On Protesting - Obviously if anybody checks the news headlines today, the protesting was peaceful and organized. It in no way created any real panic, and may cities have harbored protests of greater scale with less planning. In a case like this where tens of thousands of people are expected to show, protest organizers and city officials work closely to make sure there is as little room for physical threat or property damage as possible. Despite the blubbering of a few conservative mouthpieces who attemtp to discredit the effectiveness of any kind of demonstration by calling it a threat before it even occurrs, the number of tragedies that actually result from demonstrations are small - and most often the people who are harmed are the protesters themselves if the police or army feel they have become too unruly.
As far as suggesting protesting isn't acceptable or somehow unpatriotic? Are you joking? Ever hear of a little event most commonly known as the Boston Tea Party? Actually I think be today's standards that would be closer to terrorism than protest, but you get the idea. It is a clear and intended constitutional right to be able to organize and protest the government, and in truth un-American to suggest otherwise. Our government's philosophy was founded on the concept of public descent from values that we consider to be less than our standard for democracy. It's naive to say that the framers wanted all the power in the hands of the mob, but they intended the public voice and consciousness to act as a serious check on the powers that be, and to allow them to be heard, influencing elections and policy.
Now, in this matter, I'm not much in favor of protesting as it is clearly what the conservatives want. They would love nothing more than for brutal riots to break out just like the WTO incident in Seattle a few years ago. Holding th convention New York in proximity to ground zero was clearly an incindiary move. News flash images of 'wild looking' dreadlocked hippies tearing apart cars and combating police is perfect press for Bush, as such things scare the shit out of middle America and further convinve them that anybody on the left of the Bush adminstration's positions are anarchist communists bent on letting terrorists use our nation for target practice. It's a well laid ploy meant to give Bush any extra boost he can get in this critical time, and bravo to their cunning. But so far they've failed, as the protests have been peaceful and organized.
On Kerry - I have seen no polls that put him five points behind in a battleground state, I believe you may be looking at old polls factoring in Nader, where some would place Kerry as much as 4 points back if he were on the ballot. Fortunately Ralph didn't make it on the ballot in any crucial states. Right now it's usually about a dead heat with Kerry often holding on with a one point lead. Traditionally, for an incumbent president to ever trail in the polls this late means certain death on election day. The fact is, Bush barely won before (if he won at all), and a good deal of the people that just voted ticket republican (and basically against Clinton) last time have turned against him due to the war, the economy, concerns about his secrecy, all the usual criticisms. Besides a newly energized democratic base who will turn out in greater numbers for fear of another 2000, Bush has lost some of his support base, plus independent voters favor Kerry over Bush in all polls to date. Compound this with the fact that the biggest ever youth voter turn out is expected (we already established that something in the neighborhood of 3 out of 4 young people detest Bush) and you have serious problems for the Bush team, and many republican politicians and officials admit as much. It's not wishful thinking, it's a political reality. It's generous to Bush to suggest that things are even tied right now.
So far as Kerry not getting a great bounce after the convention, consider a few things. He was already hugely publicized before the convention, and the media suggestions of a 15 point jump are ludicrous as that has rarely happened in the last several elections, nor is the bounce ever usually a permanent increase. A 15 point jump, which is the figure I heard most often used, is the maximum that could more or less ever be expected, and in truth not much of a realistic figure. He had already announced his VP choice of John Edwards as well. On top of this, nobody can deny that this election has a huge amount of energy and popular involvement and the anticipation has been building for more than a year. The DNC didn't generate a huge boost in numbers because voters are already energized and polarized. John Kerry had already been well introduced to us, and the people likely to vote in this election are already well aware of their choices. Combine that with the whopping five or six hours of TV coverage it recieved, and I don't see how it's reasonable to expect it vault Kerry into a 10 point lead all over the country. It was no failure, it was business as usual.
As a senator, Kerry has contributed qutie a bit. Senators do much more than just author and push bills through congress. Some of the most busy bill writers very rarely see anything passed in its intended form or purpose. A primary way for senators to serve their country is to use their position's privelages and incluence to investigate and publicize certain issues. Kerry, the "traitor," co-lead an investigation into the possibility of POWs still being held in Vietnam with John McCain (another war hero who got labeled a "traitor" by the Bush team when he ran against them. See a pattern? Veteran runs against Bush, they're a traitor!). This gave solace and finality to many families who lost loved ones in the war as well as beggining a new phase of recovery and cooperation with the Vietnamese government, helping to heal the wounds of a terrible war on both sides. He also lead the investigation that exposed Norega and the depths of the Panamanian and Sandanista scandal. He also has very significant and accomplished committee service that have given him national security and foreign relations experience. Anybody with a working knowledge of Washington and congress understands that to making politics work and incluencing policy involves much mroe than drafting out an endless series of bills and punching in the occassional vote. If only it were so simple.
In a previous post I already explained that it is a complete falsehood to label Kerry the most liberal senator - the publication from which this statistic is taken has publicly denounced the frequent quotation of the "most liberal" title - they are a non-partisan organization. I believe that his first term in office he was in the top five, but throughout the 90s he's hovered somewhere around 15th overall unless I'm mistaken. But 15th most liberal just doesn't scare the shit out of quasi-conservatives dissatisfied with Bush but fearful of mocha-slurping volvo driving liberal socialists, so naturally the Bush team has stuck to the #1 ranking. One thing about Kerry - he doesn't lie when he goes after Bush - he doesn't have to.