Is Kerry Self-Destructing?

Kerry has "a commitment to the defense of my nation" ? More like a commitment to the UNdefense of the nation.

It seems fairly obvious. Kerry's big weakness is his record in the Senate. It's as liberal as they come. The tactic is to accuse anyone who challenges his voting record on defense as challenging his patriotism and hope it scares them away from bringing it up again. It didn't work last week and won't work in the future. His record in the Senate is a perfectly reasonable matter for discussion just as Bush's first term is a topic for debate. He came off last week like a little kid stamping his feet because the big kid on the playground made fun of his hair.

Whether or not he is self-destructive is too deep for me, but,
before it's over, Hillary is going to make it look like he is.

Well written and to-the-point piece!

Kerrys behavior after his Viet Nam service diminishes his ability to run on any kind of military platform. At the very least, he has no right to question anyone elses service, IMHO..

ANAGRAM FUN

John Kerry = Horny Jerk

CNN = lying Socialist bastards *

*The last one needs work.

"Ahh, did I mention, ah, that I served in Viet Nam?"

Dems are knocking 'em out until the last one standing is ( drum roll, please) --- Hillary!!!!!!!

The Useless Nations can't put a bandaid on a paper cut much less defend the US.

All the Republicans have to do is link Kerry to Ted Kennedy the same way they linked Mike Dukakis to Willie Horton. Campaign ads can show Kerry "morphing" into Ted Kennedy as their similar liberal voting records in the senate are compared. Most of the United States detests Ted Kennedy. And John Kerry is just like him.

I understand your intent with the "morph" but I also understand Kerry's record is more liberal than Teddy's. Wouldn't you have to morph Kennedy into Kerry? Of course, that might work. A picture of Kennedy with a soundtrack of Kerry's voting record. Then the announcer says: "You thought we were talking about Teddy (morph to Kerry) didn't you?

Kerry's an empty suit; a slobbering liberal whose background is as empty as his skull. He has exactly zero expertise in any field except "How to Marry a Richer Woman". Go look at his history of legislation; forget his votes. He's notorious for doing jack-squat; trying to glom onto bills crafted by others that he believes will prove to be popular.

He's stupid, lazy, spoiled, an effete snob, and I still say a trumped-up "war hero". I've read of his decorations, and I personally know a LOT of men who did FAR more in combat who didn't have family connections........hence no fancy medals.

Kerry will wind up on the scrapheap next to Dukakis. Good riddance.

Anyone who believes Hitlery will endure a real campaign in 2008, simply doesn't understand Hitlery.

There's no way on earth she'll submit herself to one year+ of extended and intense scrutiny, let alone the requisite mingling among the great unwashed.

So I agree, it's predictable that she'll glom on to the ticket by some backdoor, shadowy means in 2004.

There is another potential miscalculation that has just begun to show up on the radar screen. John Kerry has a monotonous voice. But whoever has him training to sound more like John Kennedy may be setting him up for a major disaster. Every time he puts his voice intonation into overdrive, he sounds a lot like Mayor Quimby on The Simpsons.

Not sure where this writer has been, but none of this is "new news". You can see the buyer's remorse showing up big time among Demos. Kerry is such a phoney and such an overbearing individual ("Do you know who I am?!!!"). I'm still awaiting Hillary to emerge as the "draft" alternative going into the convention.

Kerry has criticized Bush's "go-it-alone" policy when other nations (so Kerry says) refused to follow us in defending freedom. Maybe Bush should criticize Kerry's "go-it-alone" policy of rescuing people in Viet Nam. He could have been killed. Perhaps if he had waited and talked more people into going with him, more fallen soldiers could have been saved. Senator Kerry, how many Americans died in Viet Nam because of your "go-it-alone" policy?

I think it's pretty obvious they were trying to 'nuke' the liberal voting record with the 'GW=Deserter" bit.

Did anyone see Rep Harold Ford, Jr., on Fox and Friends a couple weeks ago (when the Nat'l Guard issue was just getting underway)? He said as much on national TV.

After the required platitudes (too bad about this, but it's really Bush's fault, and Kerry can't be responsible for his subordinates) he came out with the audacious statetment that, basically, if the Republicans didn't quit harping on Sen. Kerry's voting record, then the Guard issue would be an ongoing thing; then he closed with "this election isn't about the past, it's about the future," or some such.

I mean, it was kind of pitiful, but there it was: we'll stop calling Bush AWOL, if you stop observing that our boy's a flaming liberal.

Kerry will be a political disaster for the Dems and they are starting to see it.

There is no need for a "Draft Hillary" movement since this is exactly what she wants---it opens the door for 2008.

What is really going to be interesting to watch is when Kerry tries to move toward the center (he can't help himself) and Dems either stay home or go for Nader.

Well written and to-the-point piece!

"DITTO"

Excellent article! I liked this part best:

Chaos and damage control: Campaign operatives spent the weekend singing no, no, that's not what he meant; turn your attention elsewhere. George Bush served in the National Guard. Kerry did not mean that National Guard service is not national service. But even more important was Kerry's apparent inability to recognize a legitimate policy question; an extremely important one for a presidential candidate. The question was not about his record as a soldier, but his record as a Senator and position on defense. His high level of personal sensitivity and emotion-laden over-reaction made him look far less than presidential.

Kerry, like the other Dims of recent vintage, has a tin ear for understanding the basic opportunities to define himself in a positive light with questions of this nature, or to bring the focus of the debate onto issues of policy. Or maybe he understands that if the discourse turns to policy, he's sunk, so he'd better redirect attention elsewhere.