Damn, Kerry must be weak!

[PaceAdvantage]

Let's take all the criticisms of the Bush administration at face value. Let's take all the flak thrown at him by Michael Moore in F-9/11 at face value.

Let's throw in the fact that Bush lost the first debate.....

And he's still TIED with Kerry in the polls (Some have the President still slightly ahead, some have Kerry slightly ahead)???? What gives here folks? How bad is John Kerry as a candidate that he doesn't have a clear cut lead on Bush at this point?

Common sense dictates that there is something lurking behind the scenes with Senator Kerry, one the American public (or at least those being polled) just can't shake.

Maybe the more vocal Kerry supporters among us can answer this question for me, as I've asked it many times.

[sq764]

Actually, Washington Post poll today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct4.html

Bush Has 5-Point Lead in New Poll

By Richard Morin and Christopher Muste
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 5, 2004; Page A06

President Bush continues to lead Sen. John F. Kerry among likely voters despite surging enthusiasm for Kerry among Democrats and new doubts about whether the president has a clear plan to deal with terrorism and the situation in Iraq, according to a Washington Post tracking poll.

In the aftermath of last week's debate, Bush leads Kerry 51 percent to 46 percent among those most likely to vote, according to polling conducted Friday through Sunday. Independent candidate Ralph Nader claims 1 percent of the hypothetical vote. But Bush held only a three-point advantage among all registered voters, down from seven points in a Post-ABC News survey conducted before the debate.

[hcap]

PA

Common sense dictates that there is something lurking behind the scenes with Senator Kerry, one the American public (or at least those being polled) just can't shake.

Maybe the more vocal Kerry supporters among us can answer this question for me, as I've asked it many times.

The swiftboat ads did the damage. The dems are just not as good as hardball and sliming as the repubs. Kerry was leading in almost all polls until he got slimed big time. If Kerry/Edwards get open coverage without obstructions like the swiftys, a few more points in their totals.

Still a wide open race. The real world is likely to determine the outcome more than anything else. If Iraq continues to meltdown, Kerry has the advantage. If the current administration scandals make the main stream media coverage, also Kerry. If bush captures or kills Osama, bush. Major jobs improvement, bush. I think the debates could be a strong influence for the undecided vote.

Another terrorist attack, who knows?

Without any major external events, I still think this is going to look like 2000.

[sq764]

I love how Kerry's weak campaign is always blamed on Bush's attack ads..

If he had a strong campaign, he would be able to shake the attack ads.. Face it, he spent his whole convention talking about his Nam record and no one gave a shit about it..That's when the shift came about, after voters realized he hasn't a clue.

[cj]

I've said this before, but I honestly think the Dems would be happier if Kerry lost and they can pin their hopes in Hills in 2008. If Kerry wins, she is pushed back 8 years!

[hcap]

Sq,

He is shaking the ads. Now.

The swiftboat ads took their toll when they came out. Whether you agree or not. Simply a wonderfull piece of negative political slimming. Your perception is about the dem convention is another Karl Rove&Co success.

This is more like reality.

[sq764]

Well if you think so and want to blame the ads instead of the weak campaign he put together, whatever makes you happy.

[hcap]

I will agree Kerry did not handle those attacks well, and yeah in that respect it was a "weak" campaign. But I think the swifties have run their course for most, and since the influx of the clinton gang, the Kerry campaign has shown some agressiveness. I don't think the swifties will do any more real damage.

[ljb]

From cj
I've said this before, but I honestly think the Dems would be happier if Kerry lost and they can pin their hopes in Hills in 2008. If Kerry wins, she is pushed back 8 years!


I cannot speak for all Dems but I would not be willing to accept four more years of dubya for anyone. He has done enough damage in the four years he has been in to last until 2008 thank you.,

[Lefty]

PA, what's "lurking" is Kerry's voting record of last 20 yrs.

hcap, Dems not as good at sliming? Have you ever been to moveon.org, have youer heard of Michael Moore?
I'm still laughing.

[Lefty]

hcap, I mentioned moveon and MM but Clean forgot CBS News. They rush to interview every guy who put out a "Bushbash" book but not one interview of anyone who mentions anything neg about Kerry or something positive about Bush? Do you not think that strange?

[boxcar]

Talk about a Liberal being out of touch with reality! It appears that Hcp doesn't even have a toe touching the ground.

He conveniently forgets how Bush was shamelessly blamed for a car dragging death of that Texas black man. And he forgets how the Libs brought up Bush's military record long before the Swifties came along.

But PA is right on the mark. Kerry's campaign is pathetically weak. Many people realize that Kerry has been hiding his ultra left-wing voting record that he has amassed over the past two decades or so. AND...that Kerry is one of the biggest patholgical liars to have ever come down the 'pike. Get a load of Kerry before he had presidential aspirations and the Kerry now...who in the last couple of months or so has been trying to shore up a very disgruntled and unsettled anti-war Deaniac base by donning anti-war garb and making anti-war statements.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/08...v?MSWMExt=.asf

If the above link doesn't work, try the one below.

http://64.203.97.110:80/rnc/080304v1.wmv?MSWMExt=.asf

Boxcar

[ljb]

Bush had a double digit lead in many polls after the swift boat lies and the convention.
One debate and Kerry pulls ahead.
Damn, Bush must be weak!

[hcap]

Boxcar,

Glad to see the hurricanes have left safe you on the ground. Well at least physically on the ground

Your audio collage was edited obviously to support your point of view. Just the Chris Mathews bit , that I actually watched was edited outrageously, removing the context in which Kerry responded. I am pretty sure the rest is done in a similiar fashion. In fact Mathews angrily made a point of this over a number of days as it was mangled in the right wing spin machine.

As far as "Bush was shamelessly blamed for a car dragging death of that Texas black man."

All I can say is huh?

I don't think that was the hullabaloo. More like Bush misstating the circumstances of the conviction of the mans' actual killers, and insulting the victims's family by his indifference to a hate crimes bill--" James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act". Named after the victim and finally passed 3 years after dubya was no longer govenor.

Bushs' military record has been in dispute for some time. There are still real questions about it. The navy just ruled Kerrys' records are ok.

Flip flopping is a straw man designed to deflect the focus off the dismal bush fiasco in Iraq, and his overall royal dudness

As I wrote another thread...

Kerry was more consistant about his position on the war than bushs' ever morphing rational for going to war.Bush's rhetoric. He says "Kerry voted for the Iraq war."

But when bush asked Congress for the resolution, when Andy Card rolled it out after Labor Day, Bush claimed it was a vote for peace:

..." you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace."


Kerry from day one....actual quotes

Oct. 9, 2002
Senate floor speech on Iraq resolution:

"In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days -- to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

Sept. 9, 2003
Speech announcing presidential campaign, Patriot's Point, S.C.:

"I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. I believe that was right -- but it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition -- and with no plan to win the peace."

March 18, 2003
Statement on the eve of the attack on Baghdad:

"Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. ... Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. ... My strong personal preference would have been for the administration ... to have given diplomacy more time."

Dec. 3, 2003
Speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City:

"Simply put, the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

Sept. 20, 2004
New York University:

"President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq?"

Now you tell me when bush says...

"It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about."

Remember? Bush said he wanted the authorization to use force so that he'd have a strong bargaining chip at the United Nations--and that the U.N. would get new inspectors in, and that, maybe, this would lead to Saddam disarming without a war.
That's why Kerry voted for the resolution. As he said at the time.

Now bush the flip fopper.

Bush keeps revising his Iraq war rationale: The need to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction until none were found; liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator; fighting terrorists in Iraq not at home; spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it's a safer America and a safer world.

In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.

He opposed a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President Dick Cheney came with him.

Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.

Last month, he said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would.

A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

"I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

"No matter how many times Senator Kerry flip-flops, we were right to make America safer by removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said last week in Missouri.

Bush has changed his positions on new Clean Air Act restrictions, protecting the Social Security surplus, tobacco subsidies, the level of assistance to help combat AIDs in Africa, campaign finance overhaul and whether to negotiate with North Korean officials....

[hcap]

Hey Box,

I reiterate, huh?
Here is the lowdown on your totally offbase comment

..."Bush was shamelessly blamed for a car dragging death of that Texas black man."

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=8971