« Schools As Terror Targets | Main | Selective Outrage »

Putinization Watch

And here I was worried that Bush was steadily pulling a Putin here in the USA. Little did I know that Vlad The Good Souled was about to endorse the Bush campaign. Much extremely tenuous evidence has been offered (by, among others, Putin) that Osama bin Laden wants you to vote for Kerry, but here comes absolutely clear evidence that Putin -- a bad man, if not really on the bin Laden level -- wants you to vote for Bush. Can you judge a man by the company he keeps? Certainly, as I've suggested, the two have a lot in common.

October 18, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83421997353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Putinization Watch:

» Endorsement Watch from Political Animal
ENDORSEMENT WATCH....No, not editorial page endorsements. The latest game is to see which candidate has snagged the most endorsements from hideous political figures around the world. Today, James Joyner groans over Yasser Arafat's semi-endorsement of K... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 19, 2004 1:14:34 PM

» Endorsement Watch from Political Animal
ENDORSEMENT WATCH....No, not editorial page endorsements. The latest game is to see which candidate has snagged the most endorsements from hideous political figures around the world. Today, James Joyner groans over Yasser Arafat's semi-endorsement of K... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 19, 2004 3:30:12 PM

» Endorsement Watch from Political Animal
ENDORSEMENT WATCH....No, not editorial page endorsements. The latest game is to see which candidate has snagged the most endorsements from hideous political figures around the world. Today, James Joyner groans over Yasser Arafat's semi-endorsement of K... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 20, 2004 12:24:33 AM

» We've always been at war against Eurasia from Burnt Orange Report
Vladimir Putin is the next Saddam Hussein. That is, by the magic of popular amnesia, in five years Americans are absolutely gonna hate this guy, despite the fact that our conservative leaders were going gaa-gaa over him. It was only... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 25, 2004 7:32:23 AM

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 9:16:03 AM

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 9:18:08 AM

Comments

The irony is you have no problem with the Jew-hater Mahathir's support for Kerry. I won't even get into Iran's support for Kerry.

Posted by: Modern Crusader | Oct 18, 2004 1:52:16 PM

I don't recall Kerry saying, "I looked into (Mahathir's) soul." Or, "I looked into (Iran's) soul."

Posted by: Dan | Oct 18, 2004 1:56:40 PM

Maybe Bushie and Pootie-Poot should have a big gay wedding together, har har har!

Posted by: grytpype | Oct 18, 2004 2:07:53 PM

Are we on the verge of becoming a passive, "Russified" populace, meekly submitting to the iron will of the "strong men" of the Republican Party, believing that only such men can protect us from our myriad enemies? I am deeply worried. The latest polls are not encouraging.

Posted by: Donny | Oct 18, 2004 2:08:06 PM

putin and pat buchannan! who wouldn't vote for a gay basher and a communist backed nominee?

Posted by: jim | Oct 18, 2004 2:09:34 PM

Oh, and Modern Crusader? Your bone of contention seems to be with the straw Matt. The real Matt has never said any such thing.

Posted by: Donny | Oct 18, 2004 2:10:37 PM

Who cares what the Former Prime Minister of Malaysia said??

Why don't we poll the (former?) leaders of Nepal, Chad, and Equador too?

Putin at least has a visible stage to make his comments known.

Posted by: Buddy | Oct 18, 2004 2:12:33 PM

"The latest polls are not encouraging."

Learn how to read the polls, and you'll feel better. Bush had an excellent single polling day last Thursday, and he's been trending down since.

Kerry wins this race 2 out of 3 times.

And if the vote were held today, Kerry would win easily.

Posted by: Petey | Oct 18, 2004 2:16:50 PM

Petey, I basically agree with you. The Zogby tracking poll certainly supports your point about Bush having done great on Thursday, maybe also on Friday, and not as well since, and I guess Rasmussen does too. I hope the Wash. Post tracking poll out later today brings similar news (they've had Bush up 50-47 and 50-46 over the last two days). Do you think this is really all about Lesbiangate? I'm having a hard time figuring out any other reason for it.

Posted by: Haggai | Oct 18, 2004 2:25:56 PM

Thankfully, Matthew gets his timing JUST PERFECT in this post, owing to the Kerry endorsements by former Malaysian Prime Minister Matahir Mohommed and the Palestinian Authority's foreign minister, Nabil Sha'ath.

Can you judge a man by the company he keeps?

Yep. Turns out Kerry is an anti-Semite, then! Who knew? BWAHAHAhahaha...

Posted by: Al | Oct 18, 2004 2:33:42 PM

Much extremely tenuous evidence has been offered (by, among others, Putin) that Osama bin Laden wants you to vote for Kerry

On another point, this is just completely wrong. The evidence is NOT tenous. Indeed, the evidence is quite good. Just look at Spain, where the evidence is OVERWHELMING that the terrorists targetted Aznar. (See evidence, for example, here.) And Bush is a much, MUCH bigger target than Aznar.

Posted by: Al | Oct 18, 2004 2:40:14 PM

Do you think this is really all about Lesbiangate? I'm having a hard time figuring out any other reason for it.

Try the much better debate performance of the president last week. I also hear the Swift Boaters are on the attack again with a tough new ad (though not living in a purple state I can't vouch for the veracity of such reports).

Clearly the polls judging Kerry the big winner in Tempe were wrong. Most of them showed a similar margin for Kerry as in debates one and two, despite the plain evidence before our eyes that the president basically fought Kerry to a draw.

The big picture is that despite early elation, anticipation, and much Bush-hatred on the part of the Left (which resulted in encouraging numbers for Democrats for all of '04 prior to the GOP convention), the momentum has mostly been on Bush's side since the Swift Boat crowd began its attack, and since the Republicans gathered in NYC. The even bigger picture is that this race was Bush's to lose from the getgo, because no matter what the circumstances, it's tough to unseat a sitting president when the economy's growing in the 3-5% range (yeah, I know, I know, the jobs picture isn't exactly rosy, but, if I had a $5 dollar bill for every equity-induced major home renovation and fancy new car in my neighborhood in the last few years, I'd be retired and dividing my time between Nantucket and Palm Beach).

Kerry was able to temporarily reverse that momentum starting a few weeks ago in Coral Gables. But the key word is "temporarily". Lots of voters who deem Kerry the better debater will nonetheless pull the lever for Bush. We're electing the leader of the free world, remember, and not the head of the Oxford Debating Society. And in any event, for better or worse, I reckon it's nigh impossible for any Democrat to win a contemporaray U.S. presidential election dominated by national security.

Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Oct 18, 2004 2:45:14 PM

OK, P.B., keep drinking that Kool-Aid. The big picture also includes some bad news for incumbents who are running for re-election without being above 50% in the polls and in approval rating, not to mention with a "wrong track" number consistently clearing 50 by a pretty comfortable margin.

Posted by: Haggai | Oct 18, 2004 2:54:11 PM

Just look at Spain

no, you look at Spain. if the incumbent had been straight with the people, he'd probably still be in office.

Posted by: cleek | Oct 18, 2004 3:11:13 PM

Regarding Spain, there's a fact that strangely seems left out of that Washington Post article that Al linked to--Aznar wasn't running! He had announced earlier--a lot earlier, I think, at least as far back as '03, maybe even '02--that he wasn't going to run again in '04. His sucessor in Spain's Popular Party, Mariano Rajoy, was the candidate who lost in the election earlier this year. Not that it really changes the arguments one way or the other--obviously Rajoy was associated with Aznar and the Iraq war, whether one believes that the bombing turned the election for that reason or not--but it's a fact that should obviously be understood by anyone commenting on that election.

Posted by: Haggai | Oct 18, 2004 3:17:12 PM

If a group with terror connections doesn't like the direction the Spanish Government takes, the Spanish will receive additional terror attacks. Spain has lost all credibility in fighting terrorists, and have in the process thrown themselves at the mercy of terrorists. That is where a lack of conviction will get you. Kerry has said he will continue the war on terror; only he has a "Plan" to do it better. If he is elected the terrorists will rejoice, we had all better hope there are some teeth in that plan, or the terrorists will own us. Personally, I think hope is a poor course of action, particularly when there is a working alternative.

Posted by: Kevin | Oct 18, 2004 3:24:24 PM

OT

"Inside Dope", The New Yorker profiles Mark Halperin.

Posted by: sofia | Oct 18, 2004 3:27:35 PM

Haggai, I think the WaPo had it accurate: the terrorists targetted Aznar's PP, which was running Aznar's handpicked successor.


And I think the point that Putin is making is that the terrorists aren't necessarily targetting Bush because they think that Kerry would have different policies. Rather, they want a scalp. Something that they can show off to everyone as an accomplishment. And Bush's scalp is much, MUCH bigger than Aznar's.

Matthew (and CNN!) miss this point completely.

Posted by: Al | Oct 18, 2004 3:29:12 PM

Spain.
Correlation != Causation
Guess only folks in the Reality Based Community will ever really get that.
I don't suppose it makes any sense to wingnuts that perhaps the terrorist groups realize that attacks directly before an election will cast doubt on the legitimacy of ANYONE who wins because of this kind of idiot thinking? No, probably not.

Posted by: The Plebe | Oct 18, 2004 3:33:05 PM

Oh, and cleek ALSO misses the point with this: if the incumbent had been straight with the people, he'd probably still be in office.

That may be true (I don't think so, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument). But it doesn't address the point: the terrorists tried to bring down an elected government with thier attack in Spain, and (as Putin says) they are trying to do the same thing here. Whether Aznar could have avoided the PP's loss by being a more skillful politician is of no relevance to the terrorists' intent.

Posted by: Al | Oct 18, 2004 3:34:30 PM

I don't think the terrorists give a fuck who our president is.

Posted by: Dan | Oct 18, 2004 3:37:15 PM

So, Al, if a terrorist attack happened right before an election where the Dems were the incumbent party, would you vote for the Dems to deny the terrorists their "scalp"? Shimon Peres lost to Bibi Netanyahu in a razor-thin Israeli election in '96, which wouldn't have been close at all without a string of four suicide bombs in 9 days in the last two months before the election. I'm sure you think the Israeli public was wrong to give the terrorists a victory in that case...right?

Posted by: Haggai | Oct 18, 2004 3:37:32 PM

Let's not make the same mistake in fooling me once, er, fool me again, ah, what I mean is, what about Poland!? Let's show some respect for the coalition and ask who is Poland's dog in this fight?

Posted by: shrub | Oct 18, 2004 3:41:22 PM

I'm with Dan

Posted by: la | Oct 18, 2004 3:41:59 PM

Look people, we all know how much more honest and less politically opportunistic the right wing is than the left. I fully expect that every single right-wing blogger who has had the courage to point out John Kerry's close association with the al-Qaeda terrorist network will immediately engage in a flurry of critical commentary -including lots of linking and counter-linking along with interviews on Fox, even though it's not as if they coordinated anything at all- regarding the Putin endorsement of Bush. Just wait: any minute now, Glenn Reynolds will lay the proverbial smack down, if you will, on Putin for trying to interfere in domestic politics. Indeed.

All you shrill Bush-hating eastcoastliberalelitists will just have to eat crow as your betters on the right demonstrate their superior integrity by fairly and balancedishously taking a consistent stand on this issue. I know you'll all deny it because you've been mesmerized by the Riefenstahlesque machinations of Moore the Inhaler and his "butt-boy" cronies in the mainstream media, but real, patriotic Americans know the truth about The Left and your so-called "Ancient and Hermetic Order".

I will say only this in conclusion: Pacifism is not -just look at our current situation with that camel-fucker in Iraq... pacifism is not something to hide behind.

Posted by: Walter Sobchak | Oct 18, 2004 3:45:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.