Bush Takes Double Digit Lead!

I liked Alexander; he had kind of a Jimmy Carter vibe to him.

Arlen Specter was my personal choice. Not so crazy about the guy now because he's completely changed in the past 8 years, but at the time I would have picked him over Clinton in a heartbeat. Also would have mulled on Dick Lugar. And to be honest, I always liked Dole; didn't vote for him, but even before his sense of humor came out, I thought he made a really good foil for Clinton.


Cheers,

 

I was for Specter before he dropped out. His "Flat Tax Plan for America" was excellent. I have always liked him.

Never liked Dole and even though Lugar is my Senator I have never really been that crazy about him although he was an excellent Mayor of Indy.

 

In addition, both Specter and Lugar are about the most boring guys on the entire planet. Can you imagine sitting through the State of the Union address with one of them at the helm? I'm getting tired just thinking about it.

BLD

 

Does anyone remember how when John Kerry didn't get any bounce from his convention that many people (the Dems in particular, including some on this board) said that it was becasue America was so polarized and that there weren't many undecided voters left to bounce either way? Just wondering what happened to that line of reasoning given the new numbers we're seeing?

BLD

 

That's a good question, BLD; I've been mulling on it myself. All I can figure is that Kerry wasn't able to turn anti-Bush votes into pro-Kerry votes, so when Bush looked more appealing, some of them flipped over. What this means is that Kerry needs to run a better campaign, and he knows it.

But this still fits the pattern of a normal convention bounce, so I think there's plenty of room for Kerry to make up the difference over the next two months. As I've said many times before, I see a close race.


Cheers,

 

CNN/USA Today/Gallup: Bush Lead Shrinks to 7 Points

...but how do you ask a presidential candidate to be the last presidential candidate to lose for a mistake?

I warned you folks this would probably happen, because that's the post-convention norm:
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/special_packages/election2004/9596321.htm

But Bush still gave one hell of a speech and is clearly in the lead. Bush's job is to keep the focus on his second-term domestic agenda; Kerry's job is to tear Bush's first-term record to shreds and present a clear alternative. And I agree with Clinton: enough about Vietnam already. It's okay to bring it up now and then (maybe it's time for Kerry to show folks the scar on his leg where the shrapnel dug in), but it isn't going to win the election for him. Seems to me that his priorities are in the right place now that he's got some new people on board his campaign, but he's still got a tough row to hoe (as presidential candidates generally do).


Cheers,

 

Kerry's biggest problem is that by his own actions he cancelled out his greatest strength--the Vietnam service--with his anti war, anti-soldier stances. In the immediate wake of his service, he was caught up in the spirit of the times and started bad mouthing not just the war effort--which would have been defensible--but the men who fought and died for it. It now seems obvious that he stretched the truth for a willing and gullible audience wanting to hear any stories of atrocities coming from a clean cut American boy. He played the role to the hilt, tossed the medals that weren't his own, exaggerated accounts of war crimes and completely fabricated the story about being in Cambodia during Nixon's term in office.

He was quite willing to sacrifice the truth on the altar of ambition, and he fashioned a political career out of it. However, the stakes are higher now as are the standards; what was overlooked while he was in the Senate is dug up and trumpeted from the mountaintops when he's running for the White House; he just doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Had he been an honorable veteran, had he not so quickly turned upon those with whom he had served, had he been a John McCain, there might have been a chance, but instead he's a Ron Kovic, and this country isn't likely to elect him.

 

I don't think the American public has a problem with Vietnam war protesters; after all, Clinton protested overseas and didn't even serve. I think the problem is that (a) war hero status isn't necessarily a reliable vote-getter on its own (remember Bob Dole--and Max Cleland, for that matter), and (b) the O'Neill crew successfully stamped controversy on Kerry's record in a vague but slightly damaging way. I emphasize "slightly" because I really think the shift in the polls reflects declining anti-Bush sentiment more than it reflects increasing anti-Kerry sentiment.


Cheers,

 

I wouldn't celebrate yet if I were you. Scary Kerry has a top-secret plan. He plans to clone himself, then he will have his favorite democrap rub the two Kerry's together, and voila!! His present rating of 42 percent doubles to 84 percent. Brilliant.

 

Re: Beer with Clinton or Dole?

Hell, I'll even agree with that. I've met Bob Dole and he IS a funny guy, and very down-to-earth and genuinely a nice person to boot...

Clinton, on the other hand, always strikes me as a slick operator that you are never quite sure of where you stand with, even anonymously....

But I'm still voting for Kerry.

 

I agree, but I get that feeling even more strongly with Kerry. He's kind of creepy, and not just because of the Lurch lookalike effect.

BLD