Well, it's all up to Kerry now

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-07-29 02:18am

John Kerry of course was formally nominated by the Democratic Convention. He's even with Bush in the polls —a bad sign for the incumbent. Kerry has a fired-up party and the best possible launch platform for the national campaign following upon a series of powerful keynote speeches; particularly by Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and the new rising star of the party, Barak Obama.

But now the whole thing falls on Kerry's shoulders. He's got to show the same if not more energy than the convention has this week; speak to the people on their level and make the direct appeal to their hearts. Any presidential ticket rises or falls with the top man. And if Kerry comes over like a dud on the podium Thursday night, it's a sure sign that he'll come down the loser in November.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-29 02:40am

To be honest, I'm somewhat pessimistic about Kerry's chances. While he has good support in the polls, I suspect that this support is more antipathy for George Bush than support for him, which leads one to wonder how reliable it is. He has never struck me as particularly charismatic. He certainly doesn't have the ability to reach out and bring people onto his side that Clinton or Reagan had.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-07-29 02:42am

Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I'm somewhat pessimistic about Kerry's chances. While he has good support in the polls, I suspect that this support is more antipathy for George Bush than support for him, which leads one to wonder how reliable it is. He has never struck me as particularly charismatic. He certainly doesn't have the ability to reach out and bring people onto his side that Clinton or Reagan had.

Or, apparently, Al Gore now has.

I saw him on the news and my jaw hit the ground, he finally seemed like he found a way to shine to the public.

Shame he wasn't like that 4 years ago.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-29 02:46am

Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I'm somewhat pessimistic about Kerry's chances. While he has good support in the polls, I suspect that this support is more antipathy for George Bush than support for him, which leads one to wonder how reliable it is. He has never struck me as particularly charismatic. He certainly doesn't have the ability to reach out and bring people onto his side that Clinton or Reagan had.

I agree and disagree; at this point, I'd say that antipathy for Bush could easily carry Kerry to the White House. However, if he gets elected, Bush will be out of office and he won't be able to garner as much public support as he did when he was running against Bush. It's a recipe for winning the Presidency (assuming things don't just start going astoundingly well for Bush, out of the blue), but not for actually being President.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2004-07-29 03:35am

Joe wrote:I agree and disagree; at this point, I'd say that antipathy for Bush could easily carry Kerry to the White House. However, if he gets elected, Bush will be out of office and he won't be able to garner as much public support as he did when he was running against Bush. It's a recipe for winning the Presidency (assuming things don't just start going astoundingly well for Bush, out of the blue), but not for actually being President.

A lame-duck, do nothing president would be fantastic after what we've been through.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-29 03:43am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
Joe wrote:I agree and disagree; at this point, I'd say that antipathy for Bush could easily carry Kerry to the White House. However, if he gets elected, Bush will be out of office and he won't be able to garner as much public support as he did when he was running against Bush. It's a recipe for winning the Presidency (assuming things don't just start going astoundingly well for Bush, out of the blue), but not for actually being President.
A lame-duck, do nothing president would be fantastic after what we've been through.

Perhaps, but from the perspective of a Democratic partisan, you have to wonder if that's something that is really desirable.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-07-29 06:57am

Joe wrote:
Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
Joe wrote:I agree and disagree; at this point, I'd say that antipathy for Bush could easily carry Kerry to the White House. However, if he gets elected, Bush will be out of office and he won't be able to garner as much public support as he did when he was running against Bush. It's a recipe for winning the Presidency (assuming things don't just start going astoundingly well for Bush, out of the blue), but not for actually being President.
A lame-duck, do nothing president would be fantastic after what we've been through.
Perhaps, but from the perspective of a Democratic partisan, you have to wonder if that's something that is really desirable.

the reality of actually having to govern never sinks into the minds of the political opposition until the day after swearing in. Then the realize the very real limitations placed upon them as the try to appear that they are doing something different, when the differences between them and their predecessor are as subtle as the difference between coke and pepsi.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-07-29 07:04am

Joe wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I'm somewhat pessimistic about Kerry's chances. While he has good support in the polls, I suspect that this support is more antipathy for George Bush than support for him, which leads one to wonder how reliable it is. He has never struck me as particularly charismatic. He certainly doesn't have the ability to reach out and bring people onto his side that Clinton or Reagan had.
I agree and disagree; at this point, I'd say that antipathy for Bush could easily carry Kerry to the White House. However, if he gets elected, Bush will be out of office and he won't be able to garner as much public support as he did when he was running against Bush. It's a recipe for winning the Presidency (assuming things don't just start going astoundingly well for Bush, out of the blue), but not for actually being President.

Since I'm not a Democratic partisan, allow me to delight in the thought of 4 years of a do-nothing Democrat keeping the big chair warm for a Republican who's actually worth a good Goddamn.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-07-29 07:30am

RedImperator wrote: Since I'm not a Democratic partisan, allow me to delight in the thought of 4 years of a do-nothing Democrat keeping the big chair warm for a Republican who's actually worth a good Goddamn.

and let us hope that the next election they actually come up with a Republican that's worth something.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-07-29 08:52am

Don't remember this board being this far to the Left when first I joined two years ago. Perhaps most members were, and I just didn't see it.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2004-07-29 09:14am

This election is definitely Kerry's to win or lose. The dems have Bush right where they want him this year. If they still manage to lose to W, that would serve as a complete and total indictment of the Democratic party leadership. Bush is in an incredibly vulnerable position. It's very challenging for a sitting President to win when he's facing an almost 50% job disapproval rate, and his opponent has a rougly 15% lead among independent voters. Bush's road to re-election is far tougher than Kerry's road to getting elected.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-07-29 09:34am

jegs2 wrote:Don't remember this board being this far to the Left when first I joined two years ago. Perhaps most members were, and I just didn't see it.

I don't think it is. For example, during the run up to the Iraqi invasion I thought the board was becoming incredibly anti-American but that was me not wanting to see the flaws in the argument for the invasion and that was burden of proof was not on the nay-sayers and being overly sensitive.

The board appears to me to be more centrist than anything else. I haven't read anyone really praising Kerry as being a true leader with a vision that will work. It's just that most people here believe that simply removing Bush for office may result in a net improvement in many areas particularly foreign relations, whereas keeping the current President will only cause the view of America as a beligerant to become more widespread.

My biggest problem with Kerry is that, as he performs the classic "move to the center", he's straddling the fence so hard on so many issues he is going to wind up disenchanting many about his leadership capabilities. I'm sometimes surprised he doesn't walk with bowed legs.

It would have been best if he was doing what Bush is and, instead of trying to appeal to the undecided voters, shore up support and motivate his base and let antipathy, anger, or whatever toward Bush sway the undecided 10%.

As it stands right now, despite the polls, I still stand by the electoral prediction map I put up a few months ago.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-29 10:01am

jegs2 wrote:Don't remember this board being this far to the Left when first I joined two years ago. Perhaps most members were, and I just didn't see it.

What makes you think the board is far Left? Or are you assuming that anyone who doesn't support Bush is far Left?

CrimsonRaine · Post by **CrimsonRaine** » 2004-07-29 10:58am

Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I'm somewhat pessimistic about Kerry's chances. While he has good support in the polls, I suspect that this support is more antipathy for George Bush than support for him, which leads one to wonder how reliable it is. He has never struck me as particularly charismatic. He certainly doesn't have the ability to reach out and bring people onto his side that Clinton or Reagan had.

What I think bothers me the most about Kerry is that his supporters are anti-Bush. That's not a reason to vote for a president (which I am a hypocrit to say, since I'm voting for Kerry, too). That seems to be his strongest argue, to say, 'I am not Bush' which in essense, says shit. It all makes me worried, because I generally don't like either of them.

Raine

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-29 11:21am

CrimsonRaine wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I'm somewhat pessimistic about Kerry's chances. While he has good support in the polls, I suspect that this support is more antipathy for George Bush than support for him, which leads one to wonder how reliable it is. He has never struck me as particularly charismatic. He certainly doesn't have the ability to reach out and bring people onto his side that Clinton or Reagan had.
What I think bothers me the most about Kerry is that his supporters are anti-Bush. That's not a reason to vote for a president (which I am a hypocrit to say, since I'm voting for Kerry, too). That seems to be his strongest argue, to say, 'I am not Bush' which in essense, says shit. It all makes me worried, because I generally don't like either of them.

Comedy Central was running promos for The Daily Show's DNC coverage, which went something like, "John Kerry. He's a war hero, a war hero and ... a war hero. But what's more important is what he's not. [Picture of George W. Bush appears.] John Kerry: He's not George W. Bush."

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-29 11:42am

The board isn't far left, the board is anti-stupid, and the current Administration is the most mind-blowingly stupid one in living memory.

That said, if Kerry loses this year, any bets on who the Democratic and Republican nominees will be in 2008?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-29 11:58am

Well, Barak Obama is a rising Democrat star, and watching his keynote speech at the DNC gave me goose-bumps. That's the man to watch. He's charismatic, a damn good speaker, extremely intelligent, hard-working and seems like a guy who could bring the two parties together. This, of course, if Kerry decides not to pursue re-election, should he be elected. I don't see Obama running in 2008, though. Hillary Clinton, as always, is a possibility.

On the Republican side ... I dunno. They've been concentrating on keeping Bush in the White House for another four years, so I doubt they have any idea either. But I hope they come up with something better than a clueless puppet in 2008.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-07-29 12:00pm

jegs2 wrote:Don't remember this board being this far to the Left when first I joined two years ago. Perhaps most members were, and I just didn't see it.

If by far left you mean supporting Kerry or being anti Bush that is all on Bush's shoulders. Take a look at the posts leading up to the war, there was a very strong pro war contingent on this board, of which I was one of teh more vocal members.

Now I feel absolutely betrayed by the series of clusterfucks and lies that keep coming from the White House and it is now abundantly clear to me that my opponents in those debates were absolutely right about the Administration's attempts at manipulating us with fear and demonizing the anti war crowd.

George W. Bush is solely at fault for driving many of the moderates and those with rightish leanings into the Kerry camp with his "leadership". This board is merely reflecting the utter distaste that is growing for the adminstration NOT a lean to the left.

And as Mike pointed out, since when is being anti Bush mean you're a leftist. IMHO being anti Bush simply means you're antistupid.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-07-29 12:40pm

jegs2 wrote:Don't remember this board being this far to the Left when first I joined two years ago. Perhaps most members were, and I just didn't see it.

I have gone from far left, to far right(pendulem is however swinging to simple right), at least economically, and I STILL hate bush. I hate bush because he isnt really an economic conservative. H is the worst combination possible. Socially conservative like Pat Buchanen, and FISCALLY LIBERAL!!! Add on to that the lies about WMD, his assaults on civil liberties(pissing on the constitution) and the fact that I have a pet peeve about not declaring war before an invasion(that whole constitution thing again) Shrubby really pisses me off.

I am not voting forr Kerry though. He is a flip flopping "I cant actually take a stance on any social issue and hate property rights" communist wannabe.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-29 12:50pm

Can someone please providee one example of a serious, honest-to-God flipflop on Kerry's part? I've heard all about them but I've never actually see one and would really, really like to.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-07-29 12:55pm

"John Kerry. He's a war hero, a war hero and ... a war hero.

"But that won't help you, because I won three Purple Hearts! This land will surely vote for me."

Vote third party. That's all I've got to say.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-07-29 03:16pm

I would have to say that this board can come off as somewhat left leaning in social aspects but decidedly fiscally conservative. To be honest, now that my dad is finally back from Iraq, I have finally had some time to sit down and digest some of the information that has come from Bush's tenure in the Office and a good bit of it is pretty much shit.

But you know what, I just can't bring myself to vote for Kerry. I don't see him at any point being better than Bush. Being among the most liberal members of the Senate on both social and financial issues just warns me that a Kerry, Edwards presidency would just piss me off to no end. I get pissed off at Bush's constant desire to embrace the liberal social ideology when we fucking elected him because he touted himself as a conservative. Grow a backbone dammit and stick a conservative agenda. Kerry would be like Bush but without that confusing conservative outer layer.

However I did get a chance to tune into Barak's speech and honestly, THAT is a democract message I can listen to. Not this devisive(sp?) crap about two americas and children constantly going hungry. A new message on either side befitting a more realistic assessment of the nation as it stands today is what I as a conservative individual want to hear. He reminds me of the "old" way of the Democtratic party, when they actually had some concept of what people actually needed.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-07-29 03:23pm

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540/

this has a nice mix of his flips.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-07-29 03:24pm

. I get pissed off at Bush's constant desire to embrace the liberal social ideology when we fucking elected him because he touted himself as a conservative.

COnservative social adgenda? What??? Are you on crack? [/quote]

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-07-29 04:03pm

KrauserKrauser wrote: I get pissed off at Bush's constant desire to embrace the liberal social ideology when we fucking elected him because he touted himself as a conservative. Grow a backbone dammit and stick a conservative agenda. Kerry would be like Bush but without that confusing conservative outer layer.

You mean conservative fiscal agenda, right? Bush is the most socially conservative president in any of our lifetimes.