SwiftVets.com

[arkadyfolkner]

It seems only his campaign staff has anything to say about Kerry these days, a lot of others dems keep quiet.

What's the possibility of them already knowing they've hitched their wagon to a candidate who's campaign is imploding from the evidences against him being raised?

[jataylor11]

Rumor in DC was the staff at the office here is demoralized (maybe John will give them some medals.) It seems the are having difficulty getting volunteers to show up and even the regular workers aren't going in. Kerry did a conference call to boost spirits and then hung up before a question and answer session.

Ted Kennedy came by and gave a speech bashing Bush and it ended up being a rehearsal for a speech he gave in the Senate the next day.

When the volunteers don't show up the campaign is dead. Paid workers aren't the "true believers."

[rb325th]

Saw that old Clinton guy last night on Hannity (I forget his name right now), he virtual said the appearance is there that the DNC does not want to see him win. (The "new editions" to his campaign and their tactics)
Polls also show (surprise surprise) that he has very limited support amongst democrats with a large number of those voiting for him only because he is not President Bush. Predicted a Kerry loss by 3% in the Election.
He keeps on shooting himself in the foot (Pun intended), and he is all done.
_________________
U.S. Army 1983-1995, 11C1P/11H2P NBTDT

[Boundless]

If you're suggesting that they'd replace him on the ticket,
it is too late to successfully do that.

The GOP convention ran right up against filing deadlines
in at least a couple of states.

The Eagelton episode of 1972 cannot be repeated,
because that switch was pulled after the DNC that year,
but before the deadlines the GOP kept an eye on above.

So the DNC would be looking at trying to pull a Toricelli-
Lautenburg maneuver in 50 states, not just New Jersey.
Or run an effectively dead candidate, like they did in MO
in 2002.

From what we know of Kerry, I doubt he'd volunteer to
step aside (even, say, using his protate cancer as an
excuse). He'd have to be pushed out, and replacing
him with Edwards is far from a given. If you think things
have been a circus so far ...

[Boundless]

Expect this thread to get moved to Geedunk, by the way.

> Saw that old Clinton guy last night on Hannity ...

Dick Morris?

> ... said the appearance is there that the DNC does
> not want to see him win.

That's the Clinton Sabotage Theory (CST). That retaining
Clinton control of the DNC, and avoiding a 2008
Democrat incumbent requires that the 2004 candidate
be a Designated Loser (a job for which Kerry is qualified).

> ... (The "new editions" to his campaign and their tactics)

At this point, if the CST is correct, the new staffers
really are trying to turn the slump around, but only
to narrow the loss and minimize collateral damage
to other Democrat candidates in a Kerry-loss-landslide.

> ... with a large number of those voiting for him
> only because he is not President Bush.

New Kerry slogan:
"All things to all people all the time."
"I'm not George Bush, and I approved this message."

[rb325th]

It was Dick Morris, he really thinks they are either trying to Tank Kerry, or they have forgotten everything they learned working for Clinton about the effectiveness of personell attacks. Was pretty harsh on the campaign and very defeatist.
Don't count Kerry out yet, he has a way of coming out of a pile of manure smelling like a rose. (though I feel the pile is way to deep for him this time)
_________________
U.S. Army 1983-1995, 11C1P/11H2P NBTDT

[Steve Z]

It's not over until November 3, and lots can happen, but as the President's dad said, Kerry is in deeper doo-doo every day.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

New state polls:
FL Bush 51 Kerry 45
OH Bush 52 Kerry 40
WI Bush 52 Kerry 44
MO Bush 55 Kerry 41
PA Bush 49 Kerry 48
NV Bush 51 Kerry 47

If these results hold, in states with 94 electoral votes, combined with the Rocky Mountains, Great Plains states and the South (all for Bush), Kerry doesn't stand a chance!

But SBVT can't let him get back on his feet again. I can't wait to hear that new ad that John O'Neill talked about on Hannity and Colmes tonight!

Sink him Swiftly!
_________________
The traitor will crater!

[Knighthawk]

[CTW]

Yes!! There have been many thinking from day one the DNC would not run someone that would win '04 because her run would be delayed. Things are not always as they seem! Another battle for another day! Don't let up on Kerry, and now Fonda, and what their true political philosophy is: internationalism rather than America First. Keep the pictures and their own words about our generation from the '70s on the air. Our children & grandchildren need to learn about these issues. They need to learn from VVs not from biased media, documentaries, etc. They must be informed as they vote.
NEVER EVER KERRY.

[jwb7605]

I would vote for Hillary much more quickly than I would for Kerry ...
which means her chances of getting my vote are "slim", rather than "none".

I suspect that Hillary might have a slightly larger problem than she currently suspects, though. If things go the way they are currently headed, the Democratic party will be in shambles, and she might not be able to count on the media for as much support as Democrat candidates now enjoy.

IF RatherGate turns out to be as big a mess as it appears it might be, I expect the alphabet networks will turn on each other trying to get ratings. I also expect a lot of 'reporter turn-over' ... which often leads to interesting revelations, as well.

The next (2006) election cycle should tell us a lot about the influence the Internet-based groups actually have on elections. We will know for sure when 2008 rolls around.

The internet really started becoming popular to "laymen" beginning about 1996. If you look at the exponential technological rise of the internet usage and capability since even 2000, you should be able to project yet another 'unknown' technology (or method) that will be available in 2008. Scary, or exciting, depending on your viewpoint.

My hope is that I stumble across the group that is as effective and truthful as the Swiftees. The difficult part will not be to find one as effective. Truthful might be a problem, if I don't know squat about the issue to begin with. I latched on the SBVFT early mostly because from personal experiences: this group was extremely believable, and it was just routinely obvious that Kerry's group was not.

[Robert Cooper]

For the last year and a half the media has shown nothing but explosions, dust, smoke and a daily body count of dead American soldiers. Absolutely NO reports on progress - ie, children in classes being taught, trading and commerce, etc.

Recently I've noticed the media's increasing its approach to present a declining troop moralle and a nation of fearful civilians who are not supportive of Bush. This reveals Kerry's new strategy- ie, he will, in all liklihood, create a new platform - probably mimic Nixon's "Peace with Honor."
His image of being a strong military leader is dead - but, his capability to end an unpopular war isn't.

So, with the combined efforts of the media to portray the war as not being supported by our own troops and the Iraqian people and Kerry's strength to being capapble of bring it to an end, with "honor" - this is what the issue people will be thinking about Nov. 2.

Media trump and puffing - sure! Last night I was watching a reporter walking in the street of Baghdad, wearing an armored vest, saying how unsafe and fearful the civilians felt - but, in the background I saw a large amount of traffic, people shopping and waving, and a man playing with his toddler on the hood of his car. What this reporter, Mr. Rooney, was saying and what was actually going on, just didn't match.

My guess is that the media will make the case that the Iraq War has lost support of Iraq, the American people, our allies and even our own troops, for the remaining months and sometime, in late October, Kerry will announce his "Peace with Honor" platform.
_________________
Know the difference between Politics and Mesmeratics - one embraces, propagates and promotes the truth, while the other manipulates it!

[coolhand]

How's does campaign funding work? I'm not sure if Dems will abandon Kerry, but the more desperate his campaign looks the more the funds will dry up. I Know both are limited to the 75 million they got from the Feds in some respects, but Im not sure about the big picture. As it becomes clearer that Kerry is abondoning any attempt to expand the battleground map, I'm sure those Dems in those swing states will, if not abandon him, lose enthusiasm especially in places like Missouri and Colorado .(which should help senate candidates).

[jataylor11]

As Kerry continues to slip in the polls, or even fails to recover any traction, the DNC will shift money from the Kerry campaign into the Senate and Congressional races. The DNC will try to stop Republican Congressional wins on Bush's coattails.

Separately, I do not buy the MSM message that this is an "unpopular war". While reluctant to go to war the majority does view this war as a necessary step. To say this war is "unpopular" one must first buy into the DNC/MSM premise that Iraq did not support terrorism. The 9-11 commission said otherwise. While noting that Saddem did not directly assist with the attacks of 9-11, Iraq has been and would continue to be deeply involved with world wide terrorism.

It is wrong for anyone to view the war on terrorism as only a limited police type action to punish those who attacked us on 9-11. Limiting the war to only punishing those who did this leaves the large number of remaining Islamic facists to attack again. Need I say Breslen, Russia? The war on terrorism is meant to attack terrorists and their means of support whereever it exists. Iraq was one of these locations.

Are we happy to be at war --- hell no. Is it viewed as necessary, yes for those of us who want to be safe at work, and have a children safe at school.

[jataylor11]

As Kerry continues to slip in the polls, or even fails to recover any traction, the DNC will shift money from the Kerry campaign into the Senate and Congressional races. The DNC will try to stop Republican Congressional wins on Bush's coattails.

Separately, I do not buy the MSM message that this is an "unpopular war". While reluctant to go to war the majority does view this war as a necessary step. To say this war is "unpopular" one must first buy into the DNC/MSM premise that Iraq did not support terrorism. The 9-11 commission said otherwise. While noting that Saddem did not directly assist with the attacks of 9-11, Iraq has been and would continue to be deeply involved with world wide terrorism.

It is wrong for anyone to view the war on terrorism as only a limited police type action to punish those who attacked us on 9-11. Limiting the war to only punishing those who did this leaves the large number of remaining Islamic facists to attack again. Need I say Breslen, Russia? The war on terrorism is meant to attack terrorists and their means of support whereever it exists. Iraq was one of these locations.

Are we happy to be at war --- hell no. Is it viewed as necessary, yes for those of us who want to be safe at work, and have a children safe at school.

[Boundless]

>> That's the Clinton Sabotage Theory (CST).

> Holy S$%*t!!!!!......This just hit me like a brick wall.

Here's a longer presentation of the Clinton Sabotage Theory:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1209404/posts#12