Posted on 07/30/2004 6:38:47 PM PDT by RWR8189
The liberal media was busy looking under every rock to find that ellusive kerry bounce.
On the one hand, a plurality of the American people now say they oppose having gone to war to remove Saddam.
As a Viet Nam vet (3 tours), I have, for the most part, ignored John Kerry. Another Senator taking a shot at the presidency generally draws a yawn, but last night I got angry--angry enough to go all out to make sure this Viet Cong apologist never sits in the oval office. For the record, supporting a true patriot and leader (George W.) and pointing out John Kerry's "real" service record is not going negative. It's an honor and a privilege. One I take very seriously. I do so for the sake of my family, my friends and my two grandsons.
The last sentence is garbage. The war's long over and our occupation of Iraq was terminated a month ago. People are entitled to change their minds but changing minds on the basis of hindsight is a terrible idea.
I find that canard about patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel irritating. I have always maintained that the REAL last refuge of a scoundrel is "Everybody does it."
He exects the American people to ignore 20 years of voting and on the record speeches and believe what he is saying now, even though 180 degrees away from his known beliefs, is what he really stands for. Talk about thinking the American people are stupid!
This is the democrat party looney left.
When a democrat says they are patriotic, they are not telling you which way or at whom they would point the gun.
Bill Kristol is a mixed bag. He is moderate, but when he is really open and honest he makes solid points. He was totally disgusted by Ron Reagan's stem cell speech and he was vocal about it the other night. Regarding Kerry, Kristol is right - this speech exposes the Democrats lightness of being when it comes to substance.
Besides the lack of substance on Iraq, Iran and Terror policy in general, he has a major problem on his hands. I turned to Brokaw and Russert after the speech and Tim said very somberly that Bush will relentlessly hit Kerry on the vote against the $87 billion funding for rebuilding Iraq. Did you know that Hillary and Kennedy both voted for it and warned Kerry that he should not go against. The only reason he went against it was for his own crass political despair. He could not risk being "responsible" like Lieberman and we all know how far Joe's responsibility position got him with that bunch. This was when Kerry was in the fight of his life against Dean before Howie imploded. When it came down to a decision he told our soldiers to get lost because he needed credibility with the kook wing of the Donkey party.
The more I see about Kerry and his senate voting record, the better I feel that Bush will soundly beat him.
You may have meant this in jest, but there's alot of truth in it.
His advisors hope that once that angle is no longer discussed by the babbling heads and it is assumed that he is equally as "pro-America" as Bush, then he cna proceed to debate on the issues. Thus, Bush should spend the next month before the convention hammering Kerry for his anti-American activities including protesting Vietnam, voting against funds for our troops, not taking a public stand against Michael Moore, and paying too much attention to what the rest of the world thinks.
If Americans think Kerry is unAmerican, nothing else will matter.
Precisely.
Kerry thinks the presidency is his birthright.
Given that I worry about his mental state after he loses. If you remember, Gore believed exactly the same thing. And he has seriously gone off the deep end.
Dealing with the fruits and nuts crowd is getting a little eerie.
(snip)What Bush needs to do is simple: make the positive case for his reelection--for his stewardship of the country since September 11, for the war in Iraq, for his overall success in the global war on terror.
I beleive that's exactly what he's doing except the ignoring Kerry part.He's already reminding voters that KERRY WILL RAISE THIER TAXES.This is smart I can not think of one instance where voters have elected a candidate that admits thier intention to raise taxes.
And to think he spent days handwriting the speech himself.
Tubby promised we'd "be out in a year". No one believed him. Not one person in the press challenged him.
Rush referred to J Effin's campaign as "Strength through Slogans" - referring to the use of every cliche and even borrowing from the GOP's 2000 campaign.
I'm sure the backroom discussions these days at the DNC HQ are peppered with phrases like "cluster f***"..."debacle"...."we're hosed".... "maybe he'll have a stroke"....Seriously, Kerry left every national issue unexplained, practically begging Bush and the republicans to define his positon for him, including the war in Iraq!! I don't think there are enough hours in the day for Bush to pummel Kerry on every issue he's left undefined.
The dems have basically walked away from their convention with no national platform. That means they stand for nothing. How long can a political party last that stands for nothing?
Yes, he did. he mostly ignored Kerry, but took a few valid an well-aimed swipes at him to keep Kerry on the defensive about his own real liberal record.
Supposed to be out by Christmas ... ... (wait for it) ... 1996!
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.