« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »

Bush War Readers on Kerry's Electability

Chuck Holtman writes:

I'm no expert, but have deep and long-standing doubts about Kerry's chances as a candidate. Gore lost because: 1. He was so compromised and tergivasatory himself on all of the issues on which Bush was grotesquely vulnerable that he was unable, in the campaign and in the debates, to even attempt a strong critique of Bush.

2. He was deeply committed to the notion of impuissant civility that implicitly confers assumptions of good faith and dignity on the Republicans and has rendered the mainstream Democrats an object of humiliation for so long.

3. He appears to be, and is, a well-bred dilettante that cannot speak with emotion, principle or understanding to the ordinary person.

To me, in all three respects Kerry is Gore redux in spades.

Kevin Musolino writes:

I have to think Bush would beat Kerry like a rented mule. John MacArthur put it best, calling Kerry, "...a thoroughly compromised moderate Democrat--kind of pro-invasion when he voted for war authorization on Oct. 11, 2002, when it took courage to vote no; kind of against it now, when it's easy to attack the president's lies..."

Kerry has been in Washington so long he's become what he used to oppose; note that he spends a lot more time these days highlighting his Vietnam combat record rather than his later antiwar activism. Now he says he voted for the Iraq war because the president lied about the threat. Sure, like it would never occur to a Vietnam vet that a president would mislead the nation into war.

Lynnell Mickelsen writes:

Kerry strikes me as yet another boring, meandering wimp candidate with good hair. Another Al Gore, only less passionate, if that's possible. Or another Michael Dukakis. Kerry is the national version of [Minnesota Democrats] Roger Moe, Skip Humphrey, Warren Spannaus.... and on and on.

What is with the Democrats, especially the party leaders? Why do they go for these energy suck holes? Why are they so afraid of passion....anger.....straight talk?

The media jackals (Jesse was a megalomaniacal boor, but he got that right) who hated Dean for his "anger" and intemperate speech will soon be attacking Kerry for wimpy, wandering answers. Of the top four candidates (Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark), I think Kerry is the LEAST electable. He won't wear well.

I'm a Democrat, I'll be voting Democrat on the ticket, so if Kerry's the man, I hope I'm wrong.

Jeff McLarty writes:

"Thirty-five years" he talks about. He describes it in fairy land beauty, all soft-focus and Disney colored. Truthfully, he represents the status quo more than any other candidate. I can't imagine him having the ability to suddenly develop a vision of anything other than a continuation of his years in Congress. The powers that be will love that.

Kerry has government credentials and "Liberal Blue blood" respectability, but he doesn't have soul. He can hardly even get a spark out of a room full of supporters. He may, if elected, stop the slide over the edge that George has precipitated, but I doubt he would be able to make any actual improvements.

 

Posted by Steve Perry at January 28, 2004 8:16 AM

« Back Tomorrow | Main | Kerry: Everything's Coming Up (Paper) Roses »