[Zebra]

Bush's problem is that America is coming to believe that, perhaps, his time is past.

Really? Because he has saved his dry powder for the campaign and still enjoys 50% approval ratings? I can understand the Kerry comments--they are almost certainly correct. But this little throwaway line bespeaks a certain naiveté.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

I thought no one could match the way I felt about Clinton, but Kerry is a horrible human being.

[uncbob]

Why? Because John Kerry, by his voting record over two decades, is outside the American mainstream. Unlike John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan or even the roguish Bill Clinton, he is not a naturally attractive man. Third, he seems not to have a single conviction he will not jettison in the pursuit of power.

Sounds like Al Gore and look what happened with him

[Bahbah]

"...but of those who did profess some familiarity, 42 percent said Kerry has no principles or beliefs he will not abandon to advance his ambitions."

This is good news, indeed. Someone is paying attention. I'm not sure, however, that this would bother a democrat voter.

[grobdriver]

And the Bushites have only just begun to drill this cavity.

Oh, what a delicious metaphor!
Sans Novocaine, I hope!

[CatoRenasci]

In this piece, Buchanan makes sense.

[alloysteel]

John Kerry has already had his equivalent "post-convention" boost, as it is now a nearly foregone conclusion he will be the designated Democrat candidate for the Presidency. I say "nearly foregone", because there is the example of Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, and Robert Torricelli of New Jersey.

We are left with the question, were the Democrats too hasty in choosing their candidate? Of the candidates the Democrats had for their choice, probably only Gephardt and Lieberman fit the definition of the "old-style" Democrats, while just about every one of the others lived by some mixture of New Age and classic Marxism. And see how fast THEY got blown out of the water.

We have the plain lesson of what happened over the past week in Spain. Al-Qaeda plans and carries out an assault just before an election, and the electorate gets panicked about the relationship between the deployment of some of their army troops in Iraq, and the attack. Therefore, they elect a change in leadership, whose platform includes bringing the troops back home. This is an indirect statement that allying yourself with Bush will attract an attack from al-Qaeda. Therefore, we may avoid further attacks from al-Qaeda by voting in a more Socialist form of government, and ending our foreign deployments.

There is a very dangerous assumption in all this, that simply because Spain retreats, they will be immune from further attacks in the future. On the contrary, the continuing sabotage and unrest will never stop, until Spain is reduced to the condition of Beirut, and life there will never be settled.

A similar fate awaits the US, should we collapse in the face of an attack from al-Qaeda, their successors or assigns. The socialist Democrats may be DEPENDED upon to cut a deal with the Islamofascists, they want to do it right now.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

The upcoming Democrat convention in Boston may also throw cold water on Kerry's hopes. Boston's powerful public employee's unions are beating strike drums. Convention funding is reported to be well behind schedule. Gay/lesbian activists will infiltrate the delegations and stage at least one colorful in-your-face, full dress floor demonstration. The kept media will try to sit on these things but, again with luck, they'll slip onto television screens and websites. The probability of a shot in the foot is enormous.

[binger]

[Tallguy]

...also, with Nader in the race, the Lefties have a place to go to express they're impotent rage against Bush. Bush will be re-elected in the end.