Aside from the obvious arguments against JK as a nominee (Massachusetts, long and boring speeches -- if I hear "we're coming, you're going" in that drone one more time, I may barf -- and hard to look at for 10 months), is he writing off the South??

Kerry: \"mistake of looking South\" to win the presidency (ABC)


What a stupid thing to say out loud. If Dean had done it, the media would club him like a baby seal.

Agree this may not have been the best thing to say, but once again, its early. I noted in a new Newsweek poll, Kerry beats Bush if the election was held today. Forget the exact percentage, but Kerry had a 3-4% lead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4049942/

...And for the first time in the poll's history a Democrat is enjoying a marginal advantage over President George W. Bush. In a hypothetical face-off, Kerry commanded a three-point lead over the president.

...Kerry is enjoying a marginal advantage over Bush, a first for the poll. Forty-nine percent of registered voters chose Kerry, compared to 46 percent who re-elected Bush.

There is defintely reason for optimism for the Democrats!!. Thanks Raze for the additional info.

Pardon my dampening the enthusiasm, but those numbers are purely due to the Kerry victory in Iowa and his media hype the last six days. i.e., front-runnerism. Doesn't mean a thing.

Keep in mind that in late '91 and early '92, most pundits claimed Clinton was not electable--especially against a Bush. That said, at this point, polls are pretty much useless; it was just a week before the Iowa caucuses that Howard Dean was still the frontrunner in that state, according to the polls.

~Adam

Bill W, keep in mind that this poll was AFTER the State of the Union, which is usually a huge boost to a President. I don't think people were really that impressed with his speech this year.

"And even thought Bush used the State of the Union to emphasize his controversial tax cuts, Medicare overhaul, opposition to gay marriage and a burgeoning economic rebound, Bush saw his job performance ratings dip to 50 percent approval (versus 44 percent who disapprove)—his most negative ratings to date"

Well, Kerry is only stating the truth; had Gore won even one other non-Southern state, like New Hampshire, he'd be president. What gets me is that W's policies in general have a worse effect on the poorer Southern states than on richer states like New Jersey and Connecticut (where there are high salaried voters, more businesses, etc.), yet these states are trending leftwards, while Southerners as a whole are still caught up in a snit about Clinton's sex scandal.

But Kerry's full comments should be taken into account as well. He's said the campaign has to embrace all of America.

Actually, I'm modifying this post to add the following questions (and by the south I mean the former Confederate states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia). Let's excerpt Louisiana (because of its large Catholic population) and Florida (because of its singular demographics).

John Kerry is Roman Catholic; is there a statewide-elected federal official in any of these states who's Catholic?

John Kerry is divorced; is there a statewide elected-federal official in any of these states who's divorced?

John Kerry's grandfather was born a Jew in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, I believe; is there a statewide-elected federal official in any of these states whose ancestry is Jewish?

Just wondering.

[ January 26, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Indeed. Weren't Dukasis's numbers in a similar position in early 1988?

I understand John Kerry will be in my city next Wednesday. Even though I am still a Dean supporter, I am going to go to listen to hear what he has to say. If he has anything to say about the state of the economy, especially in my state, Washington, I think he will resonate strongly here.

YEAH! I want John Edwards OR John Kerry in the lead on the ticket.


[ January 30, 2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

I agree with the things said above about the south. I was born and raised in NC and the town I came from is a shell of its former self. Al the jobs are gone, all the mills shut down. these people are really suffering from the economic situation in this country. They should be the first in line to vote against Bush.

However, Bush then trots out gay marriage and I'd say 90% of the people there will vote for him on that issue alone. My friends who are Bush supporters say that I should vote on the full range of issues (of course, issues prioritized by them) not just on those that effect me "as a gay man." But I can clearly point out that the Bush supporters are asking people like those from my home town to forget a number of issues and vote on a purely social conservative platform against abortion and gay marriage. It's the same thing. For me, there are issues that I think bush is stronger on than the possible nominee. being President for 4 years gives him the obvious edge in experience. However, I have to look at basic freedoms and prejudices and I just can't vote for him.

hey DC Guy, I too am from the South, NC as well and have seen jobs fleeing from the South for a long time now. But it began during the first Clinton administration with the passing of the NAFTA. Now,I'm a big democrat and voted for Clinton and support much of the free trade agreement; but I think some things happened which were not forseen, like the continuation of China to dominate the world with cheap labor. And we Americans continue to buy the crap. I mean look at Gap and Banana Republic and WalMart--all that stuff is made in China and we continue to buy it up like it's gold. The other day I refused to buy a robe in Brooks Brothers, even on sale, because it was made in China. I did buy more t-shirts because some of those are still made in the USA, or Canada. Yes, having things made cheaply elsewhere benefits the pockets in the short run, but usually not in the long run.

Interesting posts about polls -- we've been through this a zillion times already. A poll is a snapshot in time and has limited value. That said, I thought that Illini made an excellent point noting that these numbers were taken AFTER the State of the Union speech.

One other thing - to compare this election to the ones in the past (other than the last election) just doesn't take into account the fact that our country is now more deeply divided almost directly down the middle.

As Fantomas wrote (I think) -- if Gore had won just one more State he'd be sitting in the White House. I see no reason why Kerry couldn't win all of the States that Gore carried and with a running mate like Edwards or Clark -- he could very well carry West Virginia or maybe Florida (although that appears doubtful now). He also has a very good shot in New Hampshire for the same reasons that he won the primary there so convincingly.

As I said earlier, I'd love to see a Kerry/Edwards or Edwards/Kerry ticket. The ticket could be called John Squared. You heard the phrase here first, guys!

Kerry used that already tired "We're coming, you're going" stump line in the debate last night ... Stop him! The man has no "ear." (Neither does W, but we all know his constituency doesn't care.)

He's certainly electable now. But what will happen when they capture Osama? Won't it basically mean that Bush won the war on terror? And the closer his capture is to the actual election, the complaints about Bush won't go over very well with most Americans.

In that "victory" hundreds of more Americans will probably die. Everybody thought the killing would stop with Saddam's capture and it only got worse. Mission Accomplished! They've got to hurry up and get Osama dirtied up in time for his "capture" this summer just in time for the convention bounce.

In today's Slate, Mickey Kaus has some astute comments about the legit attacks on Kerry in the debate:

As for the alleged imminence of bin Laden's capture, perhaps a feelgood landslide for the Usurper in its wake would be regretted if Disney World gets nuked in 2005. It's not like attacks on the US are likely to cease with ObL's demise or apprehension.

In the latest CNN poll Kerry would defeat Shrub, 48% to 46% for Shrub. This is significant because this is even before the Democrats conventions and nominations. Shrub is in a heck of alot of trouble at this moment. If anyone else caught "This Week" yesterday, this was clearly pointed out by the panel including George Will. Iraq is a total mess, with all panel members pointing out there is no way 3 big events planned there, including formulation of an Iraqi constitution, that must take place this year will happen. In addition to that we have "lack of information gate-WMD" going on which it appears will be investigated by a bipartisan panel, and then there is the budget crisis which has many conservatives extremely unhappy with Shrub. I feel very very optimistic this election year. Regime change, bring it on.

More from Mickey Kaus on Kerry's Johnny Chung "misstatement," and assorted other JK fibs past and present...

And \"Doonesbury\" took a couple shots at Kerry -- in 1971!

Mickey Kaus--yawn. What a bitter, pathetic little scribe, always doing his best to assist the GOP, after having given a bit of his soul to the Democrats during the Clinton years.

Johnny Chung, whatever. Kerry could have gotten a blow job from him, I don't care. Dean could seal all his records, I don't care. John Edwards may have cursed once while in a darkened closet after facing a particularly hateful corporate opponent. I don't care. None of it compares to DUI-AWOL-Harken/SEC-Record as TX Gov-anti-gay where're-the-WMDs W. None of it. None. Of. It.

I agree, of course ... but Dems must question which of the candidates are most "ethically challenged" so they can be culled before the GOP hypocritically torpedoes them.

I'd bet most of the people supporting Kerry vs Bush in those polls don't even know that he led Veterans Against the War after his return from Nam. Guaranteed that some "independent" wingnut group will produce commercials / pamphlets highlighting JK throwing his medals away if he is the nominee. Never mind that that's something I admire about him -- it will be exploited to hurt him in the fall.

Bush can attack Kerry for fighting and then coming back and not supporting the war all he wants........but the fact still remains that George never wanted to be any part of the war either.

I am not worried about it. I think Shrub is in for a heck of a challenge with Kerry if he is indeed the nominee. He can show Shrub all the medals he received too. As I pointed out the other day, right now in the latest CNN poll Kerry is beating Bush by about 7 points, before the nomination yet. Today Spokane is lucky, we get a visit from Dean and a visit from Kerry!

[ February 03, 2004, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Puckman -- if you go to either event be certain to give us a report.

The fact that Kerry is a war hero totally evens the playing field against Bush II. The killing fields of Iraq will become a bigger issue. If Kerry can say some of the same things that Dean has been saying about the War being a ruse, further destabilizing the mid-East, giving Al Q an entry into Iraq, etc... he will score many points.

One of the less thought of issues in the 2000 election was the military/overseas write-in votes. There was a significant amount of these votes in Florida in 2000........and if Kerry gets on there, the vote probably wouldn't go as strongly to Bush/Republicans as in the past.

Anyone know why he voted against the first Gulf War?

Just came from the Kerry rally in Spokane at our airport. The place Spokane Airways hangar was totally packed to the rafters, I would estimate at least 1,100 people maybe a few hundred more. Great speech by Kerry, he outlined everything he wants to accomplish as President, and the audience was really excited by everything they heard. Welcome to Washington State John Kerry!

Thanks for the report Puckman -- how does Kerry come across in person -- he has seemed much more relaxed lately but winning tends to facilitate that. wink

I also saw on the news that Kerry won a little 'competition' by VH1 about being up to speed with pop culture. I think that says something cause he looks and seems (at least in my opinion) like the guy that would be the worst with that stuff.

Md: I wish I could say I had the chance to talk to him, but he seems very comfortable with himself and where he is at. He gave all our local channels here interviews after the rally, and he just comes across like someone you know well, like a good friend or something. Can't wait for him to return. I and my ex are going to volunteer here now at our Kerry Headquarters.

Give up on Dean already, puckman? My, how rubbery our spines are, eh? wink

Were there delegates at stake?

Maybe his trivia IQ is explained by his between-marriages dating roster (as reported in Salon yesterday), which includes trash-culture footnotes like Morgan Fairchild, Catherine Oxenberg and Cornelia Guest. (Patti Davis too, Reaganuts!) Just cuz the guy looks like the Undead doesn't mean he hasn't ever worked it...

MIB, I just knew you chime in with something. I think its not hard to figure out, and any intelligent person can reasonably conclude that its going to be extremely difficult for Dean to become the nominee of the Dem. party. I still have strong feelings for Howard. He was talking the issues and pressing his case way, way before anyone else ever dreamed about doing so. I believe the Democratic party owes Howard big time!! I took it upon myself to look into John Kerry via his website, and noticed his strong, unwavering support of gays and lezbians.Its quite clear to me now that John Kerry is the man to beat Shrub. One huge reason for me is because he said yesterday here, that he wants the same health care available to all Americans that Representatives and Senators receive. Right on John. Go Kerry Go. And if you have a problem with people changing their minds or "shopping," thats your problem, not mine.

Puckman - well said! Some people just can't resist picking fights. MIB and his right wing Brethren should be very concerned indeed about the developments in the party.

And re-evaluating positions is nothing to be ashamed of -- it is the mark of a person who lives life without rigid constraints. I applaud you for doing so!

I already posted something similar in the "Super Tuesday" thread, but add me to the people that are becoming more impressed with Kerry. He has really revitalized his campaign, and I think has finally gotten to the messages he needs to use in the general election. I wish he would more strongly repudiate his vote on the Iraq war (something along the lines of "I was lied to, the American people were lied to, the world was lied to and Bush should pay" would be nice), but I have much more hope about him than I ever thought I would a couple of months ago.

Thank you mdphl.:-) Cpt: I believe Kerry has said some comments specifically about Iraq. He didn't mention Iraq here per se yesterday, but he talked about the messy foreign policy of the Shrub regime. My favorite line used here yesterday from Kerry: "like father like son...one term and you're DONE!!!!"
Go Kerry!

[ February 04, 2004, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Kerry on Vietnam in 1992: "We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways..."

"Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time."

The entire floor speech can be found in the Congressional Record.

My favorite: "Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?"

Kerry's answer, circa 2004: "Yes!"

How, exactly did W serve in Vietnam? Please tell me! By the way, Alabama is still looking for W. Interesting Story

[ February 04, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Can't blame Kerry. It deflates a lot of the "Kerry's a commie Mass Kennedy liberal who will sell out the military and hates his country" talk to remind such critics that a) that's preposturous, for he's a war hero and someone else is not.

Sean Hannity tried to do this last night and it failed. I don't blame camp kerry for using this as a shield.

That said, everyone knew that Bush had a less than stellar war record when they voted for him in 2000, and I can't imagine it will win any new votes to remind them of this. In fact, it may turn some people off. As in: yes, he may have avoided his duty back then, but there's nothing about the past 3 years to indicate that it should matter now. So let it go. There's plenty to attack Bush on without having to resort to what Kerry at one time recognized was below the belt.

Yes, like reminding people that his lies have been proven fatal.

TomFord, I hear what you're saying, but I think a lot of Bush supporters really DO NOT KNOW that much about his background, youth and service record, or rather, don't really want to know. Of the various recent presidents, his is one of the least impressive on almost every account, and when you think that unlike Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Ford, Carter, and Clinton, he started out with tremendous financial and social advantages, it really looks pathetic by comparison. We had to hear everything about Clinton's pot-smoking and anti-war protesting in Oxford (where he was a RHODES SCHOLAR, no less!), yet Bush's drug and boozing history was repeatedly swept under the rug, the records are sealed, and it wasn't until an eleventh-hour uncovering of that DUI that people actually found out the implications of his "reckless youth." I'm not saying every future president has to be a war hero or a hardworking and successful businessman or write a Pulitzer Prize-winning college thesis or whatever, but by almost every measure, W is exceeding lackluster. If one compares him to the 20th century presidents, I cannot think of one who comes out worse by comparison in terms of background, especially if you factor in their relative social and economic standing at birth.

[ February 04, 2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

The difference is--he's our President now. To a certain kind of American, there's something wrong with a candidate trashing the sitting president in this manner. Yeah, his background was certainly lackluster, but he's our President now. Besides, the candidates have an entire term to trash him with. The sitting president gets a pass of sorts on such aspects of his life. Trash the administration's failures, not the man. Americans who don't know or don't want to know about the less than stellar aspects of Bush's life before 2000 will only see this as underhanded, unnecessary, mean spirited, and disrespectful. Not qualities you want in your future president. All they know is that, as President, he's scandal-free (in his personal life), a good Christian, goes to bed early, cheerful, etc. For Kerry to tell them otherwise just doesn't sit right. And sounds a touch false, and certainly mean.

All this means is that Kerry, Edwards and co should take care not to make these AWOL comments themselves. And should play nice (distance themselves from it) when asked about it. They should let others do the trashing for them...just like Bush does!

[ February 04, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

I don't think Kerry is really attacking Bush on this issue, but simply stating that he has a military background (which Bush simply doesn't have). He also has a lot of experience in the Senate on these issues.

As for Kerry's anti-war status after returning from Vietnam, this isn't anything Kerry is ashamed of. It's plainly stated on his profile on his website.

By DO NOT KNOW, you seem to mean DO NOT SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE ON HIS BACKGROUND AND THUS DON'T HAVE A CLUE. To think that people who support President Bush never listen to the news, never surf the Internet, but just went and cast a ballot for a guy they know zero about is just beyond absurd. This is really just the most patronizing thing, this insinuation that people who support the President are just too stupid to know any better. Surely this is rock bottom.

Right, when Kerry's people call Bush a deserter, AWOL, etc., they're not attacking him at all. Anybody can see those are morally neutral claims.

At any rate, when Bob Kerrey simply stated that he has a military background (which Clinton simply didn't have, and pointed out that he (BK) also had a lot of experience in the Senate on these issues, Kerry seemed to find it inappropriate.

[ February 04, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Also interesting:

from today's washington post

"According to the records, Bush had been instructed to report to William Turnipseed, an officer in the Montgomery unit. 'Had he reported in, I would have had some recall and I do not,' Turnipseed, a retired brigadier general, told the Globe in 2000. 'I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered.' . . . Reached in Montgomery yesterday, Turnipseed stood by his contention that Bush never reported to him. But Turnipseed added that he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time ."



From FEC reports on contributions to the Edwards campaign:


TURNIPSEED, WILL
MONTGOMERY,AL 36123

6/16/2003
$500
Edwards, John

People will have different reasons for being willing to overlook his past, I'd think. You've got: baby boomers who were doing the same drugging and draft-dodging that Bush did, and can actually identify with him; conservatives who will vote for the least liberal candidate, no matter what; and of course his base of born-again Christians, whose whole personal salvation "narrative" doesn't really mean much unless you were a sinner before you found Jesus. Add the people who really don't know much about Bush's past, and you've got a lot of voters.

Remember, some people will vote AGAINST the Democrat rather than FOR Bush; those votes count just as much! Plus, as we've all learned, you don't have to get the most votes to win...

I learned this in middle school, I think - fifth or sixth grade, maybe? - when we first studied the Electoral College.