A Strategy for Kerry

Joseph Sobran column ^ | 01-29-04 | Sobran, Joseph

[Theodore R.]

The Valentine's weekend poll shows Kerry leading 54-42! The Republicans are being warned very early of what they could be facing.

[NetValue]

Message to Sobran: Be careful what you ask for.

[Bushbacker]

Sobran has been a crank ever since
he was kicked off NATIONAL REVIEW.

[dirtboy]

Well, Sobran sure has gone over to the dark side. He's cheering for a Vietnam-era liberal who believes not in isolationism, but in globalism and American defenselessness. The next time he writes a column decrying the U.N. and globalism, someone please bitch-slap the idiot.

[billorites]

As a partisan Republican I'd prefer that Bush should win.

As an investor, a Kerry Presidency and a Republican Congress means gridlock. Gridlock historically is good for the investment climate as no meaningful legislation is likely to be passed.

I'll cry all the way to the bank. Either way...

[dirtboy]

The Valentine's weekend poll shows Kerry leading 54-42!

Yawn. Kerry and the Dems have been in the full media spotlight for over a month. Bush hasn't even come to bat yet. And he's got a really big honkin' bat - namely, Kerry's anti-defense, anti-intel and pro-internationalist voting history in a time of war. That's why Kerry wants the election to be over an earlier war - Vietnam - than over this one.

[shrinkermd]

Bush I lost because of Ross Perot. The electorate was frightened of deficits and people like Pete Peterson and others were predicting doom and gloom. In steps Perot, leads in the polls, then withdraws and more or less endorses Clinton. Then Perot comes back in for what reason no one ever established. The rational people split their vote and Clinton was elected with 37% of the vote. Four years later he got 49% of the vote against a weak, elderly Bob Dole.

The poll showing Kerry ahead by 9-10 votes is a poll of "adults" or so it has been quoted. The election will be close. IMHO the campaign will have little effect as long as our foreign policy stays on a winning upswing and the economy continues to recover. As others have noted, the RATS are not offering much of anything except they hate President Bush.

[Theodore R.]

The 37 percent in 1992 was GHWB's popular vote percent, not Clinton's. Remember Wilson, Nixon, and Clinton all initially got elected with 42-43 percent. I am afraid that many Republicans will falsely expect "scandals" to un-do Kerry. Many people want "change," and Kerry is their vehicle, rightly or wrongly. Bush has alienated many conservatives who threaten to sit out the election, and he has not won over significant liberals with his many liberal initiative. These liberals despise all Republicans, and particularly Busah, for they genuinely believe that he and Jeb stole the 2000 election.

What would happen if John McCain switched parties next month and joined the Kerry ticket?

[Theodore R.]

The Republican Senate, however, would likely rubberstamp all the Kerry liberal court nominees in the name of the Orrin G. Hatch brand of "fairness."

[dirtboy]

What would happen if John McCain switched parties next month and joined the Kerry ticket?

No way. McCain may be a nutbar, but he is more hawkish than Bush. He wouldn't run with a guy who is so anti-war and anti-American.

[VadeRetro]

Sobran is sleepwalking. Kerry is Jane Fonda without the looks.

[section9]

Don't worry about McCain. The last thing he would do is join a ticket with a man who demonstrated with Fonda while McCain was in the Hilton.

They may be friends, but no way would McCain join the Democratic Party.

As to Joe Sobran, "principled" conservative: go pound sand, treasonous asshat!

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[cripplecreek]

If Sobran wants to get a glimpse of what democrats are up against, he should take a gander at the start of the daytona 500 today. NASCAR dads make up about 28% of america these days.

While the "dads are concerned about jobs, and immigration, they are fiercely loyal to country and conservative ideals. they arent easilly fooled into thinking the democrats represenative of thier views.

[CasearianDaoist]

Which poll is this?

[shrinkermd]

"What would happen if John McCain switched parties next month and joined the Kerry ticket?

It would be a disaster; however, what if Dean runs as a Green Party Candidate and Nader runs as an independent?

You are right about Clinton getting 42% but, that was 42% of the 50% who voted or a paltry 20% of eligible adults. No sex scandal will terminate Kerry in a general election but the fact that some of the RATS brought it up suggests the base isn't altogether happy with him either.

[Theodore R.]

Well, McCain is always defending Kerry whenever controversies arise. I can imagine McCain going into his AZ voting booth and pulling the Kerry___ lever.

[shrinkermd]

Also in respect to McCain, he and Kerry did co-chair the committee that decided there were no missing POW's still alive in RVN. That is the bad news. The good news is McCain did campaign for Bush II in New Hamphshire. Would he do it? Hard to say. By now he should have gotten over his rage at Bush II beating him, but who knows?

[dirtboy]

I can imagine McCain going into his AZ voting booth and pulling the Kerry___ lever.

That's a far cry from being his veep.

[Common Tator]

January 29, 2004 After the first President Bush betrayed conservatives by raising taxes, in spite of his promise never to do so, many conservatives didn’t bother voting for him in 1992. This was one of the reasons he lost to Bill Clinton, who re-energized the conservative movement and brought about a Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections. In the meantime, Clinton’s ambitious national health-care plan flopped.

Sobran as usual fills his column with lies. How Libertarian.

Bush 41 lost because of the economy not because he raised taxes. After election studies including those done my me, showed that the reason Bush 41 lost was the ECONOMY. It was as Clinton Said, It's the Economy Stupid!!! and as it was in 1980, 1984 and 1988 it was the economy stupid. It nearly always is.

In 1988, a bit over 90 million people voted and Bush won. In 1992 there were 105 million people voted. Fifteen million more people voted in 1992 than in 1998 and Sobran wants you to believe that people stayed home and did not vote in 1992. What part of 15 million more people voted in 1992 escapes Sobran the lying idiot.

You have to be as stupid as Sobran te believe what he writes.

The victory in the house in 1994 had little to do with Bill Clinton. It had a hell of a lot to do with the Republican's Gerrymandering house districts accomplished with the redistricting of 1990. Many districts were gerrymandered to be just slightly Republican. The economy kept the Republicans from winning the house in 1992. But with the economy off the table in 1994 the Republicans won the House.

It was that gerrymandering that let the Republicans hold the house in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. If Sobran were right the Republicans would have lost the house in the big Clinton victory in 1996.

The last of the Gerrymandering from the 2000 census, will let the Republicans pick up house seats in Texas in 2004. The Democrat hold on the house is very solid and will increase. It si called Gerrymandering enabled by by Republicans getting a majority of state houses and state legislatures.

Sobran is either grossly stupid or he thinks you are. It could be both of those reasons are true.

[Arkie2]

You know don't you that you have to be in power in the statehouse to "gerrymander"? Wonder how all that Republican gerrymandering came about?

The Gingrich revolution in '94 far exceeded the results of any gerrymander and clearly reflected discontent with Clinton's policies. Seems like you don't want to believe the American people voted strongly conservative in '94 and gerrymandering is a way to make you feel good about the shellacking the Dem's took in that election.