Sen. John F. Kerry Steps Into Humongous Cowpie in Iowa!

[bob shiftright]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040703/capt.wigh10107031737.kerry_wigh101.jpg

But even as he tried to avoid making news Sunday, Kerry broke new ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

Click THIS for the Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27920-2004Jul4?language=printer)

I'll leave discussion of the logical consistency of his position(s) to others. If he believes slavery, still practiced widely elsewhere in the world, is morally repugnant, does he believe it should also be unlawful? How about wife burning, as practiced in India?

[HondaMan]

LOL...nice find!

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ekerryflipflop2/images/kerry_16.JPG

http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm

[jcg878]

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ekerryflipflop2/images/kerry_16.JPG

lol :rofl:

[larchmont]

Well.

Yes indeed, good find. I hadn't heard this yet.

And yes, it's the kind of thing that could get him in some trouble. But it shouldn't.
A couple of things:

(1) As I imagined, and in fact as he said, that's what he believes, BUT HE WOULDN'T TRY TO IMPOSE IT ON THE COUNTRY. Some elephant types might call that a flip-flop or (more likely) a "slick-Willie," but it's an entirely legitimate position, and I believe it, 1000%.

(2) This might sound even more like a "slick-Willie," like "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," but it's not only legitimate but critical: He said "life," not human life. Maybe he meant the latter, but that's not what he said.

In fact, there's no denying what he did say; there's not the slightest bit of controversy about it, as far as I know. It's when you add "human" that it starts getting hairy. But even if we assume he meant that too, there's reason #1, which is more than enough.

Larchmont, who also thinks Clinton had a point, although a dumb one, when he talked about the meaning of "is."

[HondaMan]

Well.

Yes indeed, good find. I hadn't heard this yet.

And yes, it's the kind of thing that could get him in some trouble. But it shouldn't.
A couple of things:

(1) As I imagined, and in fact as he said, that's what he believes, BUT HE WOULDN'T TRY TO IMPOSE IT ON THE COUNTRY. Some elephant types might call that a flip-flop or (more likely) a "slick-Willie," but it's an entirely legitimate position, and I believe it, 1000%.

(2) This might sound even more like a "slick-Willie," like "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," but it's not only legitimate but critical: He said "life," not human life. Maybe he meant the latter, but that's not what he said.

In fact, there's no denying what he did say; there's not the slightest bit of controversy about it, as far as I know. It's when you add "human" that it starts getting hairy. But even if we assume he meant that too, there's reason #1, which is more than enough.

Larchmont, who also thinks Clinton had a point, although a dumb one, when he talked about the meaning of "is."

LOL, you would argue with a wall for the fun of it. :jeffy:

[larchmont]

LOL, you would agrue with a wall for the fun of it. :jeffy:
Speelling, speelling. :D

[HondaMan]

Speelling, speelling. :D

Oops typo...thanks for pointing that out Mr. Spelling-Bee! :rolleyes:

[jcg878]

And yes, it's the kind of thing that could get him in some trouble. But it shouldn't.

Yeah, but it was a dumb thing to say. He should have either made the statement that he doesn't believe in imposing his personal beliefs on the country, or just said that he supports the right to choose and dropped it.

[Joker]

Speelling, speelling. :D
See... we need the Spell Check back ;)
Joker - who still can't spell :laugh:

[larchmont]

See... we need the Spell Check back ;).....
Not when you have me around you don't! :tard:

[larchmont]

Well, it looks like "the smart money" is impressed by the choice of Edwards.

On Tradesports.com, Bush's percentage chance of winning the election plummeted about 5 points today -- it's down to about 53%.

(BTW that's totally unrelated to percentage approval or percent of the vote; it might look like a similar figure but it's not at all the same.)

Kerry's chances in several key states are regarded as having shot up, particulary Ohio, Florida, and (of course) North Carolina.

You might wonder what difference it makes what are the odds on a betting site. And you're right. But many people (including me) think that such data are a very good index of what's what at the moment.

[HondaMan]

Well, it looks like "the smart money" is impressed by the choice of Edwards.

On Tradesports.com, Bush's percentage chance of winning the election plummeted about 5 points today -- it's down to about 53%.

(BTW that's totally unrelated to percentage approval or percent of the vote; it might look like a similar figure but it's not at all the same.)

Kerry's chances in several key states are regarded as having shot up, particulary Ohio, Florida, and (of course) North Carolina.

You might wonder what difference it makes what are the odds on a betting site. And you're right. But many people (including me) think that such data are a very good index of what's what at the moment.

As the post-primary season winds down and Kerry's VP selection and convention approach, I wanted to share with you what we should expect polls to show in early August.

An examination of Gallup polls in presidential elections since 1976 reveals that a challenger's vice presidential selection and nominating convention can have a dramatic (if often short-lived) effect on the head-to-head poll numbers. In fact, historical analysis suggests John Kerry should have a lead of more than 15 points coming out of his convention.

As the below chart illustrates:

1. An average of the most recent public polls shows the race is a dead heat.
2. Assuming that Kerry enjoys the average "challenger's bounce[1]" (15.4% since 1976), we should expect the state of the race to swing wildly to his favor by early August.

Democrats themselves expect Kerry to have a sizeable lead after his convention. On Face the Nation on Sunday, DNC head Terry McAuliffe said, "We are about to pick our vice presidential nominee. We're about to go into a convention of four days and I think once we finish up our convention, I think you're going to see Senator Kerry anywhere from eight to twelve points up."

http://www.georgewbush.com/images/emailimages/KerryBounce.jpg

[larchmont]

.....An examination of Gallup polls in presidential elections since 1976 reveals that a challenger's vice presidential selection and nominating convention can have a dramatic (if often short-lived) effect on the head-to-head poll numbers. In fact, historical analysis suggests John Kerry should have a lead of more than 15 points coming out of his convention.....
I don't think so, not when the other guy is the incumbent.
Yes, I know that's what you're talking about, but what I'm saying is, I don't think that the last part of what you say up there really does apply when the other guy is the incumbent. Post-VP-selection bounce and post-convention bounce, yes; 15 point lead, no.

If Kerry really does develop anything like a 15-point lead coming out of the Dem convention, IMO it will be a sign that he's on his way to not only a win, but a win that won't even be particularly close.

[johnej]

But what about the fact that Kerry did not get the bump?

[larchmont]

But what about the fact that Kerry did not get the bump?
That was so long ago, who remembers?

Well, I do. :D

I thought he had ALREADY gotten his "bump" from all the favorable publicity after he romped through the Democratic primaries; in effect, that was his "nomination bump," and it was old news by the time the convention came around. And, just before the convention, he was even with Bush or slightly ahead in all the polls, which is unusually good when you're up against an incumbent. How much of an extra bump can a challenger get when he's starting from that level? And anyway, he STILL DID get a little bit of a bump out of the convention, probably a few points. Short lived, though.

But, of course, water under the bridge by now. And in the next few weeks, it could well be that everything that has happened lately will be old news too.

[johnej]

That is true. I was just wondering if he did get the bump would there be as many hotly contested states as there is?

[larchmont]

He got it and he lost it, and some.

[johnej]

oh...

[HondaMan]

But what about the fact that Kerry did not get the bump?

Well, because the American people are wising up to him and know better now or Kerry simply sucks? hmmm hehe :p