T Nation

Kerry Is In Trouble!

Looking briefly into the recent political past virtually every democratic candidate, who has won the White House, since John Kennedy has had one thing in common: They all received more female votes than their opponent.

Currently, President Bush leads in this category by about 3%. This number has been fairly steady.

It seems that if he is to pull off a win in November he has to find a way to bring the Soccer Moms back to his side.

One theory why women are leaning slightly to President Bush and the republican party this time around is the safety issue. President Bush simply makes women feel safer and more secure than does John Kerry.

Naturally, this could turn around at any point during the campaign.

Any productive thoughts on this issue are welcome!

No question, Kerry was a poor choice for many reasons.

I don’t mind W. having to shine up his debating skills. The man wiped the floor with Kerry last night.

That was fun!!!

JeffR

Agreed, Zeb.

I think they say ‘Security Moms’ are the new ‘Soccer Moms’. A lot of women want masculine virtue in a decisionmaker, especially in this age of danger. Of my close friends, I find more support for Bush among the women for exactly that reason - and these are women that tend to disagree with the President on issues of abortion, faith-based iniatives, and environmental issues.

Bush demonstrates those kinds of virtues. Kerry doesn’t. Kerry demonstrates the softer values - he wants to make friends, make everyone feel better about themselves - in short, a therapeutic plan rather than a heroic one.

But the question is - is America still in the mood for those qualities? I worry. Remember, Winston Churchill lost after the war.

I don’t know if American is - hence the close vote. I hope it wants these qualities - we’re in a fight for our lives, and settling for an emasculated liberal makes our country weaker.

The ultimate goal is to win the war against the US that began in 1979. It takes resolve and an ability to steadfastly face and make choices between something bad and something worse.

Bush is not the perfect candidate - but he is a good one, the best one. We’ve got a pretty affluent, soft-minded society at the moment, to be frank - the fact that we haven’t faced a terrorist attack since 9-11 is terrific, but that safety has lulled a great many folks back into the decadence and nihilism that left us so vulnerable to al-Qaeda the first time.

thunderbolt23:

Yes, the correct term now is “security Moms.” Thank You for the correction.

While we have not had an attack on our shores since 9-11 (Credt to Bush). I do think that with what is happening around the world there really is no feeling safe anymore. Therefore, the security Moms will continue to support the President. In fact, on his way to victory I feel President Bush will pick up even more support from this important group.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
we have not had an attack on our shores since 9-11 (Credt to Bush). [/quote]

Hypothetically, if we had been attacked at home since 9/11, who’s fault would it have been?

Seems to me that if he gets credit for protection, it follows that he’d be blamed for failing to protect. Is this right?

RSU,

“Hypothetically, if we had been attacked at home since 9/11, who’s fault would it have been?”

It depends. It could very well have been Bush’s. If he ignored warnings or failed to take action it would be his fault.

But we are vulnerable because we are an open, liberal society. Unless you want martial law, it’s impossible to completely secure ourselves against this method of warfare.

So it’s not necessarily an either-or proposition.

“Seems to me that if he gets credit for protection, it follows that he’d be blamed for failing to protect. Is this right?”

Depends on how it happened. If it happened because Bush drops the ball, it’s on him. If it happens because of inherent vulnerabilities of the society, then it’s not.

Blame would have to come after a reasonable assessment of what went wrong. It can’t be all Bush’s fault automatically, because he doesn’t have complete control to prevent it.

That being said, if something were to happen, God forbid - the left wing would start shrieking that Bush wasn’t ‘militant’ enough to prevent it, even though nothing short of martial law could completely prevent it (and I suspect it still wouldn’t be enough).

It’d be opportunistic politics - “Bush should have been tougher!” - but every time Bush talks about getting tougher, the left starts boo-hooing about a “police state”.

There are inevitable trade-offs, ones that Bush’s critics can’t or won’t understand.

thunderbolt23:

Very well stated!

You placed your finger on the very pulse of the political problem at least. I think the old adage “dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t,” fits well in this case regarding any action that President Bush may take.

The left will simply “blame” no matter what. One more reason that Kerry will lose in November. The American electorate loves optimism!

Every single female voter that I know, who voted Clinton, and then for Gore in 2000 is voting for Bush this election. That may not be many (10 or so), but it very telling.

It’s not very surprising either. Bush is exactly what this country needs right now. I know that the dems cringe about how tuff things are, but the bottom line is, nothing good in life every comes easy.

HaHaHa, in the bizarro world of the Bushies, when your oponent comes from behind and overtakes the lead in the polls, then’ he’s "in trouble

I’m starting to see a pattern: It’s good news in Iraq, the economy is going great, and Kerry is now in trouble after winning two debates.

Gosh, if Kerry does any better in the polls, he’ll really be in trouble then!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
(“Hypothetically, if we had been attacked at home since 9/11, who’s fault would it have been?”)

It depends. It could very well have been Bush’s. If he ignored warnings or failed to take action it would be his fault.[/quote]

Thanks for a glimpse of honesty. Bush DID ignore warnings, and Bush DID fail to take action, culminating in the worst-ever attack on US soil.

To slightly hijack the thread, I think that people are woefully naive if they think that Bush has made the USA safe or that any president could. Terrorists with enough backing and the determination to accomplish their goals are almost assured of success. All the crap about terror levels and homeland security agencies is just posturing.
The most important factor in preventing terrorism and making Americans safe is how America is perceived overseas, specifically in the Islamic countries. Kerry will improve America’s relations with the world. Ergo, he will make America safer. And don’t think I am some wishy-washy peacenik. I’m all for getting the real terrorists and sending them to the afterlife they so hope for. But that is punishment, not security. Security will mainly come from improving ties with the world and education, even propaganda. Bush has done more damage to America’s image than any other President. The next wave of terrorists are at the moment pretending to fire their toy guns at American forces unjustly occupying their land.

Thunder and ZEB:
My point was only that if Bush is to get credit for there not being an attack, it follows – logically – that if there was an attack, he MUST be blamed for it. He can’t get credit for the good, but be spared blame for the bad.

ZEB:
Speaking of damned if you do, damned if you don’t:

How’s about this conundrum:
–we haven’t been attacked, so the Bush admin. says it’s because of their actions.
–If we are attacked, they’d say its all the more reason to stay the course, be consistent, and keep the President in the WH.

?

Puzzling.

RSU:

President Bush is as much to blame for 9-11 as President Rosevelt was for the bombing of Pearl Harbor!

Were we in a war prior to either confrontation? No. Did Rosevelt then commit troops to attack Germany? Yes. Why was that, Germany never attacked us. It was a global conflict which was focused on bringing down totalatarianism.

Since the tragedy of 9-11 President Bush has kept our shores safe. Does he deserve credit for this? Absolutely!

Incidentally, can any of you stalwart liberals explain why John Kerry is behind relative to the female vote? I honestly feel that is the reason that he will lose in November.

I would really like to read an explanation for this. No other democrat was able to win without gaining the majority of women voters. How will Kerry do it?

RSU - Why must he be blamed if it wasn’t his fault? If there were no steps he could have taken without say a crystal ball then why do you want to hang the man? That reasoning right there is pure partisan blindness. In otherwords, I hate bush so anything bad that happens I will assume is his fault 100% since he is the leader of this country.

In actuality he is the leader of one branch out of three that we have in our country. IF … John kerry were elected and we were victim to another terrorist attack afterwards, I would not be jumping to conclusions saying we elected the wrong president and such. We would have much bigger problems at that point and there is no changing it anyways. ok you didn’t say this but to me it seems like you actually want something bad to happen so you can have ammo against bush.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Vegita:

Liberals wanting something bad to happen so they can blame President Bush? Now what would ever give you that idea? Just becaue they were toasting the lower than expected job creation figure (96,000 still not bad) that came out last week.

Politics is a nasty business and I have to say that republicans would probably react the same way…

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
…The most important factor in preventing terrorism and making Americans safe is how America is perceived overseas, specifically in the Islamic countries. Kerry will improve America’s relations with the world. Ergo, he will make America safer. [/quote]

I agree. Terrorism will decrease when respect for the U.S. increases - particularly in the middle-east.

However - If one thinks we can be their ‘friend’ and get them to like us, they are sadly mistaken. Islamic radicals can only be managed by strength - not kindness.

This is not a goddamn popularity contest. Kerry is an appeaser. He wants everyone to agree with what he’s doing - especially France. He is under some misguided notion that, once he’s elected, birds will start chirping, the sun will start shining, and world will be a big happy place.

The only way to deal with the terrorist issue is from a position of strength. Not the kind of strength we are showing now, but one far more brutal. So brutal that would-be terrorists actually stop and wonder if their actions are worth the hell the U.S. will reign down on them.

To be sure - Kerry is most definitely not the type of president we need to deal with the current middle-east climate.

How the left ruined my friend, By Vegita

This past weekend i went to a party at one of my friends houses. We were drinking a few beers but the party had really just started so noone was even close to being drunk or even buzzed. I decided to talk to my friend lets call him jim for lack of a better name, about the upcoming election and who he thought the better candidate was. I had gone all through high school and even attended the same 2 year college as jim so it was safe to say we knew eachother well.

At the outset jim indicated that he thought kerry was the better candidate and that he thought bush was “A Moron” exact words. I asked him why bush was a moron and he said he is just a dumb person. I then asked if he were smart would you like him, he said no. I asked what else about him he didn’t like. He asked me if I had watched F-9/11, I laughed a little and said no but I have heard much debate and commentary on the film and have a good idea of what it is about. He then said well duh the movie says it all, bush is a liar and is all about big oil. I disagreed with him about the film and said that Mr. Moore was a very good spin doctor and that he twisted many of the clips to his point of view to make the administration look bad. I cited the example of the congressman who was asked if he had relatives in Iraq. He said that never happened and said I must be stupid to believe anything bush said.

We debated for several more minutes mostly arguing about stem cell research, which my friend jim had never read the actual bill. He said Bush wanted to make stem cell research illegal to practice in the US. I corrected him and said I have read the bill and that is not what it says. I told him that the bill purposes that no federal money will be used to fund research on some types of stemm cell research but that private orginizations were free to do as they wanted. I also informed him that all the major drug breakthroughs in the past decade or more have been funded by private companies and not the federal government so it really is a non issue anyways. He said bush is a bible thumper and he thought I was smarter than that. He called me a few more names and was starting to get physically upset. I informed him that he did not need to get upset, I was ok with him having a different opinion and he should allow me to have a differing one than himself. I also told him that name calling was not a very effective way to win an argument or a debate. The fact that you think i’m stupid does not make your point any more right.

We then shifted our discussion to the war in Iraq. He immediately thre this at me… This is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. I almost pissed my pants but instead remained calm I told him that with the intelligence we had at the time, it looked like it was the right decision to make even though it was a tough decision. I said bush didn’t go into this to be a hero, he really thought Saddam was a threat. He Argued that the un didn’t agree with us, I brought up that they were in bed with saddam through oil for food. He said its all bullshit, I said he didn’t read into it enough and if he felt so strongly about these topics I could send him some information on it that might shed some more light on the subject. He started getting angry with me again and calling me names, He then said “you think I don’t know what I’m talking about, I was a history major in college” he repeated that several times and then called me a moron several more times. I then looked calmly at him and said, “Jim, I know you were a history major, so was I at the same damn school, we took the same f-ing classes.”

I decided that my friend jim had lost his mind and asked him if we could perhaps continue the debate some other time as I wanted to drink heavily at the moment. He agreed and we went on to other things and had a ball the rest of the night. For that 20 minutes, he was not the person I grew up with, not the person i know and love, he was an anger filled man, he was being consumed by it and I really felt bad for him. This guy wouldn’t say shit if his mouth was full of it and here he was calling me stupid and forgetting that I came from the exact same educational backroud as he did. Oh and I got straight a’s in our history classes and He failed out. Go figure.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Lumpy,

“Thanks for a glimpse of honesty. Bush DID ignore warnings, and Bush DID fail to take action, culminating in the worst-ever attack on US soil.”

Bush failed to address problems, Clinton failed to address problems, Reagan failed to address problems, and Carter really failed to address problems.

The problem was systemic and has been since Islamism raised its head in 1979. To try and pin it on Bush for partisan reasons is transparent and silly.

After all, had Bush suddenly created a lockdown on Arab-Americans or bolted down security at airports or become draconian in enforcing immigration in an effort to respond to the pre-9/11 warnings, you would have squealed like a schoolgirl at fascist Bush for stomping on your civil liberties and creating a police state for a remote danger.

You know it and I know it. The kinds of things Bush would have needed to do to prevent 9/11 would not have supported by all those who are whining that he didn’t do enough.

Fact is, we all are complicit in getting lazy about confronting this challenge. The election of 2000 barely registered the threat of Islamism as a blip on the national radar. We learned the hard way.

The question is - what do you do now?

And, as for my honesty, tread carefully.

RSU,

“My point was only that if Bush is to get credit for there not being an attack, it follows – logically – that if there was an attack, he MUST be blamed for it. He can’t get credit for the good, but be spared blame for the bad.”

Not necessarily true. If the attack happened outside his ability to prevent it, how could hold him accountable for it?

And Bush won’t be spared blame for the bad - if the bad was his fault. It depends on what happens. Your ‘logical’ scenario ignores too many variables that can affect the outcome. Bush doesn’t have absolute control to prevent an attack, nor do you want him to have it.

“How’s about this conundrum:
–we haven’t been attacked, so the Bush admin. says it’s because of their actions.
–If we are attacked, they’d say its all the more reason to stay the course, be consistent, and keep the President in the WH.”

Perfectly legitimate. Kerry is only a better candidate if he can do a better job.

Suppose something happens between now and the election. The nation gives Bush a ‘C+’ on how he handles it - not great. Kerry is only valid if he can do better than a C+.

So, even with a horrible attack, it may make sense to stay the course with the candidate who will do the best job, if not the perfect one. In your mind, maybe Kerry can do a much better job. Based on what I know up to this point, I don’t think so - and my vote will reflect that belief.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Bush failed to address problems, Clinton failed to address problems, Reagan failed to address problems, and Carter really failed to address problems.
[/quote]

Bush was told that Osama Bin Laden and terrorism was the primary national security issue, by the outgoing Clinton team, as well as the intelligence community.

Bush ignored warnings and chose to focus on Star Wars and missile defense instead. Bush and the incompetent assclowns on his team ignored advisors and ignored intelligence.

All Team Bush needed to do was alert the airlines and airports that there was a hightened risk of hijackings, even privately. How many people might have been saved, if they could have prevented just one of the four planes from being hijacked?

During the 2000 election, Al Gore told America that Bin Laden and terrorism was our #1 security concern.

Bush should have and could have done more. Looking the other way and giving Bush a free pass lacks integrity.

And your list is cute, but only George Bush is up for re-election, so lets talk about him.