Jump to content

an early prediction


Guest coololdguy
This topic is 6664 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Guest coololdguy

I am going out on a limb and risking my reputation but nevertheless am prepared, two months early, to predict the presidential election. I have never missed and am usually close on the percentages....2000 of course, being in question. I predict that GW will win comfortably....not a landslide .... but close to it. Here is my reasoning: The swiftboat ads have cost Kerry dearly and the timing going into the GOP convention could not have been worse. Voters who have swung to Bush because of this controversy will not be converted back to Kerry. It is the kind of issue that sticks. Bush should get a small bump from the convention and this along with the successful character assassination provided by his x-vet brothers will leave Bush in a small yet unshakeable lead going into the final 8 weeks. The only chance Kerry will have to swing the few remaining undecided voters will be in the debates and because he comes across so stiff and also because of his disastrous inability to take advantage of what has become an unpopular war, he will probably AT BEST come out of the debates exactly where he entered. The economy will probably remain stagnant through October but Kerry once again seems impotent to take advantage. If there is a terrorist attack in the next two months this also will boost Bush and even if nothing happens Bush will continue to profit from the "fear factor". I really can't figure anyway Kerry can pull this out and with recent polling out of California showing Bush rapidly gaining in what was considered a solid Kerry state......oh my!......if Ca. comes in play the election is for sure a done deal. This is all terribly depressing to me as I believe GW to be the worst president in my lifetime......forgetting about Nixon, of course.

 

I know there are several members here who follow politics and tracking polls and are very knowledgeable so would you please tell me I am all wet.......trash my logic .......tell me my track record on predictions has ended.....call me a brain dead old pessimistic fool.....whatever....please tell me "four more years" ain't going to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Here is my reasoning: The swiftboat ads

>have cost Kerry dearly and the timing going into the GOP

>convention could not have been worse.

 

Wishful thinking. Are you also predicting that Bush will be wearing a pink shirt and an earring for his nomination acceptance speech?

 

Today's news:

 

PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite extensive publicity given to attack ads that criticize Democratic candidate John Kerry's service in Vietnam, a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds no change in voter preferences. President George W. Bush receives 50% support among likely voters, compared with Kerry's 47% -- identical to results in a similar poll two weeks ago. Among registered voters, the race remains a virtual tie.

 

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12823

 

---And that is BEFORE the backlash to the Swiftboat Liars that will prevent any convention bounce for Bush.

 

 

>Voters who have swung to

>Bush because of this controversy will not be converted back to

>Kerry.

 

Well, since there doesn't appear to be any of them, you won't get an argument on that one.

 

>The only chance Kerry will have to

>swing the few remaining undecided voters will be in the

>debates and because he comes across so stiff

 

And of course the Rove propaganda machine will have the American public prepared to realize that no one comes across as retarded and illiterate as Bush, so when he manages to make his way through without slobbering on the microphone, it will be called a great victory.

 

Have you watched Kerry lately? No, obviously not, if you're calling him stiff.

 

>The economy will

>probably remain stagnant through October but Kerry once again

>seems impotent to take advantage.

 

It only seems that way to those whose minds are already closed.

 

> with recent polling out of California showing

>Bush rapidly gaining in what was considered a solid Kerry

>state......oh my

 

If an automated message dials your home phone on a weekday and asks you to press buttons with responses about your voting intentions, are you going to be at home and willing to play the game? Well, yes, probably, since you're a Bush voter. The fact is that Survey USA is to scientific polling, what Fox News is to fair and balanced reporting. Come back and eat crow after the next REAL poll in California.

 

> I know there are several members here who follow politics

>and tracking polls and are very knowledgeable so would you

>please tell me I am all wet

 

Maybe you just like W because Wet is your middle name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, coololdguy doesn't like Bush: he said the latest polling indicating Bush could win depressed him because Bush is the worst president in his lifetime!

 

I'm still more optimistic about Kerry's chances, even though I realize it's a very tight election. I don't think Bush will get any convention bounce at all, because he's a completely known quantity. The Democratic convention at least gave voters who were highly unfamiliar with Kerry a chance to see and learn more about him. There can hardly be any voters who are unfamiliar with Bush. Kerry didn't get any "bounce" from the Democratic convention, but had his performance there been poor, or had he turned off voters, he could have lost support. But he didn't. Bush runs the same risk; he could do badly or say something really stupid at the convention and turn off some previously committed supporters.

 

With the electorate seemingly so polarized, the election once again will be decided by the electoral college, which means the swing states are once again critically important, and so far Kerry is leading in most of them, even if his leads are narrow and within the margin of error. However, Zogby has been polling for several months now, and Kerry has been in the lead all along, so that suggests to me that there is some strength in his lead, narrow as it may be.

 

Kerry also seems to be finding a more appealing style during the campaign. He's become far less stiff and reserved than he was at the beginning. That doesn't mean he's turned into someone as personable as Bill Clinton, but he certainly is more loose and appealing than Al Gore was in the last election. I voted for Gore, but I'm sure there were a lot of people turned off by his monotone approach. (He's since lost it, it seems. I wonder if this means that modern medicine is now capable of doing charisma transplants?) In any case, Kerry now seems to have the fire in his belly, and is capable of pitching out some real red meat to his supporters. Unless there's a real disaster, Kerry will cream Bush in the debates, because he's light years more articulate and expressive than Bush. That should help sway at least a few of the undecideds.

 

Another reason for optimism is that it looks like overall turnout will be much higher this time around, and high turnout favors the Democrats. There are a lot of people who are pissed off about the results of the last election who are going to make SURE they vote this time.

 

A further reason for optimism is the number of voters in places like my own state of Kansas who are saying "I've always voted Republican but I just can't bring myself to vote for Bush this time." If they vote for Kerry, or just stay home and don't vote at all, that will help defeat Bush. And I'm not sure that the polls are effectively picking up on this phenomenon.

 

Anyway, we'll have to work like hell between now and November to try to get Bush out of office. If I'm wrong about the results (and I have been before) I'll have to see about the political asylum regulations in Brazil. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this has been one of the most surprising political years in a long time, and I suspect the shocks aren't over yet. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush replaces Cheney, if Kerry finds his present-tense voice and stops dwelling on Vietnam (now a losing proposition for him), if more veterans get even more pissed at him for his Vietnam Vets Against the War gig and he loses it in public (Kerry seems brittle rather than easygoing), if Osama does something terroristic again, or even if there is an assassination attempt against Bush. (Every president elected in a year ending with 0 since 1840 has died in office or had an assassination attempt against him, and the only attempt that failed was Reagan's in 1981.) I genuinely think this political season is that volatile and dangerous.

 

But at the moment it looks like Bush is drawing ahead of Kerry. Late August is too early to tell -- two more months to go -- but I think Kerry has made a terrible, possibly fatal mistake in focusing us all on his Vietnam experience. We are now seeing that it is still an open wound for many, and his double stance -- war hero/war protester -- is not reconciling people, as I think he had hoped, but is bringing some truly awful ghosts back to life. I am old enough to remember that era, and think it was a serious miscalculation to open that Pandora's box.

 

But we'll see. Maybe he will be able to find his footing again and switch the channel back to safer ground for Democrats -- domestic policy.

 

I think it is a mistake to go on tarring Bush with the dumb-ass brush, though. He will do much better than some expect in the debates, and he is a pretty canny political strategist. This race was Kerry's to lose a month ago, and now that advantage is gone. What will we be saying a month from now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> but I think Kerry has made a terrible, possibly fatal

>mistake in focusing us all on his Vietnam experience.

 

As if he had a choice about the matter -- the SwiftLiar book was already at the publisher when he took the offensive at the Convention. It was brilliant for him to be the first to focus on his war record, rather than his anti-war record; and it was stupid for the vets who are still fighting the war, 35 years later, to focus first on his medals and not how he threw them away.

 

Ten weeks from now, this issue will have passed (and in the meantime, Fahrenheit will be out on DVD).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kerry began making his Vietnam service the centerpoint of his campaign long before the convention. The SBV group did not form until the Vietnam-centered strategy had emerged. There is one theory that it was the appearance of Jim Rassman (the guy Kerry saved) at the Iowa caucuses (Jan. 19) -- unknown, it is said, to Kerry -- that propelled Kerry at exactly the right moment in front of Howard Dean. This may have been the point at which Kerry switched to his war record as the central driving point of his message, because it was so effective in Iowa.

 

The Swift Boat Veterans group formed in late March, long after Kerry's Vietnam strategy became clear. So the decision to make his Vietnam service so much more prominent than his Senate career in the campaign (and hence at the convention) had its beginnings long before the SBV group formed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The Swift Boat Veterans group formed in late March, long after

>Kerry's Vietnam strategy became clear.

 

"At the 2003 reunion of Swift Boat Veterans, about 300 men showed up: 85 percent of them think Kerry is unfit to be president. (On the bright side, Kerry was voted, in absentia, "Most Likely to Run for President on His Phony War Record.")" See

 

http://boards.arenafootball.com/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=11599

 

Of course, O'Neill's grudge against Kerry really goes back 33 years, when O'Neill was a shill for Nixon and Kerry made him look like a fool on the Dick Cavett show.

 

Does anyone else remember Dick Cavett? He used to make late-night TV jokes about being a short guy from Nebraska, even before Johnny Carson made jokes about being a short guy from Nebraska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The Swift Boat Veterans group formed in late March, long after

>Kerry's Vietnam strategy became clear.

 

"At the 2003 reunion of Swift Boat Veterans, about 300 men showed up: 85 percent of them think Kerry is unfit to be president. (On the bright side, Kerry was voted, in absentia, "Most Likely to Run for President on His Phony War Record.")" See

 

http://boards.arenafootball.com/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=11599

 

Of course, O'Neill's grudge against Kerry really goes back 33 years, when O'Neill was a shill for Nixon and Kerry made him look like a fool on the Dick Cavett show.

 

Does anyone else remember Dick Cavett? He used to make late-night TV jokes about being a short guy from Nebraska, even before Johnny Carson made jokes about being a short guy from Nebraska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

En Fait

 

The Swift Boat ads, like the charges of "flip-flopping" have had an impact, in the polling that is done on the battleground states. While the overall numbers (who will you finally vote for) have stayed fairly constant, it has changed from favoring Kerry to favoring Bush in certain instances and vice versa in others. What they have done nationally, to voters as a whole, is demonized Kerry, which is part and parcel of the Karl Rove strategy to energize the Republican base, particularly religious, evangelical voters. This has been reported in both mainstream media and covered specifically in press reports for states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, West Virginia, etc.

 

Again, when you look at what is being reported about the election itself (not the candidates, but how the election is being run by both camps), you can see that most of the money is being spent in this so-called 17 battleground states. The Los Angeles Times, among other news media, have been looking at exactly where and how the money is being spent. One notably piece of news from these stories is that Bush is spending money on areas (such as the Florida panhandle and rural conservative parts of, for example, Ohio and Missouri) where his lead over Gore was sufficient that normally you would not think this necessary. However, the Republicans are putting their eggs substantially into one basket: that if they can get out more of the key supporters of Bush to vote, particularly those who frequently go to church, who may describe themselves as social conservatives, or whom are the evangelicals, some of whom did not vote in 2000, that that would be sufficient to overcome any advantage Kerry would have among casual voters.

 

On the issue of turnout, there are groups such as black rap artist and others (latino voters) who normally have not participated in get out the vote efforts, and others such as Rock The Vote, who have, who are trying to increase overall turnout. It is believed that any such increase among casual voters would tend to favor the democrats but there is no real historical basis for this belief, since these groups, no matter how much money you throw at them. Finally, the Republicans have agressively bought into the get out the vote concept, something which they have not done in the past but which they spent money and effort in 2002, which is where they believe they achieved some of the success in congressional and other races, such as Georgia. However, the voting pool in a presidential election is always different and far more inclusive that it is for other races, so this remains an unknown.

 

Personally, I do think it will boil down to the debates and factors, such as the war, beyond each candidates control. I think predictions in favor of any candidate at this point in time are premature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

En Fait

 

The Swift Boat ads, like the charges of "flip-flopping" have had an impact, in the polling that is done on the battleground states. While the overall numbers (who will you finally vote for) have stayed fairly constant, it has changed from favoring Kerry to favoring Bush in certain instances and vice versa in others. What they have done nationally, to voters as a whole, is demonized Kerry, which is part and parcel of the Karl Rove strategy to energize the Republican base, particularly religious, evangelical voters. This has been reported in both mainstream media and covered specifically in press reports for states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, West Virginia, etc.

 

Again, when you look at what is being reported about the election itself (not the candidates, but how the election is being run by both camps), you can see that most of the money is being spent in this so-called 17 battleground states. The Los Angeles Times, among other news media, have been looking at exactly where and how the money is being spent. One notably piece of news from these stories is that Bush is spending money on areas (such as the Florida panhandle and rural conservative parts of, for example, Ohio and Missouri) where his lead over Gore was sufficient that normally you would not think this necessary. However, the Republicans are putting their eggs substantially into one basket: that if they can get out more of the key supporters of Bush to vote, particularly those who frequently go to church, who may describe themselves as social conservatives, or whom are the evangelicals, some of whom did not vote in 2000, that that would be sufficient to overcome any advantage Kerry would have among casual voters.

 

On the issue of turnout, there are groups such as black rap artist and others (latino voters) who normally have not participated in get out the vote efforts, and others such as Rock The Vote, who have, who are trying to increase overall turnout. It is believed that any such increase among casual voters would tend to favor the democrats but there is no real historical basis for this belief, since these groups, no matter how much money you throw at them. Finally, the Republicans have agressively bought into the get out the vote concept, something which they have not done in the past but which they spent money and effort in 2002, which is where they believe they achieved some of the success in congressional and other races, such as Georgia. However, the voting pool in a presidential election is always different and far more inclusive that it is for other races, so this remains an unknown.

 

Personally, I do think it will boil down to the debates and factors, such as the war, beyond each candidates control. I think predictions in favor of any candidate at this point in time are premature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AlohaGuy

granted, predictions now are premature but ...

 

they're so much darn fun!! I'm a die-hard political junkie, and I love following the ins and outs, ups and downs, and melodramatic hijinx that make politics the best reality show/soap opera out there.

 

On one hand, the polls still have the two candidates just about even, albeit with a slight Bush gain in key battleground states. Nonetheless, all shifts are still within or close to the margin for error. Even if Kerry were slightly ahead at this point, I would think that would be cause for concern for the Dems since no challenger has ever beaten an incumbent without at least a 10-point lead coming out of the conventions.

 

The Swift Boat Vets are another cause for concern for the Kerry camp. Whether you believe Kerry or the Swift Boats, the SBV controversy at least raises some doubts about Kerry's Vietnam record. Kerry claimed that the Christmas Eve he spent in Cambodia was "seared into my memory", yet even his authorized biographer Douglas Brinkley admits that Kerry was never in Cambodia. Kerry talked about how it struck a nerve, touched something deep inside him, when he heard of Martin Luther King's assasination while he was in Vietnam. But MLK was assasinated in April 1968; Kerry didn't to go Vietnam until November 1968. And even if you take Kerry's version of events in Vietnam all at face value, the video and transcripts of his postwar protests will increase his negatives. Why Kerry made Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign is completely baffling. He did indeed open a Pandora's box, and I don't see how he can win with this issue.

 

All that said, there is still plenty of time left for things to blow up in Bush's face. If the economy continues to flag, if the job numbers in the next couple of months go down, if the already dicey situation in Iraq gets dicier, the virtual tie amongst the electorate will most likely swing Kerry's way.

 

The upcoming debates will be the key to victory, whether for Bush or Kerry, since most swing voters will base their ultimate decision on them. On one hand, W is a pretty poor debater and does not think on his feet well at all. On the other hand, Kerry's "charisma deficit" and flip-flopping on key issues (especially the for-against-for stances on the war) will be highlighted to a large national audience. I don't think Bush can really hurt himself much in these debates, but Kerry is vulnerable.

 

If I had to predict, I'd have to pick Bush to win, unless there is catastrophic bad news on the economic or Iraqi fronts. I base my prediction on on three factors: 1) almost all of Kerry's support is really just anti-Bush, a voting bloc which has long since maxxed out, Kerry hasn't done or shown anything that would generate a "pro-Kerry" bloc, and there's nothing to indicate that he has it in him to do so; 2) Bush's support base is very much of one mind on major issues, e.g., overwhelmingly favor staying in Iraq no matter what, whereas Kerry supporters are very divided on the issue, thereby making it even more difficult to increase Kerry's numbers; and 3) if the electorate is tied up going into the election, the power of incumbency favors Bush. Finally, to sum up in the immortal words of Dennis Miller, "Hey, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: granted, predictions now are premature but ...

 

> no challenger has ever beaten an incumbent

>without at least a 10-point lead coming out of the

>conventions.

 

Where do you come up with such nonsense? Incumbents LOSE if they DON'T have a 10-point advantage.

 

"Every incumbent who has won re-election in modern times had a double-digit lead over his opponent at this stage in the race, Mellman notes. A single-digit lead isn't enough. That's what the first Bush had over Clinton in early summer 1992. Carter held a small lead over Reagan in early summer 1980, and it survived until late October in many polls. Both those incumbents lost. So that puts Bush in company that he'd rather not keep."

 

 

http://www.thedemocrat.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12477182&BRD=1867&PAG=740&dept_id=226958&rfi=6

 

 

 

> Kerry talked about how it struck a nerve,

>touched something deep inside him, when he heard of Martin

>Luther King's assasination while he was in Vietnam. But MLK

>was assasinated in April 1968; Kerry didn't to go Vietnam

>until November 1968.

 

Kerry served in the United States Navy from February 18, 1966 until April 29, 1970. At the time of Dr. King's assassination -- April 4, 1968 -- he was serving aboard the U.S.S. Gridley DLG/GC-21 on its deployment to the Western Pacific, which included a period of time in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam. According to an article written by the Gridley's executive officer at the time the WESTPAC deployment included time on rescue station in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam, standing by to pick up downed aviators.

 

If you want to say that Kerry wasn't serving in Vietnam at the time, then you have to admit that McCain never would have served in Vietnam either (just over it, or offshore from it) if he had done a better job of taking evasive action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a totality to your prediction, it's really hard to say which presidential candidate will win the election. In some states, the polls changel almost daily. As for California, you need not worry as Senator Kerry holds a comfortable 12 point lead over President Bush for the time being.

 

You said something interesting about the swift ads. Just exactly why did it take the Kerry campaign two weeks to finally realise that the Republicans were hammering him into the ground figuratively speaking. Here is an interesting note. The good majority of his campaign staff worked on Michael Dukakis campaign of 1988. There are a handful of Clintonites, just policy advisors and that's it really. Now the irony, most of Kerry's staff are very inexperienced at presidential campaigns. It seems they've learnt nothing from lessons of the 1988 presidential election. Now comes the interesting aspect for this week. The DNC are so frustrated at the Kerry campaign that they have urged the Senator to shake up his staff. The main reason being is that his campaign have been relatively ineffective in deflecting Republican attacks as to his Vietnam record. The DNC have urged the shake ups to be complete by Labor Day weekend. That is when the presidential kicks off into high gear. What will Kerry do, well only time will tell.

 

I've also noticed that the Republicans have stepped up attacks against the John Kerry's service record in the Senate. Perhaps the Democrats in retrospect made a slight blunder by focusing too much on his Vietnam record and too little on his public career. The Republicans seem to be pouncing on this selectively off course. Zen Miller was the person driving the point home earlier this evening at the Republican convention. In my opinion what Kerry needs is someone in his campaign who can play up his strengths and so far no one has done that. Time after time, the Democrats are missing opportunity after opportunity. To me James Carville is probably the only person in the Democratic Party who could do that. After all that is what he did for Governor Clinton in 1992 and President Clinton in 1996. On top of that they need an attack dog like William Daley. This man single handedly took a fledging Gore campaign in 2000 and turned the focus around. In the process he almost gave Karl Rove a run for his money. By having these two gentlemen involved, they will do much better than what they are doing right now. Also the Kerry campaign need to focus on particular issues. One day the candidates are talking about outsourcing. The next day they're talking about the environment. This formula doesn't work. They have to focus on maybe two or three issues and hammer the points or talk the issues to death. Either way the public will sooner or later pay attention.

 

The results wont be known until election day if this type of approach will work. Look at the Bush campaign, they only talk about National Security, tax cuts and John Kerry's Vietnam record. This approach seems to be working. If John Kerry blows this election, he may have a footnote in history of being another blundering loser. Besides if George Bush loses, they have Governor Jeb Bush, who will leave office in 2006 due to term limits. I would not be suprised if he runs for the Republican nomination for President in 2008. Then the battle lines will be once agian redrawn for the epic showdown. For now its just John Kerry and George Bush. The stakes are very high, either candidate will help shape the course over the next four years in perilous times. Election day will turn out to be a hit or a miss for one of these two candidates.

 

Rohale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Rohale. You seem to be pro-Kerry, but balanced. I especially agree with your statement: "In my opinion what Kerry needs is someone in his campaign who can play up his strengths and so far no one has done that. Time after time, the Democrats are missing opportunity after opportunity."

 

I think Kerry has misidentified his strength by playing up the Vietnam angle so much. He may or may not have been in Cambodia, he may or may not have hyped his applications for medals, but he DID go to Vietnam and, however briefly, served in the front lines, and deserves respect for that. But, forgodssake, get beyond it!

 

I would like to say to John Kerry: Craft a gracious response to the Swift Boaties -- they won't stop otherwise -- and move on to domestic policy. You should have done it at the American Legion last Wednesday and didn't, but you still can. Tell us how health care can be changed, not just that you want to. Give us a reason to think you really can actually change the outsourcing tidal wave. Help the middle of the nation understand why it is important that gay people not be demonized -- important for everyone, not just for them. Show us how you will change the welfare and education systems without simply selling your policy out to the social workers and teachers who are the backbone of your candidacy, and value their own jobs and security more than the well being of the people they are supposed to help and teach.

 

Do that, John Kerry, and you will win in a landslide. Fail in delivering this message (which is your platform, more or less, except for the social worker and teacher part) and W will win. And should. Because the truth is, people already know who he is and most can envision another 4 years with him, but without telling us clearly what you want to do domestically, they have no good reason to choose you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AlohaGuy

The SBVTs did offer to cease and desist their attacks if Kerry agreed to four demands. Sorry, I can't find the specifics, just remember that it was a non-sterter. It's way too late for any sort of rapprochement between SBVTs and the Kerry camp. What baffles me is that Kerry personally contacted O'Neill at the beginning of the primary process, asked O'Neill to drop the attacks, and was rebuffed. So why the hell did Kerry go ahead and make his Vietnam War experience the centerpiece of his campaign?!?! Even if, as the Washington Post (the major newspaper that conducted the most thorough and fairest investigation of the issue) concludes, it is impossible to determine which side is telling the truth, the SBVTs have succeeded in raising enough doubts about John Kerry's Vietnam experience (never in Cambodia, self-inflicted injuries, minor scratch Purple Hearts, Kerry's refusal to release his personal Vietnam archive, refusal to submit a 180 form to release his wartime medical records) that not only are any war hero positives nullified, but doubts are raised about Kerry's integrity.

 

Kerry's credibility has been further damaged and will continue to take hits because of his post-Vietnam actions. For example, Kerry insisted that he did not attend the 1971 meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War in Kansas City, where the assassination of U.S. senators was discussed. But when FBI files revealed that was untrue, Kerry admitted he was there. The SBVTs have another bomb to drop when the POW/MIA wives come out and start talking about how deeply hurt they were by John Kerry's words and deeds, for example, Kerry's standing right in front of an anti-war protester who was burning the American flag and doing nothing to stop him. Even if it is wrong and unfair to question Kerry's Vietnam experience, his post-war activities are fair game (even his strongest Republican supporter, John McCain, adamantly defended such criticism).

 

Kerry should have known that by making Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign, he was opening Pandora's box. Why he chose to go ahead and do is so simply mind-boggling. I don't know what he can specifically do to make this issue die, but two months in politics is an eternity, and voters' political memory is extremely short-term. Kerry should make some behind-the-scenes attempts at reconciliation, distance himself as much as possible from anything and everything Vietnam, and shift the focus to domestic issues (every poll I've seen puts Kerry ahead on issues like jobs and health care, sometimes by large margins). If he does that, he won't win in a landslide (dream on), but at least he has a chance. If he continues to talk about Vietnam, he's doomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with you. Kerry could have put this all to rest, and should have, a year or more ago. He should have made a speech at some veterans´event in which he said, in effect, "War is hell, lots of bad things happen there and I did some of them too. None of us is perfect, and neither am I. I am not sorry for opposing the war -- I thought it wrong then and I still do so -- but I do apologize for the way in which I opposed it, causing needless grief to many veterans. Let us come together, supporters and opposers of the war, in mutual respect." But he didn´t, and now the next SBVT ad is coming up, featuring Vietnam era widows and POWs telling how damaging Kerry´s actions were to them. It will be devastating.

 

Kerry had another perfect oppportunity last Wednesday at the American Legion and just made it worse. He can´t deal with this, something he knew was coming. What he did in Vietnam probably should be left alone. But what he did after is fair game. He made himself a public figure with his opposition to the Vietnam war, and it is part of his public record. Anyone who cares to has a perfect right to go after his public actions. He should stop whining about people criticizing what he did. It makes him look even smaller.

 

I think Kerry has an ego problem about this. It´s like his life story is more important that that of other veterans who disagree with him, which is no way to win elections if veterans are your targeted voting bloc. He´s making himself the issue, and that will just poison his campaign. He can´t seem to get out of the hole he dug for himself in 1971.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...