Calling a race this close before labor day is pretty brave. Kerry won’t bring out his big guns until after labor day. The whole dynamic of the race will be changed when Soros & Moveon’s millions are unleashed at that time (with the cooperation and amplification from the liberal media).

Kerry DID NOT declare himself the “anti-war” candidate and he DID NOT say we would have invaded Iraq. Listen to the actualy quotes, not the edited versions… he said the president should have the authority, but the president should also not abuse that authority.

He only voted against the ‘87 billion’ thing out of protest because the republicans votes against his version of the bill that funded it differently. (Note: the republicians voted AGAINST the bill before they voted FOR it. Flip Flop?)

I don’t mind people disagreeing with my viewpoint but when people clearly twist the issues like this it hurts the whole processes. You guys need to have the courage to recognize what Kerry ACTAULLY SAYS and then debate it. Don’t fall victim to the talking points and edited movies on Bush’s website.

Finally, everyone says Kerry should give a firm YES or NO to the war in Iraq. Well, I hate to break this to you but sometimes things aren’t that simple. I realize President dumbass can’t comprehend anything more complex than a YES/NO answer but I’m sensing you guys aren’t that stupid.

What, in your opinion Jay, has solidified Bush’s base? In my view, there have been many decisions that he has made that could divide the republican base (aka: spending).

That’s a very good question.

To be honest, I think it’s Kerry. A lot of Republicans are mad at Bush for his betrayal of some conservative positions. I think that while Republican support for Bush is strong, a lot of people are going to vote for him based on the fact that the Democrats have failed to provide an alternative. I’ve always said that a Joe Lieberman would have won in a landslide as a lot of Republicans would vote for him.

If Kerry had presented a real alternative and had been able to show voters that he has what it takes to be President, this election would be over and Bush would be toast. But I think the Kerry campaign is collapsing over the Swift Boat issue, and it’s starting to show in the polls.

If Bush can do what Kerry did not and reassure his base and appeal to swing voters, I think we’ll see a Kerry collapse in September and a widening of the race. Then again, that means that Bush will have to give the best speech of his life, and that’s one tall order for him.

So he’s just supposed to look like he’s the GOP’s bitch?

C’mon, Jay. Drop the horseshit. You know as well as I do that if he’d just ignored the attacks, you would have construed that as weakness, and so would most people.

Which is exactly why Bush didn’t do any of those things.

Oh, please, Jay. This is exactly what they did to Max Cleland and John McCain. As people are discovering, this is exactly how the Bushes run an election.

I agree…Kerry is looking weak, wimpy, and even cowardly.

And just ignoring the Swift Boat Liars would have made him, in your view, look different?

I don’t get it. If he takes it like a bitch, he’s a wimp. If he fights back, he’s a wimp. The inconsistency here is sickening, and again, I’ll reiterate that it stems from nothing but an immature hatred of John Kerry.

The way he used Cleland in his PR stunt was really amazingly stupid…

The way Bush ran from the issue like a scared little girl was what I found amazingly stupid.

The way he used Cleland in his PR stunt was really amazingly stupid…I think after the election many political experts will analyze Kerry’s handling of the Swift Vet issue as a textbook case of what not to do…and a classic case of really screwing up. I think they will look back at this dumb PR stunt as a laughable act…shoot, now already people are ridiculing it.

A two-point advantage in a poll with an MOE of +/- 4.5% is considered a “healthy lead”? Interesting interpretation.

To get back to the article, how exactly, in your view, should Kerry be reacting? It seems that, no matter what he does, you people are going to spin it as unpresidential.

First of all he should never have made events of 40 years ago in a divisive war the centerpiece of his campaign. He had to have known that the Swifties were out there, and he had to have known that a large segment of Vietnam vets hate him with a passion for his Winter Soldier testimony. It was a politically boneheaded move.

Once faced with the charges, he should have dismissed him. Yes, Republicans would still harp on him, but its voters that matter. I’m not going to vote for Kerry, so no matter how much I may bitch at him for his actions 40 years ago it doesn’t matter.

What Kerry did endangered his position with swing voters by firing back. Sending Cleland was the most idiotic piece of political theater I’ve seen. Every time you bring up a charge, the media is going to report on it. Hell, if Kerry had ignored the whole thing it might have gone away on its own. Better yet he could have just dismissed it and moved on to other issues. In fact, pretty much every strategy other than trying to smear the Swifties would have been better than whining to the FEC and begging to have the book pulled.

Let’s look at Bush for a moment. I’d say that promoting these cowardly, surrogate attacks and construing any possible response by Kerry as “unpresidential” is pretty damn unpresidential.

Which is exactly why Bush didn’t do any of those things. Bush has said that he does not wish to make Kerry’s service an issue and that they do not approve of any of the 527 groups. Bush hasn’t promoted these attacks, nor has he called Kerry “unpresidential”.

Well, I’m glad you finally admitted that you support the candidate of no substance. Truly, there’s no rational reason for you to support Bush; it all stems from your irrational and immature hatred of Kerry.

Bullshit. I said no such thing.

If there is any candidate who lacks in substance, it’s Kerry, who can’t even decide what his position is on one of the biggest issues in this campaign. Bush’s policies are substantial and supported, even when his ability to elucidate them is not.

If you have to mischaracterize my argument to make a point, you might as well give up right now.

That’s still off, though. I wouldn’t try to hold that up as evidence of predictive power.

And then there was that iPod Mini thing… ;)

To get back to the article, how exactly, in your view, should Kerry be reacting? It seems that, no matter what he does, you people are going to spin it as unpresidential.

Sitting there and taking it like a bitch? Unpresidential. Fighting back by exposing Bush’s smear tactics for what they are? Unpresidential. Substantiating his side of the story and exposing the Swift Vets as liars? Oh, that’s an unpresidential lack of respect for veterans.

Let’s look at Bush for a moment. I’d say that promoting these cowardly, surrogate attacks and construing any possible response by Kerry as “unpresidential” is pretty damn unpresidential.

even if he wins the debates on substance he’ll lose on likability.

Well, I’m glad you finally admitted that you support the candidate of no substance. Truly, there’s no rational reason for you to support Bush; it all stems from your irrational and immature hatred of Kerry.

Doesn’t mean I’m right this year, and things could change, but I’m guessing I’m not too far off again.

CNN has their own Electoral College analysis which should look suspiciously familiar… Posted By Jay Reding At 6:06 PM
Link To [...]

I’ve said before that John Kerry is toast. Well, he’s even toastier than he was before. It’ [...]