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
Both! LOL!
The media, on the eve of the debates is what will make or break it for Kerry.
I don't know how debates work, if the camps get the questions before hand or what. I would assume that Dan Rather as his first question will ask about each candidates military service. Second question about how long each served in government. Third about positions in government.
Kerry will say he was in Vietnam, a senator for 19 years and a member of the senate intelligence committee. Rather, who will be impressed with the answer will try to play down Bush's response after:
Bush will say he was in the National Guard, been President for four years and(Rather waiting for the canned answer will instead hear) unlike his opponent he has shown up for work every day.
Then the fur will fly.
MR, now copy pasted and will go around the planet in short order, great joke. Thanks !
Kerry could debate himeself-first he argues one side of an issue then he argues the other side of an issue. He can back both up by using his Senate votes.....It's the complexity don't you know?
Here in Tucson, you still get the aged Volkswagen sputtering fumes with Dean bumper stickers on it. Then there are the SUV's with Kerry stickers and the eighties boxcars with "Defend America, Defeat Bush," for the world to see. Few of ours here and there, but mostly the commies.
It sucks that someone as obviously libretarded as Dan Blather gets to ask the questions. It should be a neutral party. Blather is an idiot who's time to retire came about 20 years ago.
Don't worry. Georgia will go for Bush...by double digits. I found a W bumper sticker at the 4th of July parade, but they are hard to come by because Georgia is a Republican state, not much campaign money is spent here. Everyone I know (Woodstock Georgia) is voting for Pres. Bush. This is the case mostly when you get out of Atlanta.
Hanoi John Effing Kerry will trash himself in the debates, without anybody's help, including Dan Rather Biased!
Bush should use a pair of flip-flops as his "Show and Tell" prop. Nothing else will be needed. ROFOL!
Why exactly, are those people depressed? They don't like Kerry? They think Kerry did a bad job at the convention? No post-convention bounce? Please tell!
wonderful story......
Better still, a running scroll in the background, repeating all of Hanoi John's nasty little Senate votes as well as the votes HE MISSED! Toss in a few stills of geek boy catching a football, getting slammed by a Devil Dog at Wendy's, and hanging with Jane Fonda and that will pretty much nail Herman Munster's coffin shut.
I don't buy it. John Kerry is a bad man. He would make a bad President. He is the standard bearer of the unbearable because he is the foremost exemplar of their kind.
For me, John Kerry defined himself in the early 70's and has done nothing to change my opinion. His behavior with the VVAW was disgusting self-promotion of the highest order. Even Doonesbury had him pegged as a shameless poseur. His career as a non-entity in the Senate was more of the same, and this campaign cements this perception.
John Kerry is the wrong man at the worst possible time.
I don't think many voters much appreciate the likes of Whoopie and Ben Quack-Quack instructing them how to vote.
Voters will tire of mainstream media employees reporting that the timing of a heavy rain that canceled a Kerry event "seemed suspicious." TV viewers know it's a Kerry campaign, both funded and mixed in with regular programming, run by elites who see them as simple-minded children (I bet, I don't have a TV).
Early in the campaign McGovern had all the votes he was going to get, he actually lost a percent or two by election day. Kerry and his supporters' arrogance turn off intelligent, sane voters. It's all downhill for Kerry.
The first place I went after Atlanta was Jonesboro.
What a refreshing change - nice people, real food, good values.
I feel much more comfortable in places like Milledgeville, GA and Pass Christian, MS than I do in NJ - and I grew up in NYC.
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.