Posted on 10/18/2004 3:39:55 PM PDT by swilhelm73
Most of the polls seem to indicate that the president’s lead is growing. Why? Adam Nagourney, in The New York Times, argues that the Mary Cheney mistake has canceled out Kerry’s supposed victory in the debates. That’s way too simple. No doubt Kerry’s been hurt by the Mary Cheney dustup. But there’s a lot more going on than that. For one thing, the president did far better in the debates than Nagourney lets on. In particular, the president’s been stressing Kerry’s liberalism. Kerry’s flip-flops aren’t just a matter of bending with the political wind. They’re an attempt to disguise his underlying liberalism. Kerry fell behind because the Swiftboat Vets and the Republican convention–especially Zell Miller’s speech–painted a true and persuasive picture of Kerry’s dovish record. Kerry’s Vietnam protests reveal him to be a McGovernite liberal, and his twenty-year Senate voting record confirms it. Electoral momentum shifted to Kerry after the first debate, when almost every question Jim Lehrer asked was about the troubles in Iraq. That put the president on the defensive and took Kerry’s record off the table. But the president turned Kerry’s record back into an issue in the next two debates. The Mary Cheney remark may be Kerry’s most obvious mistake, but Kerry’s real problem is that the president has put Kerry’s liberalism back into play. And the president did this, not just by highlighting Kerry’s record, but by laying out a real alternative. The Times would have it that Kerry’s victories on substance are being canceled out by the kind of minor cultural gaffe only flyover country types could care about. What Nagourney and the Times don’t want to admit is that, despite Kerry’s smooth performance in the debates, the public is just not comfortable with his extreme liberalism.
Hmm, he should have used paragraph breaks;
Most of the polls seem to indicate that the president’s lead is growing. Why? Adam Nagourney, in The New York Times, argues that the Mary Cheney mistake has canceled out Kerry’s supposed victory in the debates. That’s way too simple.
No doubt Kerry’s been hurt by the Mary Cheney dustup. But there’s a lot more going on than that. For one thing, the president did far better in the debates than Nagourney lets on. In particular, the president’s been stressing Kerry’s liberalism. Kerry’s flip-flops aren’t just a matter of bending with the political wind. They’re an attempt to disguise his underlying liberalism.
Kerry fell behind because the Swiftboat Vets and the Republican convention–especially Zell Miller’s speech–painted a true and persuasive picture of Kerry’s dovish record. Kerry’s Vietnam protests reveal him to be a McGovernite liberal, and his twenty-year Senate voting record confirms it.
Electoral momentum shifted to Kerry after the first debate, when almost every question Jim Lehrer asked was about the troubles in Iraq. That put the president on the defensive and took Kerry’s record off the table. But the president turned Kerry’s record back into an issue in the next two debates.
The Mary Cheney remark may be Kerry’s most obvious mistake, but Kerry’s real problem is that the president has put Kerry’s liberalism back into play. And the president did this, not just by highlighting Kerry’s record, but by laying out a real alternative.
The Times would have it that Kerry’s victories on substance are being canceled out by the kind of minor cultural gaffe only flyover country types could care about. What Nagourney and the Times don’t want to admit is that, despite Kerry’s smooth performance in the debates, the public is just not comfortable with his extreme liberalism.
John F*ckin's extreme liberalism doesn't play well with independents and swing voters in the so-called battleground states. President Bush's put it on the table and you can see Kerry is beginning to melt down. And if you want proof, consider Kerry ran away from the liberal label in the last two debates like a vampire shuns sunlight. Now, if America really is a 50-50 country, why won't he embrace his ideology? The truth is America rejects it.
Hey Swilhelm73. go back to your english class there sport.
Person did a pretty good post here and you ya putz gotta lay some b.s. on them about grammer?
Get a life.
> Adam Nagourney, in The New York Times, argues that the
> Mary Cheney mistake has canceled out Kerry’s supposed
> victory in the debates.
That's because the NYT would like it to be that simple.
It was just one of many gaffes, to include:
- still running the draft hoax after the HR163 defeat
- exploiting the dead (Reeve, Kerry's mother)
- the crippled shall rise fraud
- the terrorism "nuisance"
Plus, as I pointed out in other threads, the subtext
of the Kerry lesbian statement may still be rippling
through the gay community:
"If it's politically expedient, we'll out you"
It was his own post he was editing. Calm yourself.
Summed up:
Kerry is a liar. The public isn't buying his act.
His running mate is a lunatic who thinks he channels fetuses as well as tells the public that the lame will walk.
Did you think the Black Baptists really bought his Holy Roller act?
Then there's the traitor issue...still no signed 180 form
And if all the above isn't enough, he, fat Ted, and some other pro-abortion maggots are being excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.
I hope that helps in trying to develop a positive ad for the nitwit team...*smirk*
Perhaps it's just the lurking feeling that underneath his stylistically polished debating, there's little there but complaints, criticisms, and old liberal ideas that never really worked. The President's warmth and humanity at the last two debates spoke oodles in contrast to what Kerry had to offer: "More of the same."
Uh, I posted the original, Mr Observant.
Big blocks of text aren't overly easy to read, hence me providing the original, and an easier to read version.
I know that, I just like it better how it originally was posted.
Kerry talks and talks and talks, but says absolutely nothing at all.
I wish ya'll would quit snipping at each other on here. It just about makes me cry. We don't need enemies, we do a good enough job of snurting at each other on here like a bunch of snippers. Snit. Snit. Snit. . . and I mean this to not only one or two, this is on many threads where people just snip and snit at each other.
LOL,,, good save!
:-)
...a charactaristic that made him an indispensable part of the US Senate for nearly 20 years...< sarcasm off >
"snurting at each other on here like a bunch of snippers"
I like that! I like that word, snurting, never heard it before, but I'll use it soon.
And I agree, no in-fighting, UNITY, UNITY, UNITY, until Nov. 3rd, then we can go back to snurting.
Many average people as well as the "experts" (who are mostly libs) are easily fooled by the acting performance of Kerry who is a consummate actor. The fact is President Bush is not a polished debater or public speaker. He can be very effective in a number of situations, but someone like Kerry, who has practiced fooling people his entire life, will always have an edge over honest, hearts-on-their-sleeve speakers like Bush. Simply put a lot of people are taken in by Kerry's style...but it's all style and no substance.
Not the Republicans.
Not the military or Veterans.
Not married women.
Not Southern Democrats.
Not as many Catholics as usual.
Not as many Jews as usual.
Not the people who really believe "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time".
Not the 94.6% of people who have jobs.
Heck, after the last debate, I'd be surprised if Teresa even votes for him.
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.