Posted on 08/04/2004 4:11:21 AM PDT by kattracks
Kerry's a captive of the overbearing, elitist wing of his party
In 1972, The New Yorker's movie critic, Pauline Kael, won herself a place in political lore by expressing astonishment at the Republicans' 49-state landslide victory. "How could that be?" she demanded. "I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon."
I don't live in such a rarified world, but most of my friends are voting for John Kerry. And I imagine that a good many will be shocked when President Bush wins in November.
It is possible that no Democrat could beat Bush this year. The President has Ralph Nader on his side, and demography. Since the 2000 election, shifts in population have added seven electoral votes to the Red Bush states and subtracted seven from Goreland.
This alone might be enough to put Bush over the top in a tight race. But despite the polls, I don't think this election will be close, and this time the Democratic establishment won't be able to blame the Supreme Court. If they're fair, they'll blame themselves. Since this is politics, they'll blame the candidate.
John Kerry is not a bad man. He probably wouldn't make a bad President. But he is a bad candidate in a terrible situation. He represents the wing of the Democratic Party that is imbued with a sense of its own moral, intellectual, cultural and social superiority. In short, he is the standard bearer for the unbearable.
These people don't comprise a majority of the electorate or even Democratic voters (how could they and remain an elite?), but they have convinced themselves that they and their candidate - if packaged properly - will prove irresistibly attractive to lesser Americans.
Boston, with its flag-waving and saluting and balloon-blowing was supposed to be a commercial for this new and superior brand of politics. But Americans are expert TV watchers. A lot of them voted with their remotes. Those who did watch weren't impressed. The Democrats' much anticipated post-convention bump turned into a thud. George McGovern got one of those in 1972.
Kerry now has 90 days to convince voters that a Bush victory in November would be, as his wife put it in Milwaukee on Monday, "four more years of hell."
The problem is, most Americans don't regard their lives as "hell" or Bush as Satan. The economy, after all, is not really in a Great Depression. In fact, it's doing pretty well. Iraq isn't Vietnam, and won't be unless there's a draft. The Islamic jihad against America isn't Bush's fault, either. A candidate who insists otherwise is bound to strike voters as detached from reality.
Kerry ought to know this, and he may. But his party is dominated, as it was in 1972, by people who talk only to one another and who are convinced that everybody despises Bush. They will judge Kerry by how hard he goes after the Crawford Beelzebub.
Right now the polls look even. But that's an optical illusion. The President has a Republican convention coming up and the power of incumbency to shape events between now and November. In other words, he's way ahead.
Kerry is a weak campaigner. Barring some kind of national disaster, his best shot is the debates. Democratic true believers think he'll kill Bush, one on one. That's what they thought about Al Gore, too.
Calling a presidential race in August is risky, especially a race that's supposedly close. But no guts, no glory. Bush will beat Kerry in a walk. If I'm right, you read it here first. If not, well, even Pauline Kael got it wrong once in a while.
Originally published on August 4, 2004
And even before that will be the Olympics. I remember how the press in 1984 was hyping Mondales's post-convention bounce. Then came the Olympics in LA. By the time they were over, Modale was back to where he had been before the convention.
Bump for a new tagline.
The polling does not give a true picture of who will actually vote and why. Thus, in Missouri the constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage just won by a landslide. Those who voted for the amendment are committed and will vote in November, and not for John Kerry. As to the debates: we know president bush's position on marriage. What will Kerry say? Possibly, that he has a plan but he's keeping it a secret until after the election.
They already have another excuse lined up. Bush won only because of those "rigged" touchscreen voting machines made by the "rightwing" Diebold corp. I already see that theme running quite a bit on the DUmmie site.
hmmm...really. What kind of people does this person know?
I smell a RAT.
This morning on my fifty mile commute, here in Massachusetts, I passed a couple of hundred cars. I saw THREE Kerry stickers.
One was on a rustbucket station wagon that needed a muffler, one was on an electrician's truck with a HUGE IBEW Union Sticker on the window (Probably made an offer he couldn't refuse, got a fish wrapped in a newspaper or something) and another on a nondescript midsize. Also saw a Nam Vet pickup truck with a "NOT FONDA KERRY" Sticker.
This is in Massachusetts, where he is a "Favorite Son"
Now I must point out there is no statistical validity, because this informal poll was taken on the way to WORK. After noon, the welfare clients and drug dealers will be getting out of bed, so probably that is when the Kerry stickers will appear.
"Bush will beat Kerry in a walk."
We're counting on it.
Two readily apparent facts, which the 'rats -- bless their pointed little heads -- seem genuinely incapable of grokking.
Note To Libs: keep it up, okay...? :)
I like your new tagline!
Bush is a much better speaker than he was 4 yrs. ago (couldn't be much worse). I think the key is he is now much more emotionally connected with what he is saying, i.e., he is doing what he truly believes in.
Kerry is the opposite. He can't say what he is truly thinking or feeling, and therefore already restricts himself to babbling.
I think Kerry will only be a big bag of gas at the debates.
How do you characterize a man who goes to war to lie his way to unearned medals and an early discharge, comes back to immediately trash his fellow soldiers and country, attends meetings to discuss assassinations of US senators, marries wealthy widows to access their money and power, then dumps them for someone a little richer, stabs his nation in the back during wartime, lies about his snooze-time in the Senate, and completely trashes a President doing his earnest best to protect Americans from massive terrorist attacks?
If John Kerry is not a bad man, I'd advise this author not to step outside his house, since he obviously does not have the common sense necessary to tell a saint from a thieving murderer. Some people, at least 43%, are astoundingly obtuse.
LOL! I see the same thing when I am in DC. In the AM or PM rush hour, it's BUSH/CHENEY. When the criminals get up at 1000 or so, it's kerry/edwards.
Again, the adgae is proved right. Stupid is as stupid does.
Once they are sure that Kerry is toast, the media will make sure that IT IS KERRY that takes the blame for defeat.
The will give him the blame before the voters vote.
There was a lot of talk in the media in 1972 that McGovern was going to trounce Nixon. Leftists believed the media hype. They thought McGovern would bring in tons of new young voters who were opposed to the war,. They thought that parents of those who were drafted to serve would vote against Nixon and for McGovern.
Nixon's staff believed Nixon was on the way to defeat. Nixon was way behind in the polls in June of 1972, that is why they broke into the DNC headquarters.. hoping to find some dirt to keep the Democrats from beating Nixon. The left did not make a big deal out of Watergate before the election. They thought they had Nixon beat. But on election day Nixon got 61 percent of the vote. More than Reagan's 58 percent in 1984.
This is a good year to be a Republican.. the election day results will prove it.
"John Kerry... probably wouldn't make a bad President."
I find it hard to get past this line. Even if he bothered to show up for work, which he does not do now, he has no core other than his belief in his own entitlement.
I live in Massachusetts too and see almost no Kerry stickers. In fact, I would say the Bush/Kerry stickers are even.
I foresee the DUmmies turning viciously on Kerry for blowing a "sure thing."
Good point.
If he says what he thinks, he's toast!
If he says what he doesn't think, he can be pointed out as a hypocrite...and he's still toast!
I had a similar experience on vacation last week. We drove through Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina. We started counting Bush stickers versus Kerry stickers. Bush 31, Kerry 5. Also just around town here in Ohio, I'm seeing many more Bush stickers then I did in 2000. I saw more Gore stickers in 2000 then I've seen Kerry stickers thus far.
Its funny i live in NH but work in Mass but i have seen more Bush signs on Mass cars than on NH cars which scares me a bit. There are more Kerry signs in NH (that i have seen) than Bush which really terrifies me. Bush will never win Mass but has a shot in NH. If he loses NH it will not look good for his prospects elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.