TC4 Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/21657.htm A BLOWOUT IN THE MAKING Dick Morris March 24, 2004 -- THE Bush ads are working: Two weeks ago, the Washington Post poll showed Sen. John Kerry ahead of President Bush by 11 points, and the Gallup Poll had him up by 8, while more recent polls reflect a dead heat between the two. Zogby (March 21) has Kerry up by only 48-46, and Rasmussen (March 20) has it Bush 46, Kerry 45. Interestingly, the new surveys don't show Bush gain ing so much as they show Kerry dropping. In the odd configurations of political strategy, that is good news for the Republicans. If Bush were simply gaining because of good news or a bump from the recent focus on terrorism, he could go down as easily as he went up. Let the news turn bad, and Bush would go back to the low ratings of a few weeks ago. But with the gap closing because of Kerry's drop, the impact is likely to last a lot longer. The fact is that 6 to 9 percent of Americans were voting for the Democrat two weeks ago and now are undecided. The doubts that Bush's ads are raising about Kerry are not going to go away; they will grow as the ads continue and the facts pile up. The polls are starting to reflect the effectiveness of Bush's ads, which depict Kerry explaining his ultra-liberal record to the voters. This Democrat, who escaped scrutiny by posing as the un-Dean in the primary, is now being revealed as the leftist he is. Having defeated the three candidates of his party who might have beaten Bush - Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards - Kerry is finding out that America is a centrist nation. I have doubted the conventional wisdom that this election would be close. If Bush continues to stay on the offensive and Kerry's responses remain as inept as they've been, the Massachusetts Democrat will go downhill faster than he is now doing on his skiing vacation. Bush's attacks have focused on the issues of terrorism and taxes. Kerry has not even answered the first charge and has given only a ritualistic denial of the second. Instead of answering Bush's charges in detail, he piously asks, in his ads, if the president has anything more to offer America than negative ads. But Americans don't see the Bush ads as below the belt, but as welcome information about a man they don't know who is running for president. Indeed, the latest New York Times/CBS survey indicates that 60 percent of the voters feel Kerry is telling them what they want to hear, not what he really believes. Bush is opening a credibility gap which is only widened by Kerry's ridiculous statement that he voted for the $87 billion appropriation for the war effort before he voted against it. In the next round of attack ads, Bush should focus on Kerry's previous support for a 50 cent increase in the gasoline tax. Remember, it was the gas tax, more than any other issue, that cost the Democrats control of Congress in 1994. With pump prices closing in on $2 a gallon, Americans will not look kindly on someone who proposes to add another half-dollar per gallon. Kerry's two gaffes - on foreign leaders with whom he allegedly spoke and on his flip-flop on the money for the war - were not unforced errors: They were fumbles caused by the aggressive pressure of the Bush campaign. This Democrat is not ready to run for president, and the more the Republicans press him, the more he will self-destruct. His campaign advisers are hoping that a few hours extra sleep on his ski trip will restore his political judgment, but they ignore the fact that he never had a lot to begin with. The fact is that Massachusetts liberal Democrats don't spend a lot of time learning how to appeal to middle America. Kerry only won the nomination because Dean lost it and Edwards was hobbled by Clark so he could not get the momentum he needed to mount a real challenge. With the front-loaded process, decreed by financial-wizard-but-political-amateur Terry McAuliffe, the party is united but saddled with a nominee who can't handle prime time. Bush needs to keep up the pressure and watch Kerry's ratings drop. In a few months, we may be wondering why the conventional wisdom ever thought this race would be so close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Wishful thinking by the man who predicted Hillary would lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 So did most people when she was running against Guiliani. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 He is right about that gas tax. In Michigan and Cali gas is so high and Michigan is a key state in this election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Except he predicted a Lazio win the day before the election. But, then again, he also predicted that Hillary wouldn't run at all. I guess a busted clock is right twice a day, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Hmmmm....interesting opinion piece...not very much the way of real facts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 I respect Dick Morris' political instincts and analysis - I don't respect the man. This is a thoughtful piece that is interpreting the factual polling data and the Bush ads. It seems valid, but I'd welcome specific rebuttals as to various of his contentions. I don't know about a landslide win, but I've told my (Democrat, anti-Bush) wife for the last six weeks now that Bush will beat Kerry; I made no such claims in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by LC80 Wishful thinking by the man who predicted Hillary would lose. She would have gotten her fat arse handed to her if Giuliani didn't pull out of the race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Rudy would ve won easily Then the democrats had the gall to whine about Mrs Dole running for senator in NC as being a carpetbagger. It'll be a landslide only if the breaking news on fox news like about the flip flops by Clarke and Kerry in vid clips and radio archives are rebroadcasted on regular TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Wishful thinking by Dick. He should go suck some toes. NewsMax is actually proud of its snaring of extremely ex-Clinton adviser Dick Morris as a columnist for its magazine (you know, the one with the thequestionable circulation figures). So much so, in fact, it defended the hiring in a June 15 "Insider Report" to its e-mail subscribers. "Whatever your opinion of Dick Morris, his is one of the great political minds of our time," an "Insider Report" item states, trying to make NewsMax readers forget about his little scandal of prostitutes and toe-sucking. Such a "great political mind" is Morris, in fact, that he predicted Rick Lazio would defeat Hillary Clinton for New York Senate the day before the election. (Hillary, as we all know, won a double-digit victory.) He also predicted Hillary wouldn't run for Senate at all. Morris, in fact, has a long history of murky prognostication. In 1998, he predicted the Democrats "will absolutely be obliterated" in the midterm elections, losing 30 House seats and five Senate seats. (Democrats wound up gaining five House seats and holding even in the Senate.) He also predicted that five certain Democratic senators might side with the GOP on calling witnesses during Clinton's impeachment trial; all of them voted to dismiss the trial instead. Morris is also a major, major suck-up artist. Even as he was resigning his Clinton post in 1996, he insisted Clinton "is a great President and a great man," and hadnothing but nice things to say about Hillary in his book "Behind the Oval Office," calling her a "warm, decent, sincere and sensitive, a tireless crusader for children and an excellent wife and mother." Compare these words with his NewsMax press-release statement: "With all of the bias in the media, it is refreshing to work with NewsMax, which goes where other media outlets fear to tread." Oh, and did we mention that Morris has a new book out that NewsMax, presumably in return for his column-writing, is plugging the hell out of -- to the almost desperate point of giving the thing away to new subscribers of NewsMax magazine? (Note that the blurb touts Morris' "sharp-eyed political savvy.") The article continues: "A number of readers reminded us of the details of his 1996 sex scandal that made the tabloids. But Morris is a changed man since then. He got help for his sexual addiction and also converted to Christianity. He is now an active member of the Catholic Church. Morris also has expressed remorse for helping Bill Clinton. He now believes that both Bill and Hillary should be investigated and, if found guilty, prosecuted." Uh, back up a sec. Since when do investigators find people guilty? Judges and juries do that. And didn't Ken Starr, Robert Ray, et al., just conclude an investigation in which they couldn't find anything worth prosecuting beyond lying about sex? "Great political mind" or not, it's clear there are no great legal minds at NewsMax. NewsMax's deal with Morris also apparently involves treating anything that comes out of Morris' mouth as a pearl of wisdom. Among these "pearls" are a June 18statement that "I think that George Stephanopoulos' appointment as the anchor for the TV show 'This Week' represents the final enshrinement of the liberal establishment media at ABC." Does that mean former Bush I administration staffer Tony Snow's job as host of "Fox News Sunday" is the "final enshrinemnt" of conservative orthodoxy at Fox News? Morris then goes on to ponder, in his usual erroneous style, "if Terry McAuliffe or Al Gore will become the successor to Peter Jennings." The "Insider Report" article concludes with the sanctimonious statment: "In a time when no one shows shame or remorse for anything, we find Morris' actions laudable." Morris, however, is not so shamed or remorseful as to refrain from making wild, unsupported allegations, like one he made in January that Bill Clinton bought "what is in effect a vacation house" with money raised for his presidential library. The NewsMax article on the allegation actually details just how specious the claim is: "Morris did not say where the new Clinton home is located or how much it cost." This statement also assumes anyone at NewsMax knows anything about shame or remorse. Heck, Christopher Ruddy can't even do something as simple as publiclyretract an false story, one prime indicator of a sense of shame among those claiming to be leaders of news organizations. In NewsMax and Ruddy, Morris has found someone who will treat him like the "political guru" he thinks he is and who hates the Clintons as passionately and beyond reason as he does. Ruddy is always on the lookout for some new alleged Clinton salaciousness to peddle, however shaky, and Morris seems more than happy to oblige. One has to wonder if Morris' alleged "sharp-eyed political savvy" is really just about seeing where his bread can be buttered most lucratively these days, and being a Clinton-basher for a Scaife-backed "news" organization is certainly one way to accomplish that. Dick Morris' work for NewsMax is an indicator of the kind of person Morris is, as well as the kind of company NewsMax is, and shame or remorse have nothing to do with it. --- See both sides can discredit a person by saying he flip-flops and has alterior motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Wasn't Hilary elected in 2000? The only thing I remember about Rudy before 9/11 was something about him cheating on his wife. Sen Clinton would have beat his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinamatic Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 What happens when Kerry puts his adds out that damage Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Wasn't Hilary elected in 2000? The only thing I remember about Rudy before 9/11 was something about him cheating on his wife. Sen Clinton would have beat his ass. So you profess ignorance, and then make a claim of certainty? Yeah, that's a credible opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Well, even with Morris’ prediction, I say we go ahead and hold the elections anyway. This is going to get even uglier, though. Kerry or Bush is starting to look a little like a Carter vs. Hutchinson debate from not too long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd So you profess ignorance, and then make a claim of certainty? Yeah, that's a credible opinion. Hey great attack and non-response. You are just so awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Hey great attack and non-response. You are just so awesome. My statement was simple, clear, on point, and logically supportable. Your statement, and this response, on the other hand, contains nothing of value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd My statement was simple, clear, on point, and logically supportable. Your statement, and this response, on the other hand, contains nothing of value. Simple? Certainly. What more would I expect from the man that states his posts are logically supportable while presenting no argument for logic to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Simple? Certainly. What more would I expect from the man that states his posts are logically supportable while presenting no argument for logic to support. As brief as my statement was, the fact that you missed it speaks volumes about your reading comprehension. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd As brief as my statement was, the fact that you missed it speaks volumes about your reading comprehension. Try again. I noticed your vague implication yes. Sadly you didn't back it up or have the courage to make a honest statement as your stance and why you feel it's correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Destino I noticed your vague implication yes. Sadly you didn't back it up or have the courage to make a honest statement as your stance and why you feel it's correct. There is nothing vague about the implication. It is logically consistent, and completely evident. You are simply trying to change the subject in order to engage on a debate in different terms instead of admitting the ridiculousness of your statement. I'm not going to bail you out. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 serve and volley! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLusby Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 The Hilliary and Bill gang will make sure that Bush wins. It is in her best interest. If Kerry were to win a possibility exists for him to have eight years and then his VP would have a shot at the nominee. All that time will erode the Clinton's power base and make her dream vanish. As right wing as I am maybe a vote for Kerry wouldn't be a bad idea. Nah, never let a socialist get power! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by AJWatson3 serve and volley! :laugh: :laugh: I was just thinking the same thing! :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 TLusby, do you know what "socialism" is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by redman I don't know about a landslide win, but I've told my (Democrat, anti-Bush) wife for the last six weeks now that Bush will beat Kerry; I made no such claims in 2000. You mean Kerry ran in 2000? I did not know that? :rotflmao: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.