Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article



What was he thinking?

1 posted on 07/20/2005 5:30:31 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: OESY

It's all someone else's fault again. The problem was the average voter doesn't trust the democrats, no matter who they nominate.


2 posted on 07/20/2005 5:41:34 AM PDT by tkathy (Tyranny breeds terrorism. Freedom breeds peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
Since the dems turned hardcore left look at what has happened to them! They have lost almost ALL thier power to do anything.

Repubs haven't really DONE anything to them, they just have taken themselves out by their arrogant boldness.

Kerry, Dean, Durbin, Schumer, Kennedy, etc...Why doesn't some sane dem just tell them to STFU?!

3 posted on 07/20/2005 5:41:51 AM PDT by sirchtruth (Words Mean Things...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY

I will always believe that the Clintons were very quietly behind Kerry's loss. Can't prove it, obviously...and both Clintons DID give the appearance of "helping" Kerry.


4 posted on 07/20/2005 5:43:10 AM PDT by Maria S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY

He is thinking that he should be King!


5 posted on 07/20/2005 5:44:09 AM PDT by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
Kerry did way too well in 2004... it defies common logic.

The idiot was a traitor... a pampered and efite snot who dedicated his Senate career to abortion and disarmament. With an informed, intellegent electorate, he would have lost by double-digits.

6 posted on 07/20/2005 5:50:28 AM PDT by johnny7 (“'I bet 'ya think I'm 'kickin you Bob...!”” -Sheriff 'Little Bill' Dagget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY

Excellent read, thanks for posting. I never get tired of hearing how the dems are spinning out of control and LOSING it!


8 posted on 07/20/2005 5:57:37 AM PDT by jp3 ("Who cares what entertainers think about international affairs." Johnny Carson, Dec. 1967)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY

Tacoma Narrows Bridge (((ping)))


10 posted on 07/20/2005 6:07:02 AM PDT by Eddie01 (Rule #1: Liberals lie about everything all the time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
All that said, Kerry won 251 electoral votes and 59 million popular votes, nine million more than Al Gore and the second highest in history. The real question is how such a flawed candidate came so close. If it weren't for the SBVFT, Kerry could be President right now.

While people heap accolades on Karl Rove, I thought the GOP ran a terrible campaign against Kerry. They refused to attack Kerry on his anti-war activities, his questionable conduct with the Vietnamese Communists in Paris, and his damaging comments in his 1971 Congressional testimony. The GOP also criticized all 527 groups including the SBVFT, the only real 527 out there. The only bright spot was the well organized effort to turn out the vote in key states.

12 posted on 07/20/2005 6:15:48 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY

Hmm, from the picture, Kerry looks like a nine day drunk. TerAYsa had better lock up the liquor cabinet.


14 posted on 07/20/2005 6:23:16 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
If Mr. Thomas was right, then, Mr. Bush would have won re-election with a popular-vote margin of between 7.5% and 17.5% of the total vote--rather than the 2.5% he actually got--but for the liberal media.

That sounds about right to me.
Kerry had stone loser written all over him.

.....


And speaking of all over him,
the Botox has worn off.

So9

17 posted on 07/20/2005 6:33:00 AM PDT by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
Yet there's a case to be made on the other side: that the liberal media actually helped President Bush, rendering the Kerry campaign ineffective by telling Democrats what they wanted to hear rather than what was true.

I disagree with Taranto, who I think is terrific, but if the MSM had really done its job, in my opinion, it would have been a landslide. How does it help President Bush by telling the democrats what they want to hear? The MSM never touched his voting record and never asked Kerry, who reportedly served in Viet Nam, one tough question. The election was about much more than Viet Nam and the Swift Boat Vets.

22 posted on 07/20/2005 7:11:25 AM PDT by sydbas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY

Kerry was an elitist nominated by an elite(Teddy Kennedy). And thankfully poorly managed by an elite(Bob Shrum). As much as I despise Clinton for his criminality, he won two terms not giving Teddy Kennedy much say, and having someone other than Bob Shrum run his campaign. Clinton won on geography, and being a governor from the south was a help. A senator from the south will not cut it, Gore could not even win his own state. If the Democrats were not beholden to foaming at the mouth savage elite based on both coasts, they might nominate a winner. As a conservative I would hate to see Evan Bayh head the Democrat ticket. On Cspan's road to the whitehouse last sunday, Bayh was featured talking to a few voters and reporters in NH. A blue haired old bag questioned him on how the Republicans stole the election in Ohio. With common sense, he politely told her there was nothing to it and the party needed to put their energy in positive programs for the future. Being your typical Dem automaton she would not let it drop. As long as the Dem nominee must first travel through NH and Tommy Harkin's Iowa, I doubt if a reasonable candidate like Bayh has much of a chance. The Dems did not want Clinton, he was unwelcome, not because of his criminality, but he did not kiss the right rings. If the elite would had its way the nominee would have been another loser named Tsongas. Its not the media helping to elect Republicans, its that elite nominating candidates that affectatiously pronounce Genghis Khan and like to get into Spandex and go blowing in the wind.


24 posted on 07/20/2005 7:43:48 AM PDT by Biblebelter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY

Taranto does do an interesting analysis. However, I think that his conclusion is somewhat wrong. If the media had not been so biased, and had called Kerry on his fibs, the Bush win would have been an out and out landslide.


26 posted on 07/20/2005 7:54:57 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
Evan Thomas of Newsweek said last July. ".... There's going to be this glow about them . . . that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." Mr. Thomas later revised his estimate downward, to five points.

This is the most important point. The alternative media; talk radio, blogs, FOX etc. must continue working hard to counteract the 15% bias.

Creeps, crooks, shake down artists, grifters and assorted wackos will continue to gravitate to the Democratic Party because they know the MSM provides that party with cover.

They get no cover if they become Republicans. Except of course if they're RINOS.

28 posted on 07/20/2005 8:03:56 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
OK, Kerry was a bad candidate. Could you imagine John Edwards instead. He had one, incomplete Senate term and a bunch of ambulence chasings as his resume. Was he electable? Somnambulist Graham? Sharpton? Lieberman had the most gravitas but was soundly rejected by the primary voters. Wesley Clark? Mary, help! Am I pro-war or anti-war? Our country was founded on the principle of progressive taxation.

Some years your party just has an empty stable. Take us in 1996 (please). I love Bob Dole but his campaign was uninspiring to say the least.

29 posted on 07/20/2005 8:46:36 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
True:

...the liberal media actually helped President Bush, rendering the Kerry campaign ineffective by telling Democrats what they wanted to hear rather than what was true....

31 posted on 07/20/2005 9:37:22 PM PDT by GOPJ (A person who will lie for you, will lie against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY

Heh heh... I don't think of the media as liberal. I think of them as "partisan Democrat". The media are filled with partisan shills. Even when those shills point fingers at Fox or Rush as being partisan or conservative, all they do is emphasize their own partisan nature. Used to be they could get away with making themselves look like the mainstream and the actual mainstream (and anyone else who got in the way) as being extremist and solitary. Doesn't work now.


32 posted on 07/22/2005 9:34:07 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated by FR profile on Tuesday, May 10, 2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY; Caleb1411
Just saw this article in The American Spectator. Thanks for posting.
33 posted on 08/05/2005 2:35:05 PM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson