"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2gg05hF2edj5U1@uni-

.....Bush, arguably a
popular if not accomplished POTUS, is doing so poorly compared to an
Eastern establishment pol who is cerebral and complex.

But he's not doing poorly; why do you make such an obviously contrived
statement? Half the country (+/-) think W is doing the right things and
doing them reasonably well.

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.

My sense is that a substantial portion of
Kerry's support is there simply because he is *not* Bush.

Thankfully.

Back during the
primary season, Kerry surged during the last week of the Iowa campaign
because he was *not* Dean, who already had people feeling skittish. He
solidified his position through NH and later because he was *not* Clark,
who
couldn't quite figure out big league politics, and because he was *not*
Edwards, who in my view couldn't get traction outside SC because his
syrupy
smooth southern tongue reminded too many people (nervously) of the
previous
eight years.

Bottom line is that Kerry has wound up where he is because he has shown
people who he isn't. But nobody really knows how much support there is
based on who he is. I personally think there are a lot of people who
will
talk Kerry right through October, but go with W in the voting booth.

Now, that's just plain stupid. A lot of people, right about half of
the country, like what Kerry stands for, likes his environmental,
economic, and social issues stances.

The Democratic party base is comprised of a conglomeration of union
lemmings, sexual deviants, welfare recipients, people with education levels
below a high school diploma, and ex-cons who successfully got their names
expunged from can-not-vote lists. You really think the bulk of the
Democratic party even has a "clue" about Kerry's stances on the environment,
the economy, and other social issues?