[Northern Yankee]

A Bush hit piece in poorly-executed disguise.

BINGO!

[buffyt]

I would rather rip my toenails off with rusty pliars than watch a president Kerry on TV for 4 years.

[Lazamataz]

I disagree. While I would not welcome a Kerry administration, I am open-minded enough to see the author's points.

[Common Tator]

The fallacy of this piece is that a defeat of a Ford leads to a Reagan. It leads to a Jimmy Carter.

It was the Jimmy Carter screw ups in both foreign and domestic areas. It was 20 percent inflation, 15 percent interest and 12 percent unemployment and Iran hostages that lead to Ronald Reagan.... not the Defeat of Ford.

It was the defeat of Bush 41 that led to the moral break down in the Clinton years. It was the defeat of Bush 41 that lead to the boss getting bJs from interns being termed proper behavior in our culture.

It did not lead to Bush 43. Bush 43 was the result of a very good campaign. On election day 2000, Clinton was more popular than Reagan on election day 1988. Gore should have won. Bush should have lost just as Dukakis lost trying to follow Reagan. It was the great campaign of George W. Bush that won the 2000 election. It was over the best efforts of Clinton Gore that he won.

What we can say is the Defeat of McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis does not prevent a Kerry from getting the Democrat nomination.

Defeats are defeats.

The article is based on a fallacy.

[bronxboy]

Absolutely, The fact that the next president will almost certainly pick supreme court justices...up to four... make this article totally ridiculous. No conservative would want Pres. Bush to lose for any reason.