</p align=center>
Posted on 09/25/2004 4:52:06 PM PDT by billorites
Here's what I'd like to read about the 2004 election: an analysis of what happened written ten years from now. Anything written today is part of the events themselves. Writing today, you're caught up in the event of the moment. I feel I've been remiss in not yet posting a condemnation of the Republican's ban-the-Bible letter. Writing today, you're influenced by a hope or fear of affecting the events. And you also don't know how things will turn out. You don't know who will win the election, whether some dramatic event will occur in October, and how the war in Iraq will play out.
I try to imagine how someone looking back on the election will analyze it. If Kerry loses, one question will be, what was the turning point? Did the Swift Boat ads set the campaign on a track that led to defeat, was it Kerry's own choice to make his Vietnam service the central argument that he should be President, or was it a mass delusion--Kerry is electable--that overtook voters back in the primaries? Another question will be: When could Kerry have done something to salvage his candidacy? And: What was the final, fatal mistake?
I'm writing today, so I have all the deficiencies of a person writing today, but I have a prediction of the answer to that last question. The final, fatal mistake was criticizing and contradicting Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi when he was visiting the U.S. Kerry is in a very difficult position needing to criticize Bush's handling of the war, because the criticism itself seems damaging to the war effort. Bringing Allawi to the U.S. and linking him to the Bush campaign message was a powerful political move by Bush, but it was not a checkmate. Yet it forced Kerry into a terrible blunder. The grisly takedown has begun:
BUSH: This brave man came to our country to talk about how he's risking his life for a free Iraq, which helps America. And Sen. Kerry held a press conference and questioned Mr. Allawi's credibility. You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility.
CHENEY: I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Sen. Kerry showed for this man of courage. Ayad Allawi is our ally. He stands beside us in the war against terror. John Kerry is trying to tear him down and to trash all the good that has been accomplished, and his words are destructive."
And the Kerry campaign is now wasting a lot of breath pointing out that it is an election year and the President's conduct of the war must be open to criticism, but what can be said of the attack on Allawi? Kerry will never dig himself out of this one, I think. And any time he makes his old favorite argument that he is much better suited for interaction with our allies, his Allawi blunder will be thrown in his face.
</p align=center>
Kerry insulted a visiting dignitary, not just any head of state, probably the most brave person in Iraq today.....this insult told me one thing...Kerry's plans for Iraq...he plans to withdraw...he publically insulted a man who he may have to deal with..
You can't get anything past Freepers.
He still has LOTS of mistakes to make.
No one will have a picture. Lurch didn't attend; he was in Ohio.
I think you should have put the picture of the bumper sticker up. So what if a few people get offended . . . :)
I should have anticipated your reply.
Exactly... Kerry is what democrats think "patriotism" "IS". Just being a democrat is evidence that you have a social disease..... else you would be a neo-con, still with same disease but infecting republicans...
Definitely. Kerry's attack on Allawi was the worst thing he's said since his vicious 1971 slandering of the US military. IMO the Pres. and VP were too restrained in their criticism of Kerry's comments.
Kerry was AWOL from the Senate...again...on the day Allawi addressed the Congress. Edwards was not in attendance either. Perhaps they were having their hair 'done'.
Democrats know how to prioritize.
Best Regards,
Julyman16
Liberals have banned the Bible?
How can the Bible be banned and yet still be the best selling Book?
Sure, there are the thought police who want to ban certain things stated in the Bible from being broadcast on TV etc as hate-speech (the anti-gay passages for example)as we see in Canada.
But many Christians are Democrats and to say they want to ban the Bible in campaign literature is a really stupid move. It sounds hysterical.
Did you perhaps mean to write "won"?
Well at least it passed the spell checker.
john 'f'riggin kerry was doomed from the day the klintons selected him to be the 2004 loser.
Hillary could NOT allow a dem to win since were that to happen, she might not be on the ticket until 2012.
And that is waaaay to late.
She looks like an open can of Spam now and 8 years from now, she is likely to look like an 8 year old open can of Spam!
They didn't need to. If the dems had nominated Sam Nunn to pick one of several possible names out of the hat, the election would be over.
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.