6/5 Doesn't the party out of power usually have a VP chosen by this point
or am I just delusional? It seems odd and a bit distracting that
Kerry doesn't have a running mate yet. In theory, I thought the
convention is supposed to be approving both nominees and in theory
the VP is his own man, not the P's lackey.
\_ i think the reason the current situation looks odd to you is that
the presidential nominee is not generally known yet at this point.
\_ Hmmm, possibly. I guess they're starting the election cycle
earlier every time. Pretty soon they'll start campaigning more
than 1 election in advance. :) --op
\_ Seems normal to me. He's extending the drama. And, he's finally
making headlines with some of his criticisms WHILE not appearing
anti-American or political AND appearing statesmanlike.
\_ Heh. Kerry is not statesmanlike. Kerry is a drip.
\_ Shrug, works for me, and even a Republican could say he
could be doing a LOT worse. (Gore? Dukakis? Dean?)
\_ "John F. Kerry. He could be a LOT worse."
\_ He would need to be that bad to be worse than Dubya.
\_ It would be hard to be doing worse. He *should* be ahead
by 10-15 points in all those so-called battle ground states
but is break-even at best. The economy is improving, the
Iraqi situation is calming down, and if there's another
serious terrorist act on US soil, Kerry is forced to either
'support the President' or get accused of turning a serious
security situation into election year politics. Hosed.
\_ If you saw the CBS poll numbers, the Democrats have
stayed at 80% support of Kerry for the last couple
months. Republicans supported Bush at 91%, and dropped
to 84% in one month. The small shifts have been from
Bush losing Republican support, and the relatively fewer
independent voters going with Kerry. I would have to
disagree with you on Kerry's prospects too. The CIA
director just resigned, and there are SCATHING reports
coming out about WMD. Bush will not have this go away
by election day. Iraq situation calming down? That's
a fair opinion, but Rumsfeld also just warned of
increased attacks near and after the handover.
Terrorist attack handing it to Bush? Actually, my
scenario is Kerry supports the President. Americans
think, "If Bush can't stop terrorism, when this is
the only thing the majority of Americans support him
for today, then why not give Kerry a chance with a
less bull-headed approach to international conflicts?"
since, you know, the U.S. only has the UK as a real
friend right now. People might remember when we had a
lot of friends like Gulf War I or around 9/11. People
might remember that the majority of Americans only
supported attacking Iraq if Bush could get UN support.
\_ Drama? There isn't any drama in it. There aren't even any real
\_ If it's the same poll I saw that was registered
voters, not likely voters. Polls at this point are
just amusement anyway. It's a good thing Tenet was
forced out. That allows the admin to say they are
fixing the intel problem and takes care of those
up-coming scathing reports which is why he resigned
anyway. WMD doesn't have to go anywhere. If people
cared about WMD Bush's numbers would be way lower.
They keep finding just enough stuff to hint that
there is more there. Rumfeld warning us in advance
that we expect more violence around June 30 helps the
admin if there is and helps if there isn't. If there
is, they just say, "see? we said the desperate
terrorists would try to stop a free iraq!" and if
nothing happens they will claim the terrorists have
been so weakened by the successful campaign to free
iraq that they can't do anything to stop it. I
think people understand that terrorism can't be
stopped that easily. Many countries around the
world, including the US, have been victims of
terrorism for decades and it has been getting worse.
The answer for many will be, "Bush kept them from
attacking us since 9/11 until now almost 3 years
later. It would've been worse with the other guy!"
Look at how many Gore supporters wrote post-9/11
they were glad Bush won instead of Gore. And last
on this sub-topic, most Americans don't see our
foreign policy as bullheaded, IMO. This country is
full of people with a kick-ass attitude, especially
if it isn't their foot that has to go do it and like
seeing us blow up other people. 'They all hate us,
we know it, we send them all lots of money, they
still hate us, fuck em, bomb em'. People won't
remember or care about GW1. That's for political
hacks and dirt diggers doing oppo-research to make
hay. The typical American doesn't think well of the
Europeans, the UN, or anything else. This is an
isolationist country at heart. People are just as
likely to remember, or not, that the UN did come to
Iraq after we took over and left the moment they lost
a few people in one bombing. That was a UN security
foul-up btw. They ignored their own security people.
\_ "Polls at this point are just amusement anyway."
You're the one who brought up polls in the first
place ("He *should* be ahead ..."). Hello?
Tenet's out, but I think the damage will still
be significant up to election day.
And I remind you again: The majority of Americans
supported an attack only if we could get UN
support. This has been shown poll after poll.
You haven't disputed this.
\_ I love how people on the motd always
assume followup posts that agree with
this op on some point must be the op.
-jrleek
\_ There's a difference between supporting the
attack 18 months ago with(out) UN support and
seeing the UN dilly dally about and then being
where we are now or will be in 6 months during
an election. Current polls are roughly even
as to how well Iraq is going and if it was a
good idea or not. In fact, current polls run
at about the same level as likely voters from
each party, so really all the pro/con Iraq
polls are showing is party support for each
candidate. As far as polls themselves go, they
*are* only for amusement at this point *but* we
have nothing else to use to judge across the
nation how each is doing. It's just mental
masturbation but it feels oh so good!
\_ drama? There isn't any drama in it. There aren't even any real
names floating around. I think the above is correct that
election cycles are starting/ending sooner than I'm used to. --op
\_ If he picks a boring VP candidate now, he'll look stale.
He's waiting for the right time where a VP candidate
selection would bring the most press, whatever situation
that might be. |
http://csua.com/feed/