Posted on 03/06/2004 3:28:11 AM PST by goldstategop
Why Kerry will crash and burn in November
John Kerry cleaned house on Super Tuesday, winning all states but one. Coupled with those wins and the welcome he's received in other primaries across the country, Kerry is now the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee. The only speculation is who will fill the vice presidential side of the ticket.
Aside from that, there is good news for the Kerry campaign found in the polls. A recent Associated Press survey confirmed many other polls, reporting a close race: President Bush at 46 percent and John Kerry at 45 percent.
In addition to that news, Kerry has received endorsements from unions, organizations, senators, congressmen, celebrities and countless others, and his campaign seems to be rolling along at a good speed.
Yet, whatever the good news Kerry is getting at this point, it's not going to matter in November. I'm predicting that John Kerry is going to lose, and he's definitely not going to lose by election 2000 margins. There are many reasons why we won't see a President Kerry:
First, he's not a very attractive guy. Although he reportedly pays $150 for a style and shampoo and, as some say, shells out the money for botox, the guy is not going to grab voters who base their decisions on looks.
Furthermore, the guy is boring. As Peggy Noonan wrote, "When he speaks … Mr. Kerry is boring. I don't mean he doesn't make you laugh, nod or swoon, I mean he doesn't make you think. … Mr. Kerry's crowds seem to put up with his remarks and wait patiently till they end so they can begin to cheer." These things all point to a real lack of charisma – something that is deeply needed in a presidential candidate these days.
The second reason is two fold. First, he has an atrocious voting record in the Senate. John Kerry has been a no-show from his job for at least 128 days over the past 14 months, missing 292 roll-call votes last year and every one of the 22 roll-call votes this year. All told, he's missed 64 percent of his job in the Senate.
Additionally, his record on political issues has been horrible. He voted for the Patriot Act, but now he bashes it. He voted for the war in Iraq, but now he's against it. He's had an awful voting record on national defense. He voted for the No Child Left Behind Act, but now he speaks out against it. He's criticized President Bush's action in Iraq, but also criticized Bush for not intervening earlier in Haiti. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, but now supports exclusive man-woman marriages. The list goes on and on.
Third, he campaigns on no real issues. Yes, he does campaign on his Vietnam service in seemingly every stump speech, but his lack of an agenda on present-day domestic issues is going to hurt his campaign.
The only thing that can characterize his campaign – and the Democratic Party as a whole – is being against President Bush. The only thing that defines the Kerry campaign is attacking everything the Bush administration has done over the past term.
Fourth, the Kerry campaign offers no optimism. Instead of simply saying, "America has been doing well, but I think we can do better," Kerry continually downplays our achievements and generally lies about the economy and unemployment – it's a very pessimistic view of life.
A doom and gloom, "sky is falling" attitude has never been accepted by Americans. We are an optimistic people.
Lastly, because of Kerry's campaign being anti-Bush, they are overflowing with hate-filled rage against the GOP and the current president. The campaign offers no hope, no assurance of getting through these times; rather, they attack the president, blaming him for everything that has gone wrong since he took office.
As we saw with Howard Dean, America doesn't buy into a candidate that expresses rage and hatred. They do, however, buy a candidate that offers hope and stability. This truth will work hard against John Kerry and will help President Bush.
Right now, America doesn't know the real John Kerry. That's why his poll numbers are high, just as they were with Howard Dean. When America found out about the real Dean, he faded away. As with Dean, as America gets to know the real John Kerry, he too will surely fade away.
Right now, America doesn't know the real John Kerry. That's why his poll numbers are high, just as they were with Howard Dean. When America found out about the real Dean, he faded away. As with Dean, as America gets to know the real John Kerry, he too will surely fade away.
The bottom line is the Democrats really had their hearts set on Dean but he was too unstable and he was too liberal. Kerry, their default candidate, turns out to be wishy washy and just as liberal. Some choice!
I too see Bush rolling in November...
For them I have just 5 words.
If President Bush had taken on Kerry and answered his charges, where would Kerry be? He would be on the road to defeat and every Democrat would know it.
What would the Democrats do if they knew that Kerry did not have a prayer of winning this fall?
Dean did not have a very leftist senate voting record that spanned 19 years. He could have shifted views. The media could have played him as just pandering to his base... nothing to worry about. There is plenty to worry about with Kerry.
But what if going into the Democratic convention Kerry was a certain loser. What would the party have him do... They could force him come down with a hangnail and resign. He could set his delegates free. He could make an open convention. The New Jersey situation with the Torch proves it could be done.
So don't look for President Bush to make major moves to destroy John Kerry before the Convention. It would not be a wise thing to do.
Remember that just a little over 2 months ago the president had a high 50s approval rating. He can turn the situation around in September and October and put it there again. A president has huge a control of events. He can control the agenda. A challenger can't do that. He has little power to control.
As I've pointed out on these boards before, at this point, Kerry is the very embodiment of the "unknown Democrat" who always pulls about half the vote in every poll, then falls like a rock when someone who's actually known gets plugged into the hole. I'd remind you that two months ago, we were being told that polls showed Howard Dean with a staggering amount of support. Then people took their first look at him and -- YEEAAAAUUUGH!! -- it was all over. Soon, they'll be forced to take a look at Kerry, examine his sorry record and listen to his narcotically boring speeches, and the balloon will quickly deflate. Of course, the "objective" media will do everything they can to pump it back up, but not even they have that much hot air.
The liberal press will work hard to hide the truth.
Another thing that really destroys the credibility of the media is their overhype of the Nader factor. Currently, they have Nader garnering six per cent. Even the dumbest sheeple can do the math. Add Nader to Kerry and Kerry has a solid, steady lead. Thus, the Democrats are right to being worked up into a lather over Nader even being in the race.
We all know what happens if the race is really close down to the wire-- all the Nader voters except the most committed switch just like they did in 2000. Further, the media attention to Nader makes whoever is the Democrat candidate seem oh so moderate. For every two votes that Nader steels, the Democrat picks up at least three from the mindless mushy middle who is convinced that Nader proves the moderateness of the Democrat position.
Had Buchanan been given the same coverage as Ralph Nader, it is entirely possible the same thing would have worked on the right-- and the press knows it. So Nader will continue to get hyped and scapegoated if the election is close. I really hope you are right about a blowout. I think it is very possible that Kerry may be the leftwing equivalent of Bob Dole, but without the charisma and character.
If Democrats smell victory, hitlary wiould jump on as VP or she would just wait for 2012.
I assumed that. :)
For once, a totally apt description of Hitlery. Actually, she is LOOKING like a 500lb gorilla these days...
That Hillary and Bill Clinton are working together is one thing I will not assume. Oh, I believe he wants to maintain his influence and exert control over the democrat party, but I don't believe he wants to do it while standing to the left and slightly behind Hillary.
I'd love this to be true. Maybe all the sourpusses we're hearing from are just louder.
For once, a totally apt description of Hitlery. Actually, she is LOOKING
like a 500lb gorilla these days...
Hey! Some of my ancestors might have been gorillas. I resent your
ensinnua....incenuaa....imsinuat...insinuashun...whatever. lol
Hilliary will only get one shot and so she must decide if Prisident Bush can be beat this year. If so, she will be the candidate this year (what happens to Kerry, who knows, but you do know the Democrats do not care about rules and fair play, so if she wants it this year she will have it.)
LOL...laughing all the way to the voting booth! GO DUBYA!
Nothing about the Mark Herron memo telling lawyers how to challenge military absentee ballots. Nothing about Irv Schlossberg being found with a Votamatic in his trunk. Nothing about the FL Supremes retroactively trying to change election law in that state. Nothing about the different ways of counting pregnant and hanging chads. Nothing about the lies of black voters not being able to get to the polls because of supposed "roadblocks."
No. Nader is no different than any other 'Rat.
Like the Torch, I wouldn't doubt the Dems would dump Kerry - even after the Nomination. Remember, they did that to McGovern's running mate, Thomas Eagleton, in '72! Democrats have their "perfect" candidate waiting in the Wings primed and ready to go, Hillary.
There would be no time for the Media or the public to closely examine her (not that they really would). There would be no time for a grassroots campaign against her (remember the Campaign Finance Reform Act). She would have no time to "debate" and defend her positions in an open contest (not that she really can or would). Like the Torch, she would likely cruise to power on pure public emotion, adulation and Media hype because she is the first woman candidate and the Media simply adore her (not that anybody should). Liberals and most "Independents" would simply swoon at the opportunity to vote for her for the obvious reasons.
I smell a sucker-punch setup by the same people who brought us a senile, illegally nominated Lautenberg.
From what I read, it appears that Kerry's camp wants to demote Terry McAwful to something like emeritus status. And the Democrats (read Hillary and Sick Willie) are having no part of it.
So, the 500 pound gorilla is throwing her weight around already.
Nader is out of hif freaking mind if he admires Republican leadership for standing up to Conservative ideals.
Every hear of Bill "Wimpy" Frisk who will not really challenge the Democrats on Judge appointments? Or how about $500 Billion dollars in prescription drugs for greedy geezers?
Dude, you make an incredible amount of sense - Thanks!!!!
What conservatives and republicans always seem to forget is they see the world from their own prejudices and preferences. Yes, Kerry does have some very soft spots. But then too, so does President Bush. Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? In general no. Is it the President's fault? In general, most isn't.
Our virtually jobless recovery, largely due to a combination of outsourcing and the continued dow meltdown would have taken place no mater what. 9/11, while a factor has largely been moved on in the minds of many American's. You live where you can read the Dispatch. Have you read today's article at the bottom of page 1 discussing jobs? Central Ohio, largely immune from swings in employment has lost I believe 9,000 jobs between this January and January 2003. That's depressing. I read a report yesterday that said the upswing in net national jobs was largely due to government employment, not private sector which remained flat. Kerry may be soft on issues. The President will be judged in many cases on the pocketbooks and wallets of average folks.
There was vast support in the war on terrorism in general and the Iraq war in particular. Many people felt the invasion was a completion of unfinished business from 1991. There was strong emphasis placed on WMD's, links to Al Qeuda or other terror groups that threaten us, and the fact that we would not be the policemen of Iraq once liberated. Yet this morning in our paper we read that the extreme religous leaders in Iraq killed an opportunity to begin a constitution signing in the country. It may be a temporary setback as implied by the paper. But then again, it could be representative of a much more dangerous process than was sold.
And everyday there is a report of terror or death of our brave soldiers, the strength of President Bush trickles away. Republican's may see the longer goal. The average Joe doesn't. The tide is turning.< p>Incumbency is very powerful. And the President has that on his side. But he is weak. He has thumbed his nose at his conservative base, yet is now seen by liberals and conservatives alike as pandering to this constituency. Our national debt has grown again. Sure some of it is security and war. Much was the approval of pork from the republican congress. Remember, the president has yet to withhold his pen from a spending bill.
His words after the supremes ruling in the Michigan racial preference case was not endearing to the core. His abondonment of some judicial nominees has also left his base realing.
I was listening to the christian talk station in this area last Saturday. One of the topics was "are conservatives hurting President Bush?" The guest was a book author. Yet like the supporters of Bill Clinton during impeachment, he was using any of the same rationalizations for supporting his man. And most of the callers were angry.
Kerry isn't the most inspiring speaker. but then again, neither is the President. The debates will be dull, like watching Bob Dole against Bob Dole. But Kerry isn't Al Gore. He's better, much better. And the debates is what did Gore in.
Yes this is still President Bush's to lose. But he is not coming from a position of strength. And just before Iowa, Kerry was largely written off. He prevailed. He came from nowhere to dominate. Don't underestimate him. And don't underestimate the man or woman voter who isn't an ideaologue republican or democrat.
This is indeed a very difficult time for our President and he is in for the run for his life.
This is the thing I love. the media is wetting themselves in orgasmic pleasure over these poll numbers.
Yet, at this time, AND EVEN CLOSER TO NOVEMEBR, in other elections :
Gary Hart led Ronald Reagan by 9 Points.
Walter Mondale led Ronald Reagan by 8 points
Michael Dukakis lead Geroge Bush by 17 points
If I remember right, Bob Dole even led or was EVEN with Clinton around this time in 96.
IOW words people with HUGE LEADS over the incumbent President LOST in Electoral Landslides. With almost 100% Monica knnepad support from the mongrel presstitutes, all Kerry can manage is to be EVEN!
People are screaming Bush needs to attack, attack, attack, and define Kerry. I say no -- let Kerry Bloviate, let the press suckle at the teet of the liberals.
Now, is the time to Rope-a-Dope with the Dims. Let Kerry be George Foreman and throw haymaker after haymaker, while Ali (Bush) lays against the ropes and covers up letting the blowhard flail away.
As Convention time nears, then start the tap tap tap of RIGHT Jabs to Kerry's face, with an occasional punch to the midsection.
As Debate time comes around, then the power punches come out, and the now totally punched out Dimbulbs will be defenceless against the September-October onslaught of truth and light.
Remember people, the fight here is not for the Rabid ABBers, they will vote for Satan, Bin Laden, Hitler or any other Demon before they will vote for Bush. Let them howl and rant and be as mean vicious and ugly as they can for a while.
We want, and need, the independents, the sucker moms, the mushy lovey dovey can't we all get along moderates. That's who will win this election, and they historically can;t stand negative attack dogs. By the summer they will be sick and tired of the negative attacking of the bitter Left, and willgravitate to a positive America first message.
Yes! A&D in Vietnam became a production line kind of business, and, for the most part, the higher the rank, the more corruption there was. I could write a book on what I saw while flying for the 24th Corps HQ Command Staff in the 70's, but I don't think anything was rescended there. But, in 68 or 69 I remember reading of a scandal in the Army. It centered around an Awards and Decorations Clerk(s) blowing the whistle on the higher-ups fraudulently putting themselves in for DFC's and Silver Stars, etc.
I'm going to do a search.
And I personally respect him.
CFR kicks in only 3 weeks after the dim convention.
The Nader position is the journalism position, pure liberalism (that is to say, pure superficial, demagogical criticism of those who make the country work/flattery of the reader). Thus journalism attacks everyone from the left, positioning the Democrats as "moderate" and the Republicans as "extreme."Had Buchanan been given the same coverage as Ralph Nader, it is entirely possible the same thing would have worked on the right-- and the press knows it.
No, a second party on the right is just a division of the conservative vote. Pretty much what Ross Perot accomplished.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.