KERRY'S CRASH CONTINUES

New York Post ^ | 4/06/04 | DICK MORRIS

[kattracks]

April 6, 2004 -- THE latest daily tracking polls by Scott Rasmussen show that President Bush has moved up six points in the past week to take a three-point lead over Sen. John Kerry. The Bush surge is catalyzed by his negative ads, which castigate the Democrat's record on taxes and terrorism, and by the Kerry camp's abysmal failure to answer the charges effectively in paid advertising. For a while, the Kerry collapse was disguised by the national focus on Richard Clarke's accusations about Bush's policies before and after 9/11. The short-term impact of the Clarke hearings was to besmirch the Bush image, but once the headlines faded, the remorseless Bush attacks on Kerry began to take their toll in earnest.

[GeronL]

BUMP

Kerrys' seven state mudslide in November

[Support Free Republic]

Donate Here By Secure Server

[JohnHuang2]

hehehehehehehe....you'll enjoy this one (along the same lines as Morris' piece)

Missourians echoing views from Bush ads

[ladyinred]

I pray this continues. Defeating JF'nK and the left is the most important thing in our lifetime. WE MUST.

[GeronL]

Headline: Bush wins squeaker 54%-41%

[Spruce]

Mulligan

[leadpenny]

Well, at least he has a very supportive, beautiful, non-eccentric, mainstream wife.
She, like her husband, knows what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck.

[JohnHuang2]

Cliffhanger, 2004! Bush barely crushes Kerry ;-)

[JohnHuang2]

WE MUST.

And WE WILL.

[HarryCaul]

You know, I just haven't been able to see Kerry as a serious threat since it became clear he was going to win the nomination. I simply can't see him winning, or even coming close. My first impression was that Bush would stomp him, and that impression has never faded. I don't see the election being remotely close.

The one thing that could change my mind would be a spectacular VP choice, but he seems to be leaning to the old guard (Gephardt, etc), and that's going to do nothing but put people to sleep.

Kerry/Gephardt. Pardon me while I snore and laugh at the same time.

[GeronL]

well, just because your right doesn't mean your right. so there.

[JohnHuang2]

Yeah, but what if Kerry picks...AL Sharpton! That's the nightmare scenario...for libs ;-)

[Agnes Heep]

While the news media will cover U.S. and Iraqi deaths with the same sensationalism, American voters care vastly more about the safety of our own troops than the restoration of peace and order in Iraq.

If this is true it does not bode well for the future of the nation.

[JohnHuang2]

The real beaut about having Nader out there: Won't let Kerry do "right" head-fakes ...

[leadpenny]

The one thing that could change my mind would be a spectacular VP choice . . .

For instance?

Just curious.

[FlyVet]

Polls, polls, polls. Blah. I hope, after the 2000 election, all conservatives know enough to ignore what the "polls" say, and get to the voting booth. Let the Dumbocrats be influenced by polls, it that's what they wish.

[KC_Conspirator]

There is also no way that MO is going to vote for a gay marraige candidate.

[ladyinred]

Kerry/Gephardt. Pardon me while I snore and laugh at the same time.

Go for it! :-)

[xzins]

He should keep our troops on bases and end the patrols into the towns and villages. That task is best handled by the Iraqi police and troops themselves. The U.S. soldiers should be standing by to stop the bad guys from coming back into power. Even if Iraq remains a powder keg with constant bombings and attacks, they will make no political difference in our election unless Americans are killed.

There is the ring of solid, political truth in this statement.

The U.S. troops are most effective in pitched combat. Have them be the back-up force that ensures the transition of power proceeds. Beginning in early summer, I'd withdraw them into their fire bases until after the election.