Kerry is screwed

[xpanda]

With the UN getting close to an agreement on a resolution concerning post-sovereignty Iraq, the 'go-to-the-international-community' platform of Kerry's is officially moot. Let's face it, with the exception of the odd tax law and perhaps a repeal of the Patriot Act, there is very little difference in the platforms of Bush and Kerry. From an international perspective, and for those Americans who are concerned with the situation in Iraq and its relevance in the international community, involving the UN in rectifying this fiasco is paramount.

Further, the blame for the Iraq flub can be placed squarely on Chalabi, if the neocons and the press play this out properly.

Kerry's rug has been pulled out from underneath him. Unless something dramatic happens in the coming months, I'm betting on Bush by 10%.

 

[PatPatriot]

Unless of course Kerry rejects the nomination at the convention before he excepts it...this guy is such a joke that he is waffling on his own nomination.
I really think "Moe" Howard Dean would be winning by 20 pts. at this point if he were the nominee.

 

[jointpleasures]

Are you serious?

I'm shocked and alarmed you would feel this way with the major shift in polls being that it is.

Kerry's presidential future dependson one thing and onething only. How many American Al quida can kill.

 

[PatPatriot]

JP....my reason for this is because Dean was really the one and only anti war canidate...People have picked up on what a wind surfer and a fraud Kerry is....As all the screw ups have come about the media would paint Dean as a genius.

I belive what X is saying and I agree that Bush has taken the steam out of Kerrys positions...Kerry has been more pro war as the campign continues (that was before he was pro war.)
It is astounding that Bush and Kerry are in a statistical dead heat with the relentless pounding Bush has taken from the press.....anybody else would be way ahead of Bush.

 

[PatPatriot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let's face it, with the exception of the odd tax law and perhaps a repeal of the Patriot Act <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

X the reason its an odd tax law is because the actual people who pay taxes are the ones getting a break...(Kerry has never seen a tax increase he did not like,except when it comes to his wife her tax rate she paid 14% this year)

The Pat act was a law he voted for before he voted against it.

 

[xpanda]

JP, don't confuse my thinking it for my liking it. And I disagree with you on the repurcussions of another AQ attack. Americans are not Spaniards. The principal differences in your cultures, at least where this scenario is concerned, is that Americans practically require there be an enemy in existence at all times. If the US is attacked again, patriotism will skyrocket and, it generally follows, the people will rally behind the prez. What are the chances that Americans would want to change their president when the terror alert is set to red-hot??

The Democrats screwed up big time when they put Kerry in the lead. Sharpton would have been a better candidate, IMO ... at least the guy stands for something. In fact, I would rather have Bush in power south of the border than Kerry .. at least we know where we stand with the guy; with Kerry, Canadians would still be getting screwed (albeit differently) but somehow we'd be convinced we like it.

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let's face it, with the exception of the odd tax law and perhaps a repeal of the Patriot Act <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

X the reason its an odd tax law is because the actual people who pay taxes are the ones getting a break...(Kerry has never seen a tax increase he did not like,except when it comes to his wife her tax rate she paid 14% this year)

The Pat act was a law he voted for before he voted against it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pat, I didn't mean 'odd' as in bizarre, I meant 'odd' as in 'occasional.' Freakin' language barriers across borders.

 

[PatPatriot]

Yeah I know...I shouldn't have quoted you I wasn't really sure what you meant.

 

[PatPatriot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>with Kerry, Canadians would still be getting screwed (albeit differently) but somehow we'd be convinced we like it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lmao

 

[jointpleasures]

x and patriot,

Let me try make my previous posts a little clearer as I was rushed and should have never hit the Post Now button.

If Americans keep dying at the present rate at the hands of non uniformed combantants, Al Quida, and other terrorists...it will shake the especially the women vote in this country. The terrorists cowardly fighting the coalition know this and will continue to do all the can to get rid of Bush. They (terrorist) have done everything Al Gore has done but come out and publicly endorse Kerry. My polling (unscientific and an error margin of +/- 50 percent) suggests that people are very afraid of what Kerry will do, both foriegn and domestic. The partisan media can only do so much for him.

If there is another terrorist attack in the US, I don't know how American's would be persuaded to vote. I just hope some libs are not "silently" hoping American die in the middle east thus increasing Kerry's chances. Another, not heavily reported news alert, is that Clinton had nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with stopping any attack during the millenium celebration.

As far as the line movement on the election - I say "Come to Papa!"

 

[xpanda]

Okay, sorry about the confusion, then.

On American deaths in Iraq: had Kerry, from the getgo, had a 'let's get the fück out of there' agenda, then the deaths of US troops could (regrettably) work in his favour. But if I'm to understand the average American's position, it seems most want to see the casualty list shared with other countries (truly charming when you think about it) ... the feeling I get is that many wish Bush had waited for UN approval to invade not just to keep the Allies on good terms, but to share the financial and casualty burden. It follows, then, that if Bush can successfully bridge the gaps with (especially) France, Germany, Russia and get other countries to send troops into Iraq, then these problems are as resolved as they're going to get. I fail, in this instance, to see how Kerry could or would do anything differently. After all, this is the agenda he's been touting since the 'nomination.'

What Kerry didn't see coming was the absolute rock-and-a-hard-place position the US would ultimately find itself in ... the UN will go along with this new resolution because THEY, not the US, get to write it and determine many of the terms. Had Kerry taken a more anti-war stance since the beginning he might stand a chance, but now the differences between the two are even more blurred.

 

[D2bets]

xpanda, when you say 10%, do you mean popular vote by 10%? Like 53%-43%? I would give you 2-1 odds that Bush will not win by 10 or more and I will wager up to 50K with you on this. I'll save you some money...there is ZERO chance of this happening.

 

[xpanda]

If there's zero chance of that happening, why would I take a bet with only 2-1 odds? Work with me here, D2.

Maybe 10% is an exagerration, but I do think Bush will win handily. Kerry needs to either bow down, or get an agenda desperately. Why is he not playing the 'i'm not a religious nutcase' card or woo the women's vote, or something? I'd love to meet his campaign manager ...

 

[jointpleasures]

x,

I'll tell you why he isn't going to woo the women vote no matter what he says or does.

He only preys on only very wealthy women and that is something most women abhor. It's acceptable to women, for a woman to prey on a very wealthy man but in holding with traditional values (when it works in their favor) not vice versa.

I also absolutely disagree that Americans what the deaths to be shared with other countries and that is where Kerry is going wrong. Americans want to see a strong ass kicking over in the middle east with big US victories and that is where GW is going wrong. You don't go into war with an arm tied behind your back as we have done in the past and that is how Americans, IMO, are seeing it to a certain extent.

 

[jointpleasures]

I was once told that a woman like a man who knows what he wants and where he's going. Disagree all you want with what he wants and where he wants to go, but as long as the man knows, the woman likes it!

Could be wrong there, but I was told that once, and only once.

Sounds like GW and not the Waffler.

 

[xpanda]

I love a man with a plan. But dating and voting don't necessarily follow the same criteria. I'm convinced Clinton won because women were so impressed that his wife actually had a job. Kerry being an opportunist may or may not hurt his appeal with women -- certainly, it can't be any worse than contemplating Bush and Mrs. Stepford.

 

[lander]

Kerry is a terrible candidate IMO.

The only thing going for him is that he's not Bush.

 

[PatPatriot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Had Kerry taken a more anti-war stance since the beginning he might stand a chance, but now the differences between the two are even more blurred. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct.Kerry looks like more of a waffler everyday steadily moving from his position to Bushes and now Bush staying the course but looking more flexible....X I believe 10% by either canidate is attainable on how events break.