Dems shouldn't gloat, Kerry convinced no one

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Americans aren't buying into Kerry's plan for the War on Terror.  

Instead, America is in total shock that Bush is so verbally incompetent as to be unable to defend his own date of birth.

Once must conclude Bush has total grasp of the issue of the war, he was been living and breathing it for 3+ years, but he is simply unable to communicate.

All politics aside, America is scratching her head and wondering out loud how someone with little communication skills rose to the level of the Presidency.

If America chooses a mute person as its leader, then maybe we should allow stand-ins to communicate and defend Bush’s policies.

Bush should be declared verbally handicapped.  That doesn’t necessary mean his policies are wrong; it simply means he is a handicapped person.

I know it is not PC, but shouldn’t verbally handicapped people be excluded from consideration for the office of president?

[© tweed]

Kerry's ojective in the foreign policy debate wasn't, or shouldn't have been, to convince people to agree with him or think that he is stronger on national security.  He likely will not make headway with those issues.

Instead, he made himself a viable alternative and helped his favorable-unfavorable ratings, while Bush stumbled a bit.

Kerry's best window of oppurtunity comes in the domestic debate, where he can: 1) Help his Fav/UnFav ratings, 2) Get people to agree with him, 3) Make empty promises that woudl make America sound like Candyland.

[Nym90]

Kerry's ojective in the foreign policy debate wasn't, or shouldn't have been, to convince people to agree with him or think that he is stronger on national security.  He likely will not make headway with those issues.

Instead, he made himself a viable alternative and helped his favorable-unfavorable ratings, while Bush stumbled a bit.

Kerry's best window of oppurtunity comes in the domestic debate, where he can: 1) Help his Fav/UnFav ratings, 2) Get people to agree with him, 3) Make empty promises that woudl make America sound like Candyland.

Good analysis.

Kerry didn't beat Bush on foreign policy, and it's highly unlikely that he can. That's Bush's strength. However, Kerry does have to pass a minimal test of acceptability..even if swing voters think Bush would be better than Kerry on foreign policy, as long as they think that Kerry would be acceptable and the USA would be safe with Kerry as President, then he can shift the debate to the domestic issues where he has the advantage.

Kerry won over a lot of voters who want to replace Bush, but were unsure of Kerry. Improving his favorables makes him more acceptable to swing voters who are uneasy with Bush's performance.

Bush, to me, really gave off the impression of being out of touch with reality. He keeps saying "stay the course, stay the course" but most objective people would agree that things aren't going perfectly in Iraq.

Obviously there are some things that have to change, and Bush gives the impression that he is totally unwilling to even consider the possibility that he hasn't done things 100% correctly at all times. He does not acknowledge the difficulties or the problems at all. That's one trait that he has inherited from his father, whose inability to even acknowledge that there was anything wrong with the economy in 1992 was largely his downfall.

That's what I dislike about Bush the most--he will never in a million years admit to making a mistake or doing anything wrong. Confidence is good, but arrogance and stubbornness are not.

[Democratic Hawk]

Kerry didn't do himself any harm, while Bush done himself no favours

I anticipate that Kerry will do even better in the economic/domstic policy debates.

What achievements can Bush run on? Record budget deficits, the most jobs lost since Hoover, 45m Americans without health insurance, rising poverty, tax cuts that have not beneffited most Americans. But then Bush probably thinks a $422bn deficit's a surplus.

I can understand perfectly why John Eisenhower has endorsed Kerry and more may follow.

Dave

[Minarchist]

Kerry didn't do himself any harm, while Bush done himself no favours

I anticipate that Kerry will do even better in the economic/domstic policy debates.

What achievements can Bush run on? Record budget deficits, the most jobs lost since Hoover, 45m Americans without health insurance, rising poverty, tax cuts that have not beneffited most Americans. But then Bush probably thinks a $422bn deficit's a surplus.

I can understand perfectly why John Eisenhower has endorsed Kerry and more may follow.

Dave

The economy is better now than it was when Clinton won in his landslide re-election. The economy certainly didn't hurt his campaign.

[Democratic Hawk]

Kerry didn't do himself any harm, while Bush done himself no favours

I anticipate that Kerry will do even better in the economic/domstic policy debates.

What achievements can Bush run on? Record budget deficits, the most jobs lost since Hoover, 45m Americans without health insurance, rising poverty, tax cuts that have not beneffited most Americans. But then Bush probably thinks a $422bn deficit's a surplus.

I can understand perfectly why John Eisenhower has endorsed Kerry and more may follow.

Dave

The economy is better now than it was when Clinton won in his landslide re-election. The economy certainly didn't hurt his campaign.

Bush is no Clinton. Bush's economic and fiscal record, compared with Clinton,  is not good.

Clinton would have been a good reason to abolish term limits, while Bush is good reason to limit them to one.

As far as the home front goes, Bush is every bit as neglectful as Bush (41) - but at least Bush (41) commanded considerably more international respect.

Dave

[Bogart]

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the economic statistics which everyone likes to cite are aggregate national statistics. There are states where the economy has been quite good alongside those where it has been quite bad. For this reason, Bush's economic message (or lack thereof depending on one's perspective) does resonate in some regions. And, because this election is won state by state, not nationally, the impact of so-called poor performance may not hurt Bush as much as many suppose.