left-leaning state (Gore
won it by 15 points in 2000) the FD poll could lead you
to conclude that it's either well off the mark or that it's
possible there has been a drastic shift in public opinion
in the Garden State since the 2000 election - which one
would have to assume is attributable almost solely to September
is it conceivable there has been a twenty plus point swing
in public opinion in New Jersey as a result of 9/11 even
though we don't see such
a drastic shift in any of the other state polls? The
answer is a decided "maybe."
Scott Rasmussen sent us a note saying that he did some polling
in New Jersey last year that registered a "significant"
impact from 9/11. It may very well be that the effect of
9/11 has worn off in other parts of the country but still
remains strong in New Jersey. We've gotten a few emails
with anecdotal evidence suggesting as much.
there may be the slightest indication of a similar 9/11
effect in NY as well. Even though the latest
Q Poll shows Kerry leading by 14 points, Kerry is still
underperforming Gore's win over Bush in 2000 by 11 points.
I guess it's conceivable there has been a 7-10 point shift
in NY and NJ toward Bush - a shift, by the way, which could
move even further based on his strong support of Israel
in recent days. If this is the truly the case, New York
would probably still be out of reach but New Jersey could
possibly be in play this November. That would be terrible
news for Kerry.
I'm not convinced this is the case. Right now, the idea
of a 9/11 effect in New Jersey remains nothing more than
wild speculation and we really can't begin to draw any serious
conclusions until we start getting more data. The good news
is that Scott Rasmussen is on the case and will be polling
in New Jersey next week. Stay tuned. - T. Bevan 3:25
to a Friend
Miller is making the case that Bush's gains in NJ and
the rest of the Northeast are real.
FOR THOUGHT: People have asked for our thoughts on the
latest NJ poll showing Bush up 4 points on Kerry among
registered voters. Frankly, given that almost all the other
state polls we've seen are very much in line with the results
from 2000, this one is stunning. Until something else comes
along I'd work under the assumption the Fairleigh-Dickinson
poll is an outlier.
are some more Senate polls for your entertainment:
Senate: McCollum 42% Castor 41%, Castor 43% Martinez 40%
Senate: Beasley 48% Tenenbaum 33%
Senate: Salazar 47% Coors 41%, Salazar 49% Schaffer 37%
have more results as they become available.
BLAME GAME PART II: I see yesterday's post attracted
a bit of attention over at Kevin
Drum's new home - including a bunch of comments from
Kevin's readers suggesting I'm pretty much a brown shirt
for questioning their patriotism. Let me respond quickly.
the four years we've been running this site neither John
nor I have ever said that disagreeing with or criticizing
the President means you aren't patriotic. In fact, those
of you who are regular visitors to the site know that we
post a variety of opinions every day, some of which are
extremely critical of the President in one way or another.
is a fact of life and touches every single issue in American
political discourse. National security is certainly a one
of those issues. But national security has also always been
acknowledged by both sides to have a unique place and status
in our government and the political arena.
the extent possible, our leaders have tried to insulate
certain aspects of the national security debate from partisanship.
It's the reason the Intelligence Committees in the House
and Senate are always evenly divided no matter who is in
my opinion, a commission whose sole purpose is to identify
and correct flaws within the structure of our government
to help strengthen the national security of the United States
should be protected from being exploited by partisans on
is certainly not what has happened. The 9/11 Commission
has turned into exactly what critics said it would be: a
show trial. The way the Commission has been conducted -
in public, with members from both sides grandstanding and
every witness on the defensive - it is functioning more
as a source for election year media fodder than a meaningful,
the reason President Bush initially resisted appointing
the Commission smack dab in the middle of election season
- in addition to the fact that we already have a number
of investigations going on in Congress trying to sort out
what went wrong leading up to 9/11.
bothers me is that I don't see the left recognizing even
the slightest deference or distinction between the "patriotic"
duty of the Commission and the "'partisan" opportunity
to try and pin the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration.
many ways I think the left's absolute hatred of George W.
Bush has made them conflate the ends and means here. When
someone like Matt Yglesias says he has a patriotic
interest making "changes for the better," in his
mind getting rid of George W. Bush in November is the best
possible change that can be made for the country.
the 9/11 Commission is viewed by many on the left, first
and foremost, as an opportunity to advance the goal of getting
rid of Bush (which they see as a noble patriotic cause)
rather than a chance for investigators to provide a sober
assessment of what went wrong and how we can fix it.
KEEP UP: This
story makes an interesting post script to yesterday's
post as well.
GOODNESS: I'll be able
to hear Franken again today. I've missed him so.
If George W. Bush had repeatedly
misstated the name of the UN special envoy in Iraq:
for the second day in a row, Kerry, who prides himself
on his expertise in foreign policy, repeatedly misnamed
the U.N. special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, who
is helping to negotiate the terms of the transfer of power
to the Iraqis on June 30. Kerry referred to him as "Brandini."
you're seeing already is the administration is essentially
trying to implement my strategy without admitting they're
implementing my strategy," he said. "They've got Brandini
over there, and he's negotiating. They've basically turned
over the decision of what they're going to turn over the
government to, to Brandini -- whatever he creates. . .
. And they're desperately trying to avoid a visible public
transfer of authority to the U.N., because that would
be an admission of failure in the way they've approached
Leno. The left would be rolling in the aisles. - T.
Bevan 9:32 am Link
to a Friend
April 15 2004
BLAME GAME: We were treated to another round of Bush-bashing
yesterday based on this
Dana Priest article in the Washington Post. Of course,
all the critics ignored the truly operative paragraphs:
government moved on several fronts to counter the threats.
The CIA launched "disruption operations" in 20 countries.
Tenet met or phoned 20 foreign intelligence officials.
Units of the 5th Fleet were redeployed. Embassies went
on alert. Cheney called Crown Prince Adbullah of Saudi
Arabia to ask for help. National security adviser Condoleezza
Rice asked the CIA to brief Attorney General John D. Ashcroft
about an "imminent" terrorist attack whose location was
system was blinking red," Tenet told the commission in
private testimony, the panel's report noted.
other words, the government functioned properly in responding
to the threat information in its possession. Obviously,
we now know there were many flaws in the system, not the
least of which is that we had no idea where or when the
strike would occur.
won't stop the left from continuing its subversive efforts
to blame Bush for 9/11. They just can't help themselves.
Goldberg says that as long as we're forced to play the blame
game, we might as well lay it where it belongs: Bill
addition to Goldberg's points about the Clinton administration
(as well as the many, many others floating around out there)
we could also add this interesting tidbit from Director
of the NSA Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden's 2002 testimony
before the joint session of the House & Senate Intelligence
downsized about one-third of its manpower and about the
same proportion of its budget in the decade of the 1990s.
That is the same decade whenpacketized communications
(the e-communications we have all become familiar with)
surpassed traditional communications. Thatis the same
decade when mobile cell phones increased from 16million
to 741 million—an increase of nearly 50 times. That is
thesame decade when Internet users went from about 4 million
to 361million—an increase of over 90 times. Half as many
landlines werelaid in the last six years of the 1990s
as in the whole previous historyof the world. In that
same decade of the 1990s, internationaltelephone traffic
went from 38 billion minutes to over 100 billion. Thisyear,
the world’s population will spend over 180 billion minutes
onthe phone in international calls alone.
the end of the 1990s—with a budget that was fixed or falling
anddemands from our customers that were unrelenting—we
attemptedto churn about $200 million per year in our program.
This meanttaking money away from current, still active,
still producing activitiesand investing those dollars
in future capabilities. $200 million peryear was far short
of what we needed and, in fact, I could makeonly about
one-third of that number stick as our program wentthrough
the Executive Branch and the Congress.
I were as serious about playing the blame game as liberals
are today, then I'd ignore the fact that a Republican Congress
played a contributing role in the downsizing of the NSA.
Furthermore, I'd also frame Director Hayden's testimony
using Josh Marshall's
formulation from earlier in the week:
though the NSA's budget and manpower were drastically
reduced during the 8 years of the Clinton administration,
9/11 probably couldn't have been prevented. But we'll
could go on and on. How that would help prepare the country
against future attacks is beyond me.
doesn't seem to matter. Matthew
Yglesias writes in a spasm of honesty:
of the difficulties I think a lot of people on the right
have in grasping what's going on at the 9/11 Commission
is that Bill Clinton isn't running for president. I have
no interest -- not even a partisan interest -- in denying
that Clinton and his appointees messed up in a variety
of ways. Not even a partisan interest, let me say again,
because Bill Clinton isn't running for president. My
interest as a patriotic American is purely in bringing
the facts to light so we can make changes for the better.
My partisan interest is, especially, in bringing to light
facts that reflect poorly on George W. Bush and his appointees
-- the various ways in which they disimproved on the inadequate
an obvious problem here that begs a question for Matt: when
your interest as a patriot (making changes for the better)
and your interest as a partisan (making Bush look bad) conflict,
which interest do you put first?
9/11 Commission should generate exactly such a conflict
among liberals because the more partisan the Commission
becomes, the less likely they are to find the truth and
the less likely the Commission's final report will have
legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
however, many on the left don't seem able to either recognize
the conflict in the first place or resist the temptation
of putting partisanship above patriotism. - T. Bevan
8:12 am Link
to a Friend
April 14 2004
PRESIDENT BUSH'S PRESS CONFERENCE: On
a scale of 1 to 10, I would give the President an 8.5 for
conference last night. The press is going to get bogged
down in how he
didn't really say anything new, or how he
didn't apologize, or how he
didn't admit any mistakes, but Bush did what Bush does
best: he provided vision and leadership.
have no doubt that the President's critics will howl even
louder after his performance, but the average American won't
get lost in all the nonsense over apologies, and will instead
be comforted by the President's resolve, determination and
FOR WHAT?: I find the whole issue of whether the President
should apologize infuriating. It is driven by a liberal
hatred for this President and the "Oprahfied"
culture we live in today. If Bush did something wrong or
was negligent - and was therefore complicit in allowing
the attack on 9/11 to unfold - his critics need to stop
parsing words and come out and say the President is at fault
for not preventing 9/11. Otherwise the President has no
reason to apologize You can't have it both ways.
like this one from Marianne Means ("Unlike
Bush, JFK took responsibility for disaster while he was
president") are designed to feed the impression
that President Bush is partially to blame for allowing 9/11
to occur and refuses to accept responsibility for his mistakes.
J. Dionne Jr. spells out the attack very clearly in yesterday's
stand for a culture of responsibility in America. We're
changing the culture of this country from one that has
said, if it feels good, do it, and if you got a problem,
blame somebody else, to a culture in which each of us
are responsible for the decisions we make in life." Maybe
President Bush should reread his own words, offered last
week at a fundraiser in Charlotte. ....To take responsibility
straightforwardly would be a sign of strength, not weakness.
Instead, the president is sticking to a strategy of denial.
of what? Accept responsibility for what? Hindsight and monday-morning
quarterbacking are powerful allies of all those looking
to blame someone for what happened on September 11, 2001.
But the American people have enough common sense to understand
that while there are a myriad of things the U.S. government
should have been doing better and/or differently in the
1990's and the first eight months of the Bush White House,
neither President Bush nor President Clinton are responsible
for what happened on 9/11.
Bush gave a good answer to what must have been the third
question on whether he will apologize:
I can understand why people in my administration anguished
over the fact that people lost their life. I feel the
same way. I mean, I'm sick when I think about the death
that took place on that day. And as I mentioned, I've
met with a lot of family members and I do the best I do
to console them about the loss of their loved one. As
I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could have
done differently. I can assure the American people that
had we had any inkling that this was going to happen,
we would have done everything in our power to stop the
what I feel about that. The person responsible for
the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible
for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on
the offense until we bring people to justice.
American people understand that simple fact, and I suspect
they will grow to resent the sly attempt of the left to
try and suggest that President Bush is partially responsible
for the worst attack on this country since Pearl Harbor.
OF PIGS AND 9/11: To go back to the Marianne Means'
article I referenced earlier, Mark Shields has made the
same comparison to JFK and the Bay of Pigs, trying to use
it as a historical wedge to attack President Bush for not
apologizing or admitting mistakes. The problem is the historical
analogy makes no sense.
getting into all the nitty gritty over the Eisenhower administration's
planning of the operation, President Kennedy OK'd the Bay
of Pigs and took responsibility when it failed. That's all
well and good, but how that has anything to do with the
U.S. being attacked on 9/11, I don't know.
more accurate historical analogy is Pearl Harbor, and to
my knowledge I don't know that President Roosevelt ever
"apologized" for Pearl Harbor.
in 1944 weren't wringing their hands over whether Roosevelt
should apologize, they were out killing the Japanese and
Germans. And we would be better off, too, if we spent less
time on all the apology psychobabble and more time attacking
and killing the Islamic fundamentalist enemy that was the
true perpetrator of 9/11.
INDEX IS A MISERABLE FAILURE: Reading Tom's
post on the Kerry campaign's new invention to turn the
economy into a modern day Great Depression, I was momentarily
confused at Kerry's new misery index.
the Kerry campaign would try to sell the American people
on an index that suggests the best time between 1976 and
1996 were those glorious Carter years around 1978-1979,
I will never know. I guess all those middle-class Americans
who had it so great during the Carter years were so happy
they forgot to vote in 1980. - J. McIntyre 8:00am | Link
to a Friend
April 13 2004
MORE FUN WITH STATS: John
wrote a good post over the weekend on polls and the
predictive value of Presidential job approval ratings. I
was cleaning out a file of articles today and came across
another statistic worthy of mention.
is from a January 20 Detroit Free-Press story by Jeffrey
McCracken. (The link is now in a pay archive):
recent Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of 45 corporate
economists, projected 4.5-percent growth in the U.S. gross
domestic product in 2004, which would be the best since
shows if the GDP is 3.5 percent or higher, the incumbent
president wins," said Van Jolissant, chief economist for
the Chrysler Group. "If most economists are accurate,
then Democrats need some issue other than jobs. Contrary
to 1992, I don't think it will be the economy, stupid."
case you missed it, last month the BCEI
poll revised the 2004 GDP forecast upward to 4.7%
from 4.5%. Just some more food for thought.
CLASS MISERY INDEX UPDATE: I've gotten a few emails
from people asking if they are reading the Kerry chart right,
since it looks as if the MMIC skyrocketed under Clinton
and then began easing up under Bush. If you look at the
last line of the definition listed in the post below, however,
you see a parenthetic note that reads: " unlike
the original Misery Index, a higher index indicates that
people are better off."
obviously begs the question: how stupid are the Kerry people
to put together a chart based on an exceedingly complex
(some might even venture to use the word misleading) formula
to demonstrate how terrible President Bush's economic policies
are and then to present the data in a visual format that
intuitively leads people to the exact opposite conclusion?
get Ross Perot on the phone to get this chart thing straightened
another point, newly arrived in my inbox from longtime reader
John K. How valid can the Kerry Middle-Class Misery Index
be when it shows that the second highest point for the middle
class (remember, that's a good thing on this chart!) in
the last 28 years occurring under the Carter administration
in the late 1970's?
pocus. Sperling snake oil. Call it what you want, the Kerry
MMIC is a transparent political gimmick, nothing more. -
T. Bevan 3:25 pm | Link
to a Friend
has the goods.
John Kerry's vaunted "Middle-Class Misery Index",
look at the "Misery Index" released by the Joint
Economic Committee today:
why do these charts look so completely different?
JEC index uses the traditional definition of the "misery
index" which is the sum of the inflation rate and the
Kerry's version is a little, er, more complicated:
Middle-class Misery Index is based on median family income,
college tuition, health costs, gasoline cost, bankruptcies,
the homeownership rate, and private-sector job growth.
All seven of these series enter the index with equal weights.
(Note, unlike the original Misery Index, a higher index
indicates that people are better off.)
know the saying: if you torture numbers long enough you
can make them say anything. - T. Bevan 12:05 pm | Link
to a Friend
CORRECTION: I posted a correction to this morning's
entry (see here) because I misread
Josh's post. No excuse for that.
his post, however, I think one of the things that led me
to my erroneous conclusion were the two paragraphs that
followed the quote I clipped which suggest the White House
didn't do everything within its power to prevent September
last two sentences in particular really raised my hackles:
probably couldn't have been prevented at that late a date.
But we'll never know.
use of "probably" and "we'll never know"
are designed to leave just enough doubt to imply that, in
fact, there was a chance 9/11 could have been prevented
if only the White House had acted.
the "if we'd only done 'x' then we possibly could have
prevented 'y' game" is an unreasonable standard to
apply to any person or agency in hindsight - even if you're
willing to apply it equally to all parties, which Josh and
other liberals certainly are not. - T. Bevan 11:35 am
to a Friend
OF THE DAY: "Surprise, when it happens to a government,
is likely to be a complicated, diffuse, bureaucratic thing.
It includes neglect of responsibility but also responsibility
so poorly defined or so ambiguously delegated that action
gets lost. It includes gaps in intelligence, but also intelligence
that, like a string of pearls too precious to wear, is too
sensitive to give to those who need it. It includes the
alarm that fails to work, but also the alarm that has gone
off so often it has been disconnected. It includes the unalert
watchman, but also the one who knows he'll be chewed out
by his superior if he gets higher authority out of bed.
It includes the contingencies that occur to no one, but
also those that everyone assumes somebody else is taking
care of. It includes straightforward procrastination, but
also decisions protracted by internal disagreement. It includes,
in addition, the inability of individual human beings to
rise to the occasion until they are sure it is the occasion--
which is usually too late. (Unlike movies, real life provides
no musical background to tip us off to the climax.)Finally,
as at Pearl Harbor, surprise may include some measure of
genuine novelty introduced by the enemy, and possibly some
sheer bad luck.
results, at Pearl Harbor, were sudden, concentrated, and
dramatic. The failure, however, was cumulative, widespread,
and rather drearily familiar. This is why surprise, when
it happens to a government, cannot be described just in
terms of startled people. Whether at Pearl Harbor or at
the Berlin Wall, surprise is everything involved in a government's
(or in an alliance's) failure to anticipate effectively."
C. Schelling, Forward to Pearl
Harbor; Warning and Decision, by Roberta Wohlstetter.
FOR ALL: I thought the above quote was apropos for today's
blog. John Ashcroft is going to get
it good this morning, no question about it.
others scheduled to appear before the 9/11 Commission today
and tomorrow - including former AG Janet Reno, current FBI
Director Robert Mueller and former FBI director Louis J.
Freeh, former FBI acting director Thomas Pickard and CIA
Director George Tenet - will take their lumps as well.
one hand, as current and former leaders of their respective
organizations they should face tough questions about any
shortcomings that occurred prior to September 11.
the other hand, it's extremely unfair to single out any
individual and try to lay additional blame or responsibility
for 9/11 at their feet - especially John Ashcroft.
hypocrisy of liberals surrounding the September 11 Commission
is just astounding. John Ashcroft has been vilified on an
almost daily basis since 9/11 for being too aggressive in
pursuing terrorists domestically and now he's going to be
vilified for being too passive in the days before the tragedy.
I've had my disagreements with Ashcroft and been critical
of him on a number of issues, but this just isn't an area
where it's fair to rake him over the coals.
thing with the way the left and those in the press are treating
the August 6 PDB. It is preposterous to assume that based
on a one and half page addendum reiterating the outlines
of a threat everyone in all levels of government already
knew that the President should have rushed back from Crawford
to the Situation Room at the White House to huddle with
Dick Clarke. Bush was meeting with the Director of Central
Intelligence every single day, for God's sake.
Bush-haters want to portray this as a personal failure of
responsibility on the President's part for no other reason
than to damage him politically. Our friend Josh
no one is saying that if the president got a warning at
that late date that he should necessarily should have
been able to roll up the plot. I don't think anyone expects
him to have. But what's damning about this isn't that
he didn't prevent what happened.
is slick, circular and completely disingenuous. Notice that
we're no longer talking about the responsibility of "the
government" (you know, the thousands of people across
hundreds of different departments and agencies related to
the events of September 11) we're now talking about "he"
- as in the personal responsibility of George W. Bush. Furthermore,
if you're willing to say it's "damning" that "he
didn't prevent what happened," then clearly you ARE
saying that Bush "should have been able to roll up
I've got to post a quick apology to
Josh for this because I misread his post. He said it "isn't"
damning, though I read it as though he said it "is"
damning. I stand by my broader point that Josh is working
to place personal responsibility on Bush for the larger,
systemic governmental failures of 9/11 - which I think is
partisan and unfair - but the quote above certainly isn't
of the "slick, circular, and disingenous" variety
that I misread it to be. Sorry. -T. Bevan 11:02 am)
are two indisputable truths we should all be able to recognize
and agree upon regarding the Commission investigating 9/11.
The first is that our government failed in ways big and
small - not just for months but for decades - to adequately
address and respond to the growing threat of terrorism.
The lineage of our country's lack of focus on the problem
is long and we can play the blame game ad infinitum to try
and damage or defend President Bush without ever escaping
second truth we have learned is that September 11 is the
fulcrum of our times. It's the point on which history turned,
the point that shattered all previous assumptions about
how we think, how we act, and who and where our real enemies
11 is now also the filter which many of us use to judge
our leaders and their actions. The question before us is
not how our leaders acted before 9/11 but how they have
acted after - and how they will act in the future. -
T. Bevan 9:55 am | Link
to a Friend
April 12 2004
BOSTON GLOBE BOOSTERISM & KERRY'S CAMPAIGN: On
the heels of yesterday's
story talking up the Dems chances in Senate races this
year, Glen Johnson of the Boston Globe files a nice hand-holding-cumbaya
story this morning, "Kerry
Riding a Wave of Democratic Unity."
to Johnson, it's all tulips and roses: Kerry raised $38
million last quarter, he has mobs of volunteers banging
down the doors, and he's also got the coordinated backing
of new liberal think tanks and interest groups.
of this is true, of course, even if Johnson does fail to
acknowledge that the Bush campaign dwarfs the Kerry campaign
in almost every conceivable category, including number
of donors and volunteers.
Still, Johnson's article should be a wake up call to any
apathetic conservatives out there.
interesting dynamic of the Kerry campaign is that all the
support he's receiving has virtually nothing to do with
him as a person or a leader - it's all driven by a hatred
for George Bush. Johnson writes:
if Kerry were not the nominee-apparent of the party, Democrats
would almost certainly be out in force because of their
opposition to Bush's policies and concern over the direction
of the country.
emerged as the nominee of the party precisely because he
was the emptiest vessel in the bunch, and the one who was
most able (not to mention most willing) to package all of
the base's Bush hatred in the best possible way (in other
words, the most electable way) to the public.
result is a bizarre disconnect of Kerry trying to present
the image of having an "optimistic vision for America"
while he crosses the country whipping his supporters into
a frenzy with the hard-core Bush-bashing rhetoric party
says that at events with supporters Kerry "tries to
incite the crowd, predicting a grim future if Bush is reelected,
especially if the incumbent is allowed to shift the balance
of the Supreme Court through appointments anticipated in
the coming years."
normal times, Presidential candidates can only get so far
running such a narrowly focused negative campaign. But these
are not normal times, and John Kerry is not a normal Presidential
Sebelius? The rumor mill continues to churn out name
after name, regardless of how farfetched they might seem
- T. Bevan 4:00 pm | Link
to a Friend
WARP: Hard to believe I've only been gone a week. Let's
recap what the Democrats have been up to since I left for
vacation last Saturday:
Kennedy called Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam"
Byrd called for an all out retreat from Iraq
Ben-Veniste made himself look like a complete horse's
ass questioning Condi Rice and dispelled any doubts the
9/11 Commission is operating on a "nonpartisan"
Dodd said on the floor of the Senate that former KKK
member Bob Byrd was a "great Senator" and "right
for any time" in our nation's history. So far as I
can tell from searching
Google, there hasn't been any media reaction whatsoever
to this outrageously insensitive and offensive remark.
an awful lot of stupidity packed into eight days - even
by Democrats' standards. I think there might be a pattern
developing here, especially with Ted Kennedy. Just look
at what he said last time I went on vacation.
Bank One's Chief Economist says more
jobs are most likely on the way. That's the good news
for the President.
here's some news that sounds a bit more concerning:
the Great Lakes region, the industrial heartland remains
a laggard in employment with more jobs still being lost
than created at the start of the year.
net, job creation in the region is expected to pick up
with Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin doing significantly
better than Michigan and Ohio.
latest polls have
Bush trailing by 10 points in Michigan and leading by 2
points in Ohio and 6 points in Wisconsin.
Ohio is shaping up to be the most critical battleground
state in the country this year. Given how poor the state's
economy has been over the last three years it's astonishing
that Bush is still maintaining any lead at all in the Buckeye
that perspective, Swonk's report is terrible news for Kerry
because even the most meager improvements in the job situation
in Ohio should help the President expand his slim lead.
later with more. - T. Bevan 11:03 am | Link
to a Friend