Nader at 6%? That’s pretty hard to believe — even his greenie base seems rather ticked with him at the moment.

I’m suprised how close this race is looking — I’d have thought it’d be Bush by a mile.

Posted by: Oddly Normal at March 4, 2004 06:32 PM

Oddly Normal,

Polling numbers this far out don’t really mean anything significant. I’m not surprised Nader is at 6%, but I’d be seriously shocked if he was polling the same in mid-to-late October. I’d expect his numbers to drop to around 2% shortly before the election, and then for him to actually get a fraction of a percent of the vote.

Similarly, the Bush and Kerry numbers have to be seen in context. Kerry has been getting a lot of press through the Democratic primary, and he has essentially just locked up the Democratic nomination. Bush was not contested in the Republican primary, and has largely stayed out of the process—until the last couple days, when he started running some low-key ads to kick off his campaign. Obviously, anything can happen in the next eight months or so, but I certainly expect the Bush vs. Kerry campaign to have an effect on the numbers.

Posted by: Sam Barnes at March 4, 2004 06:56 PM

Sam,

Yes, the irrelevance of the Nader number was sort of the point of my first paragraph. I certainly don’t think he’ll get anywhere near that in the general election.

And while I do think Bush will very likely win, I’m a bit suprised it’s as competitive as it is. Anything can happen in 8 months, as you say, but the fact that Kerry is at anything approaching parity at this point would have shocked the world of 15 December.

Posted by: Oddly Normal at March 4, 2004 07:04 PM

Oddly Normal, The surprise is that the AP poll shows Bush ahead. A Pew Research Center poll conducted February 24 - 29 showed President Bush trailing Kerry 44 48. A CBS News Poll conducted February 24 - 27 also should Kerry ahead 47 to 46.

Posted by: Dan spencer at March 4, 2004 07:18 PM

Dan Spencer — Yes, it’s a close race, and Kerry is competitive. That’s the suprise — it’s a suprise, after 2001-03, that anyone is competitive with Bush.

Posted by: Oddly Normal at March 4, 2004 07:57 PM

Dan, I don’t think that it is a surpise, the Bush campaign is just starting to fire back after all the publicity that John Kerry has recieved after the Democratic Primaries, and Nader is taking some support away from Kerry. If you notice, Bush didn’t move too much in the polls (up two or not moving at all), Kerry is the one who is dropping.

Posted by: Lakhim at March 4, 2004 07:58 PM

I not surprised at kerry’s poll ratings. After all he stand on both sides of many issues and up to this point the dems have only focused on a candidate with name recognition who they think can beat President Bush. Weeding their way thru the 9+2 dwarf name’s was just their initial challenge.

Now that they have settled on kerry, they have to decide which kerry they settled on. At the point they discover that they settled on the wrong version of kerry, the poll numbers will reflect decline in popularity.

I don’t think the realization of their situation will result in more votes for President Bush, but I think it will translate into lack of enthusium, dropping poll satisfaction numbers, and sitting the election out by those who find that they have the wrong kerry is running for president.

Posted by: delta dave at March 4, 2004 08:23 PM

Actually, at last count, Kerry’s personalities have
split again.

He now has four and they have really begun to get
very angry at each other. Stay tuned!

Posted by: leaddog2 at March 4, 2004 10:04 PM

Kerry’s not “competitive” with Bush.

Nobody is.

The Democrats just spent months and millions to just barely pull ahead of the incumbent, close to a year before the election, when the incumbent hasn’t even started campaigning yet, and they couldn’t even hold the lead.

The Iraq situation will be dramatically different by mid-summer, the jobs market is already back, picking up steam fairly slowly, but steadily, and then there’s the BIG truth.

There’s no getting around this…
We were attacked two and a half years ago, and more people approve of the way GWB handled it than don’t.

Plus, whatever missteps we’ve made, whatever problems we encountered, it is INARGUABLE that the world is a better, safer place now, with more genuine hope that maybe there really CAN be peace and democracy in the middle east than at any time EVER.

Bush is going to be in office for four more years. That’s going to make some people happy, others not so much.

But it’s GOING to happen.

Posted by: eric at March 4, 2004 10:10 PM

After the convention, Dukakis was 14 points ahead of Bush I.

Posted by: ic at March 4, 2004 10:21 PM

They asked 771 registered voters. That’s what they’re basing a national headline on.

Posted by: PIL at March 5, 2004 12:27 AM

If the sampling method’s good, that’s not an unreasonable sample size. The thing is that with such a close race, a minor change in how a question is worded can change the percentage points enough to put one or another ahead. 46-45 is well within the margin of error, though, so its basically a dead heat.

Posted by: tagryn at March 5, 2004 02:06 AM

Let’s not forget, as ic pointed out, that there is precedent for this. Dukakis was ahead of Bush Sr. prior to the election. Mondale was supposedly 10 percentage points ahead of Reagan as late as September. Both were buried in a landslide loss. Its still too early. As Benjamin Disraeli pointed out, “Lies, Damn lies, and statistics……”

Posted by: johnnymozart at March 5, 2004 09:53 AM

hey, too bad Bush isn’t running for re-election only on Command Post.

Back to the real world…

Expected 366,000 jobs Feb04…whoops, strike that, that was somebody else’s budget. That wasn’t my signachore! full year overestimated by more than 1,000,000 jobs the day it was released.

Expected 200,000 jobs Feb04…whoops, only 21,000 new jobs

Oh, but look at Jan04, that was a big month…whoops, revised downward by 15,000 jobs

” jobs market is already back”…yeah, if you’re a Kerry supporter.

i wonder if he’s going to honor and dignify his promise not to politicize the 9/11 tragedy? whoops, anything to get elected. say one thing, do another.

Yessiree that’s the guy for me. The main thing is how much safer i feel. There’s a yellow flag on the Ridge today.

i’m fascinated watching y’all touting Bush and slamming Kerry. As one of the CP regulars said, “you just don’t understand us conservatives.” i guess not. kinda like watchin’ Ali fight Alzado.

Posted by: carl at March 5, 2004 03:31 PM

Carl,

Since when was 5.6 unemployment bad? What rate do you want to be happy. Not payroll jobs. Unemployment rate.

Posted by: jones at March 5, 2004 04:54 PM

jones
You know better than that. this number is meaningful only in a broader context of things like consumer confidence and people no longer looking. Not sure what those numbers are currently. from what i can gather quickly, there are another couple million people no longer looking. percentagewise, maybe another point or two.

Consumer Confidence Index Declines Nine Points - February 24, 2004 “…core of their disenchantment is the labor market”

This is actually worse than if the unemployment rate was truly stated at ~7%. Our economy runs on hope and faith. Bad news is infectious and people will tend to put off the kind of purchases that are necessary to have the economy roll.

is this what you think Bush is going to run on? guess you gotta do what you can.

All Bush can do is grab numbers like this to make his economy case. they probably don’t match up with the observations people are making for themselves. And i ‘spect that people will vote their experience rather than looking to “theoretical” economic numbers.

Don’t you find it remarkably stupid that the Admin would issue a budget that was 1 mil jobs off before the week was out? This issue is less about jobs—which is disastrous—and more about the credibility and performance of GWB, et al.

Can Snow & the idiots putting the numbers together and give the soldiers a pay hike.

Posted by: carl at March 5, 2004 05:55 PM

Set aside the stupidity/scam of not including Afghanistan and Iraq ongoing expenses in the budget.

As bad as it was before, without those jobs, the budget is in even worse shape.

The Admin called the July03 tax cut its “Jobs and Growth Plan.” We were supposed to see 5.5 million new jobs by the end of 2004.

This president has the worst jobs performance since Hoover.

If all Kerry did was have sleepovers in the Lincoln room and waffled all day, we’d be better off than what we’ve got now.

It wasn’t my fault; re-elect me. comical and pitiful.

Stupidity and cupidity…Bush/Cheney ‘04

Posted by: carl at March 5, 2004 06:11 PM

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/daily.htm

Here is another CC indicator. I dispute this as meaningful as other figures because it is based on perception.

You dodge the Unemployment numbers because they are good.

Answer this. The recession started 3/01 AT THE LATEST. Probably earlier. How did Bush cause a recession so early in his term? If not before his term?

Posted by: jones at March 5, 2004 06:58 PM

no incumbent has trailed the challenger this late into an election year and won the race

this is from kerry’s radio address tomorrow — anyone care to comment?

“We cannot let the strongest armed forces in the world be weakened. America’s greatest military strength has always been the courageous, talented men and women whose love of country and devotion to service lead them to attempt and achieve the impossible everyday. We must resolve that America’s leaders will never let them down.
“Yet we hear reports that - in dangerous parts of Iraq - our helicopters are flying missions without the best available anti-missile systems.

“At the same time, un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire. The Bush Administration waited through month after month of ambushes and only acted to start manufacturing armored door kits three months ago.

“The Army’s 428th Transportation Company, headquartered in Jefferson City, Missouri, shipped out to Iraq two weeks ago. They had to ask local businesses to donate the steel to armor their vehicles. When the Bush Administration heard about this, their response wasn’t `never again.’ It was `good idea’ - they emailed instructions to other units letting them know how they could use homemade armor to protect their own Humvees from attacks. I believe our soldiers deserve better.

“Even more shocking, tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn’t enough body armor to protect them. Many of their families on the homefront - mothers and fathers, husbands and wives and children - were forced to raise the money to buy it for them. They went to their neighbors for donations - and dipped into their savings to give their sons and daughters the equipment to save their lives - which the Army should be providing. Last month, a young newlywed in Virginia even gave her husband body armor for Valentine’s Day as he prepared to ship out to Iraq.

“Families should be sending pictures and care packages to Iraq - and the Department of Defense should be sending the body armor. Today, I call on President Bush to support a law now in Congress to reimburse each and every family who had to buy the body armor this Administration failed to provide. This month, I will also be introducing a Military Family Bill of Rights to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.

“What we face isn’t a question of the budget; it’s a question of priorities and values. This Administration has given billions to Halliburton and requested 82 million dollars to protect Iraq’s 36 miles of coast line. But they call this basic body armor a `non-priority’ item.

Posted by: wtf at March 5, 2004 07:35 PM

no dodge. my opinion is that the numbers tell an overly optimistic story. for example, the situation here in Colorado is that employment stinks; unemployment is worse than usual, but not horrible. But people are sitting on their hands wrt new hires, big purchases, etc. and people have just given up looking. so the unemployment numbers don’t tell the story, completely. i don’t think that’s a dodge.

i agree with you about CC. it’s perception. elections are mostly about perception.

You didn’t hear me claim that Bush caused the recession. i haven’t looked at a long term graph of the economy. Recession is a recurring phenomenon; he just drew the short straw. my observations are about his performance, or lack of same.

i think that it’s a mistake for him to run on being the “war president”. In order for that to fly, people have to perceive that threat. If they are feeling threatened, they will pull in their horns. and apparently people are more concerned with other issues than boogeymen…like the economy.

i think (hope) that people can see through his saddam bin laden switcharoo. Everybody i talked to today mentioned the current 24/7 intense effort to find OBL and were a little POd that we haven’t been doing that all along.

for this reason, i’ll be beyond suspicious if there is some sort of boogeyman deal in the run-up to November.

Posted by: carl at March 5, 2004 08:00 PM

Fair enough Carl ( I take issue with a lot of what you said, but one thing at a time.. ) But..

Answer this. The recession started 3/01 AT THE LATEST. Probably earlier. How did Bush cause a recession so early in his term? If not before his term?

wtf,

Please cite some reputable sources for the flak jackets. I’ve read a bit, but only a bit.

2 points.

We have been bombarded that it was Clinton’s Armed forces that won in Iraq. So is this Clinton’s fault?

Second, Why would Kerry pay for Flak jackets and vote against funding the Iraq/Afgahn Operations? Has he sponsored a bill to pay for the jackets today? To increase material support for operations?

Posted by: jones at March 5, 2004 09:35 PM

wtf,

The comment about no incumbent trailed a challenger at this late in the campaign is a misnomer…Mondale polled ahead of Reagan well into 1984…look it up…and Bush 41 (technically an incumbent because he was part of the Reagan admin) trailed Dukakis by 8-15 points at various times in the summer of ‘88…look that one up, too…

Posted by: chris at March 6, 2004 01:09 AM

America has a short attention span, and McVoter approach to politics.

Events and the mood of America in November will determine the election. Polls today are a “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 6, 2004 01:41 AM

And those numbers will keep on moving more and more to Bush’s favor every time kerry opens his mouth.
And why isn’t he opening his military records? Bush did, so what is kerry hiding? Must be something bad… very bad….

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 6, 2004 03:35 AM

My guess for Nov. 2004?

Bush in a landslide.

Why? Because Bush will hammer at Kerry’s Vietnam record.

There are a lot of people out there who sided with Kerry when he threw the medals who were awakened by the massacres of Vietnamese by the victorious North, by the boat people, by the killing fields of Cambodia.

Kerry has never admitted regret for supporting the Communists. Bush will hammer him. Bush will paint him as a supporter of mass murder.

You know I went through what Kerry did. Armed forces. Veteran against the war. But Kerry stopped there. I continued following history. And I had to admit I was wrong. There are a lot of us out there.

I do believe though Kerry has a chance. This is proved by the fact that the mass murderers of North Korea like him. Better than a Gore endorsement. By a long shot.

Posted by: M. Simon at March 6, 2004 11:40 AM

Blaming Kerry for Nixon’s failures is a partisan fiction and the American people need only review the facts to dismiss this scurrilous slime as nonsense.

Kerry, “demoncrats”, “libruls”, and all your fellow Americans on theleft know full well that indeed the rightwingideologue disinformation and propaganda coverns on theright will attempt to slime, paint, and demonize all of us who oppose the Bush government in the most scurrilous, false, and extreme terms, and question our patirotism and shamelessly accuse us of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and supporting the evilone and America’s enemies.

We may even be called - eek - French. Yet, none of this slime and nonsense is true. There is no substantiation or support for any of these wild and partisan slanders and misdirects. And none this slander and slime addresses, or defends or excuses, or allows theright to ignore the long and festering list of Bush government abuses, deceptions, failures, and negligence.

So bring it on, “what’s the difference”, we’re on the hunt, we will prevail, and we know what to expect from theright.

We simply demand a vetting of the truth and the facts for both Kerry and Bush, and we demand a fair election untainted by the invidious partisan machinations of crony capitalist in the Bush oligarchy like Diebold, ESS, and SAIC. We demand a paper trail, and we will execute a peaceful, democratic, and necessary regime change in America

The myths, fictions, partisan hagiography, and disinformation surrounding the Andover cheerleader and pampered papa’s boy occupying the White House are unraveling, - the deceptions, failures, abuses, negligence and expanding “credibility chasm” surrounding the Bush government is revealed
- and the Bush government is accountable.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 6, 2004 01:49 PM

“If all Kerry did was have sleepovers in the Lincoln room and waffled all day, we’d be better off than what we’ve got now.”

Sure, fat cushy jobs, and miles and miles of credit line on the old Visa card, but Iran will have nuclear weapons by the time Kerry’s first term is over, and Osama Bin Laden won’t be flying four airliners into buildings, he’ll be popping 4 nukes in 4 American cities.

Let’s see, which cities can we afford to write off. New York and Washington DC, we won’t be given the choice there, hmmm. Atlanta? Chicago? LA, yeah LA has to go, all those smut loving infidel movie stars are high on the list, so there’s really only one wild card.

Button, button, who has the button?

‘Course then, Iran is a given for a regime change, but somehow I have the feeling that the Mullahs chanting “Death to America” might just try and hide behind their nuclear umbrella.

Not that they have a chance, we have 7000+ warheads to their expected ten, but if a quarter of the world’s oil wells glow in the dark, does that mean the price will go up by a third?

Ah well, with those fat cushy jobs, we can pay $2.30 a gallon, no sweat.

And as long as the wind doesn’t blow to the northwest, the west, the southwest, or the south, the other two thirds of the Gulf Oil is fine, just fine, no fallout here at all, and therefore, not the slightest worry that the price of a gallon of unleaded will rise to $6.90.

Right on Carl, Kerry and his bevvy of interns for the Lincoln Bedroom in ought four.

The future’s so bright I gotta wear shades.

Posted by: jeffers at March 6, 2004 02:24 PM

wow, jeffers…no wonder you’re such an ardent Bush bunny. Where do you come up with this stuff?

“Miles and miles of credit on the old Visa.” Have you seen the news? We went from budget surplus under that bad man, Mr. Clinton, to a slight deficit under Doofus. It’s all part of a highly strategic, highly intelligent Conservative plan to reduce the size of government. With your craftiness, one can only imagine that you’re clever. Why do you fall for the lies dripping from the mouth of the Great Savior?

Have you heard that all 21,000 new jobs in Feb were government jobs? This joker, er joke is a Conservative? Is this really the plan?

at the rate we’re going, your prediction of Kerry at $2.30 sounds like gas will be on sale. Check out drudgereport.com. Your Illustrious Leader is wringing his hands on your behalf.

You might not have heard that Drudge backed off on his Kerry intern story? That was Clinton with the intern. This might shock you…Democrats and liberals are having sex. Some of them are lustful. We should keep those rightwing religious moral police in there to straighten out this country.

Just want to check something out Jeffers…are you a Ranger?

Highly amusing. Thanks for the post. It gives me interesting insights into the workings of the human mind. Fascinating.

Posted by: carl at March 6, 2004 05:45 PM

“Have you heard that all 21,000 new jobs in Feb were government jobs? “

There you go, exaggerating again. Best you can do is 20,999. Trust me.

“You might not have heard that Drudge backed off on his Kerry intern story? That was Clinton with the intern. This might
shock you…Democrats and liberals are having sex. Some of them are lustful. We should keep those rightwing religious
moral police in there to straighten out this country.”

Interesting, yet predictable.

Why do you need to defend Kerry if Clinton did nothing wrong? Is sex outside of marriage only bad when you don’t do it, but not when you do? G’wan, spin me some yarn. I see you.

““Miles and miles of credit on the old Visa.” Have you seen the news? We went from budget surplus under that bad man,
Mr. Clinton, to a slight deficit under Doofus”

I was agreeing with you.

Under Kerry, you’d have a booming economy and Platinum Visa’s arriving in the mail. Again.

Just like under Clinton.

A chicken in every pot and plump young morsels for every guy who wants one.

Don’t worry about AQ tooling up to drop the two best buldings we have. They already did that. Now they’re looking to go big time. No worries though. Roll around in your liquid cash, toss a few TLAMS at the problem, and back to the bacchanal.

Party on, dhude.

Posted by: jeffers at March 6, 2004 09:30 PM

I blame Kerry for his own failure. Objective support for communist murderers.

As I said I am culpable too. I got it wrong and thus was responsible for the death of two million.

The difference between me and Kerry is that I admit I was wrong and ask forgiveness. Something Kerry has never done.

If Bush (the moron) is smart he will destroy Kerry with his own record. Starting with the Purple Hearts and working his way forward.

Bush is doing his usual and letting Kerry establish his position. Once that is fixed he will hammer Kerry into the ground.

It is too bad the Democrat I would have voted for in a flash (Lieberman) didn’t get the nomination.

As to the so called jobless recovery I was reading an old electronics magazine of mine from 1995 near the middle of one of the longest booms in American history and people then were complaining of layoffs and the insecure job market.

My guess is that the economy will be generating enough jobs by Nov 2004 to put Bush way over the top.

If Iran has fallen by then Bush has a lock.

Posted by: M. Simon at March 6, 2004 10:04 PM

Oddly Normal Wrote,
“Yes, it’s a close race, and Kerry is competitive. That’s the suprise — it’s a suprise, after 2001-03, that anyone is competitive with Bush”

It doesn’t shock me since after all America did vote in Bill Clinton twice in a row. Bill Clinton the master at ‘tricking’ voters to vote for him. John Kerry is trying to play both sides of every single issue, perhaps all sides of every single issue. I think his strategy is to confuse the living crap out of everyone so that people will accidentally punch a hole for John Kerry when they meant to punch a hole for Bush.

Alas. Sometimes I don’t carry any hope that the American people will wake up and realize that we can not ‘POLICE’ terrorism. We can not ‘BEFRIEND’ Dictators. We can not do that anymore.

John Kerry is already setting himself up as America’s VCR. Just push Rewind.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 7, 2004 12:28 AM

Carl, I think you just hate the President. The average unemployment numbers in the 1990s were 5.8 % vs. 5.6% today. What are you Democrats going to talk about when the economy improves even more this summer?

Posted by: Va Boy at March 7, 2004 04:23 PM

Va Boy

Think whatever you want. Don’t know the guy. Don’t hate him. Think that what he’s done (or not) is disgusting. Think that he’s a liar. This is “restore dignity and honor to the White House”?

Not a Democrat. Been a Republican a loooonnnnggg time. What are you going to talk about when the moon turns into green cheese?

What concerned Americans should be talking about this summer is whatever there is to talk about then. What there is to talk about now is Iraq, WMD fiasco/lies, Admin’s refusal to fully and honorably participate in the 9/11 investigation, just getting around to intensive, 24/7 hunt for the 9/11 perps, lack of support for democracy in Haiti, nation building, Plame, the promised millions of jobs and the delivery of 21,000 in Feb., “divider, not a uniter”, Bush flim/flam about military service, Bush political ads that use the 9/11 tragedy (despite his promise not to do so). did i say “nation building”, one of the bad things Clinton/Gore were doing, according to GWB. the flim/flam budget disowned before a week was out. lack of money in the budget to support the military-Afghanistan&Iraq. squandered international goodwill after 9/11. Bush/Cheney/Rove lies and smear campaigns. scaring the crap out of people so that they’ll feel safe with a trigger-happy cowboy at the helm.

average unemployment. This is the only bright spot? I’m shocked that that’s enough to have people support this buffoon. please put that in the context of consumer confidence, civilian employment levels, and number of people no longer looking. can’t you just imagine the average voter in the booth thinking “yes, but the average unemployment is about the same as it was in the 1990s”? mutton-headed thinking.

is it your contention that this is all going to be cleaned up by summer…or just the economy?

My guess is that when the economy improves this summer-a given apparently-there’ll be plenty to talk about—most of the above and more. it’s not an accident that this bunch of bozos can’t shoot straight. incompetent, irresponsible.

Posted by: carl at March 7, 2004 05:21 PM

Tony, John Kerry Apologist Foresta wrote,

“Kerry, “demoncrats”, “libruls”, and all your fellow Americans on theleft know full well that indeed the rightwingideologue disinformation and propaganda coverns on theright will attempt to slime, paint, and demonize all of us who oppose the Bush government”

Your !@#$ right it does. You demonize the crap out of President Bush and twist the facts and information and play the ‘short term memory’ game all the time. You demonize Bush and you demonize Right Wing, Conservatives.

So we demonize you back Foresta.

But who wins really when both sides are demonizing each other? The real winner is the individual American that decides NOT to participate in any Government Hand me Down. By not taking any Government Hand Outs you as an American defeat the Liberalism in American Society.

I plan to defeat Liberalism and to defeat any Liberal President and any Liberal Culture by refusing to participate in any Government Hand Out, as well as teaching others how to live without them.

In reality. You liberals have nothing. You have 100% dependance and therefore can not be independant. Your dependance creates a closed minded carnival and a depressed society.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 7, 2004 07:14 PM

Thank God George Bush was on watch when we were attacked on 9/11/01. If a Democrat was in the White House, we would have to get permission from the United Nations to defend ourselves.

I just hope enough people will realize that the Economy is just a small (but very important) part of choosing a President. Personally, I do not want a President that must get the United Nations’ permission before he can defend our country. I also do not want Universal Health Care…just ask the citizens in Canada what they think of Goverment provided Heathcare. I also do not Liberal Judges that will abolish our 2nd amendment rights.

I have to go now and prepare for work tomorrow so I can help pay for the Liberal social programs that have been introduced over the years.

Posted by: VA Boy at March 7, 2004 07:30 PM

True to his Vietnam-era sympathies, John Kerry became one of President Ronald Reagan’s most outspoken opponents regarding the policy of militarily suppressing Communist inroads in Latin America. His opposition culminated in a controversial April, 1985, visit to Nicaragua and its Sandinista regime.

Following the Cold War, Kerry’s doveliness continued unabated. Following Iraq’s seizure of Kuwait in 1990, Kerry voted against authorization for the use of force — which was more than could be said for Saddam Hussein. In 1995, Kerry was among 29 other senators who voted against ending the arms embargo against the Bosnians, even as Slobodan Milosevic escalated his reign of terror.

Concerning the authorization for the use of force against Iraq last year, however, Senator Kerry had this to say on 23 January 2003: “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real….”

Kerry now says he believes the war was a mistake, and that he voted to authorize the threat of force, but not the actual use of it. I can’t help but wonder about the seriousness of a post-9/11 presidential candidate so loath to make good on a threat. Kerry’s approach won’t strike fear into the heart of a schoolyard bully, much less that of a brutal dictator or a murderous band of Jihadist thugs.

More recently, we note the senator’s whiny, thin-skinned response to questions raised over his defense voting record by Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss — questions utterly appropriate to anyone aspiring to be commander-in-chief: “[The President has] decided once again to take the low road of American politics. … Saxby Chambliss, on the part of the president and his henchmen, decided today to question my commitment to the defense of our nation….” And again, when responding to similar queries: “I’d like to know what it is Republicans who didn’t serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did.” Wait a minute — you mean John Kerry actually served in Vietnam? Who knew?

Finally, earlier this week Kerry breathed life into the conspiracy theory of a U.S.-led coup against erstwhile Leftist darling and Haitian president/autocrat Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who resigned and fled to Africa early last Sunday morning. Following Aristide’s departure, Kerry remarked, “I think there should be some investigation of it. I have a very close friend in Massachusetts who talked directly to people who made that allegation [of a U.S.-led coup]. I don’t know the truth of it. I really don’t. But I think it needs to be explored and we need to know the truth of what happened.”

So let’s get this straight: Kerry admits he doesn’t “know the truth of it,” yet he’s calling for an investigation because he’s got a friend back home who talked to someone who says that the President of the United States ordered the kidnapping of a foreign leader.

This is the best the Democrat Party can offer for President?

Quote of the week…

“They don’t know John Kerry’s record. … He is the Olympic gold medalist when it comes to special-interest money. … I also think that he is very vulnerable on the issues of national security. If you look at his voting record, it is terrible as far as it comes to national defense and helping fund a good intelligence unit.”
—Senator Zell Miller, the Georgia Democrat who’s campaigning against Kerry for a second Bush term

Open query for Kerry…

“Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase ‘special interest’? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?… Is the National Rifle Association a ‘special interest’? Is ‘special’ a synonym for ‘conservative’? … When you denounce ‘lobbyists’ do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is ‘liberal lobbyist’ an oxymoron?… On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning ‘the theory of deterrence.’ Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression? The next day you said, ‘I do not believe our nation is prepared for war.’ How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself? … On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote ‘I share your concerns’ and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, ‘I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis.’ Did you have a third position?… You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again? In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counter-terrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?”
—George Will, “A Few Questions for John Kerry”

Snap shots…

“I think it is entirely possible [the extramarital affair by Clinton] was a distraction that kept him from performing his duty as president.”
—John Kerry, September 2001

“If anything, there may now be a greater appreciation for the trouble you can get into for certain behavior. More parents are teaching their children about lying, about humiliation, about family hurt, about public responsibility, than before we ever heard the name of Monica Lewinsky.”
—John Kerry, February, 1999

“The country does not believe the fiber of our nation is unraveling over the President’s egregious behavior, because most people have a sense of proportion about the case that seems totally lacking in the House managers’ presentation. No parent or school in America is teaching kids that lying or abusing the justice system is now OK….Democrats were very sophisticated in making a distinction between the policies and personal behavior of President Clinton.”
—John Kerry during the Clinton impeachment proceedings

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 7, 2004 09:04 PM