Signs that John Kerry’s election bid is in trouble

[hist2004]

At the 1,000-casualty point in the War in Iraq, John Kerry stated
that these individuals died in the “war on terrorism”. By not
separating Iraq from the war on terrorism, he justified the Republican
parties’ position.

The hiring of Paul Begalla & James Carville (who both still
work for CNN) not only reinforces a media bias (even if they’re
unpaid consultants) but it sets up Kerry for failure. How you may
ask? These two individuals “work” for the Clintons. The Clintons
want Kerry to lose. How so? If John Kerry is elected, and then re-
elected, with the logical assumption that his running mate John
Edwards will run after him, and if elected to two terms, means
Hillary will be 16 yrs out before she runs for President. Hillary
above all else wants to be “President”.

Kerry’s message and lackluster speaking voice, makes him appear
aloof and disinterested. He needs to leave the “Vietnam” message
behind (Unfit for Command is a number one best seller). The focus
from his standpoint has to be what he’ll do different, by not releasing
“all” his medical records concerning his Vietnam service, he left the
issue “open” for naysayer’s.

Ted Kennedy has been brought back into the campaign strategy to
help “energize” the Democratic base. If this “base” isn’t online with
the Kerry message by now, bringing in Kennedy to shore it up spells
trouble from within.

The CBS memo debacle concerning President Bush’s National Guard
service is distracting from Kerry’s “media time”. It also reinforces a
long held believe of the major media’s bias.

Kerry has lost critical time over the summer with the following events
hurting him, some through no fault of his own. When Ronald Reagan
passed away, there was a week of remembrance. Appropriate for a
deceased President, but it also reminded the country of the Republican
message. The swift boat controversy cost Kerry at least three weeks. As
I mentioned earlier, failure to disclose all records kept it alive. The
Democratic Convention didn’t attack President Bush directly, for fear
of aligning itself with the nut jobs on the left (Michael Moore, Howard Dean).

Then there was the Republican Convention, which directly attacked Kerry
and pointy showed his differences from Bush (all unflattering of course).
And last but not least the weather has dominated the headlines, which by
all appearances detracted from Kerry getting his message out at a critical
juncture in the campaign.

Regards,
Hist2004

[hist2004]

One more item I’d like to add that President Bush said in regards
to both his and Senator Kerry’s military service. During the height
of the swift boat controversy Bush said, "I think Kerry going to
Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in
harm's way and I was not." John Kerry would be wise to say that
President Bush’s military service was honorable and then get on
to the issues.

Regards,
Hist2004

[Meph]

I agree hist. Well said

[2Sheds_Jackson]

One more item I’d like to add that President Bush said in regards
to both his and Senator Kerry’s military service. During the height
of the swift boat controversy Bush said, "I think Kerry going to
Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in
harm's way and I was not." John Kerry would be wise to say that
President Bush’s military service was honorable and then get on
to the issues.

Regards,
Hist2004

Heh heh, well don't hold your breath . . . :lol:

[scm77]

That's what should have happened about four months ago.

[Geezah]

Did you know that Kerry served in Vietnam rofl

[scm77]

I heard something about that. I think he touched on it in one of his campaign speeches. You'd think he'd go into more detail. :lol:

[Dennis G]

One more item I’d like to add that President Bush said in regards
to both his and Senator Kerry’s military service. During the height
of the swift boat controversy Bush said, "I think Kerry going to
Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in
harm's way and I was not." John Kerry would be wise to say that
President Bush’s military service was honorable and then get on
to the issues.

Regards,
Hist2004

Kerry won't say something like that because it would make Bush look good.

I hope that his campiagn does unravel and that the Clintons help him to lose.

Here is a site that tracks the electorial vote;

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

It fluctuates as new polls are added but the trend has been for Bush lately.

[scm77]

Here's another one.

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

[Dennis G]

One more item I’d like to add that President Bush said in regards
to both his and Senator Kerry’s military service. During the height
of the swift boat controversy Bush said, "I think Kerry going to
Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in
harm's way and I was not." John Kerry would be wise to say that
President Bush’s military service was honorable and then get on
to the issues.

Regards,
Hist2004

Kerry won't say something like that because it would make Bush look good.

I hope that his campiagn does unravel and that the Clintons help him to lose.

Here is a site that tracks the electorial vote;

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

It fluctuates as new polls are added but the trend has been for Bush lately.

A few more points I'd like to add.

IMO, Kerry's military experience is a valid topic for debate and consideration in this presidential race. So, Kerry's service in Vietnam, his testimony against his fellow servicemen in Vietnam, his pow-wowwing with the enemy in Paris, and any experience he had as a congressman or senator in intelligence, military, and/or foreign affairs is important evidence to consider in judging him fit or not fit to be command-in-chief.

That said, Bush's military experience is also fair game... BUT he as ALREADY been command-in-chief, so all past experience in the National Guard or wherever is, IMO, moot. He should be judged on how he has defended this country.

But the libs (Democrats and the media, among others) cannot discuss the job Bush has done, because most of the country, I think, believe GWB has done a good job keeping this country safe. He sure kicked the Taliban out of Afganistan, has disrupted al Qaida -- literally chased them to the ends of the earth, and overthrew one of the most tyrannical despots in history at the cost of a couple hundred of lives -- which, IMO, is unheard of. Jimmy Carter cannot rescue a handful of hostages in Iran, GWB kicks Hussein's ass out of the country next door.

So, IMO, GWB should be judged on his past four years as Commander-in-Chief. And you can certainly make arguments for, and against his performance. I think his performance is ultimately judged by answering the simple question, "Do you think the country is safer now than it was four years ago, than it was after 9-11? Do I think I am safer now than four years ago, than after 9-11?" Now, in answering those questions on November 2nd, unfortunately, I think the sheeple could be greatly swayed if there are a whole bunch of terror incidents a week or two before the election.

How to judge Kerry, then? He hasn't been CiC. So all I have to go on is how he served in Vietnam. I'm not so much concerned with what he did or did not do, but in how he comported himself. What kind of character did he display? Why did he behave the way he did when he got back to the CONUS? Why did he attempt to drag down his fellow servicemen? Why did he meet the Vietnamese, our enemy at that time, in Paris without official direction? How did he vote on intelligence, military, and foreign affairs matters while he was a congressman, a senator? Then I have to ask myself, what kind of CiC do I think Kerry would make?

Then I compare what GWB has done, and what I think he will do, with what I am guessing Kerry will do.

Personally, IMO, it is no contest. I think Bush has done a pretty good job, while I think Kerry would be a disaster. So I have to go with Bush. (As an aside, could you imagine if Bush was really progun, pro 2nd Amendment, but was doing an atrocious job as CiC, but by ALL accounts his opponent, ardently anti-gun, would do a splendid job as CiC? That choice would truly suck.)

So, in summary, Bush's NG experience 30+ years ago is immaterial, because he IS the CiC. He has already done the job. But Kerry? He has no experience as CiC... so we MUST judge him on his military experience (Vietnam/Swift Boats, anti-war activism afterwards, aid&comfort to the enemy in Paris, years of congressional experience / votes). Why the press doesn't get this, I have no idea.

On the other hand, maybe they get it all too well... and to continue to remind the American people of the danger of al Qaida, and the success of the sitting President of the USA in combating al Qaida, containing Hussein etc. is to guarantee the defeat of Kerry... so the press shows its true colors all too well by derailing debate, derailing analysis of Kerry, by tangentializing immaterial NG experiences of GWB, and generally obfuscating all the issues.

[catchv22]

I don't think he's done such a great job, and I don't think Kerry will do much better or worse if he is elected. Major thing is the war on Iraq. It has no links with Al Queda and 9/11. We're now in a conflict spending lots of money for something that doesn't matter to our own nation's defense but is drawing our military strength away. How are we really safer from the war in Iraq?

[hist2004]

It has no links with Al Queda and 9/11

There was no direct link between Saddam and 9/11. However, links
between Al Qaeda and Saddam have been established and discussed
in different threads. Whoever inherits Iraq, (Bush or Kerry) have to
follow through and destroy insurgent groups like al-sadr, or its going
to be endless otherwise.

Regards,
Hist2004