You are right, sir.

Sounds like the beginnings of the "I told you so" articles which will appear after the election.

Joan is exceptionally candid, as usual.

Their problem is that the whole ticket has no platform except "I served in Vietnam", and that is a questionable qualification, especially given Kerry's 5 medals in 4 1/2 months, and subsequent behavior in 1971.

Furthermore he has no way to climb out of that abyss, since he has taken every convenient political position for his whole career. The US is not Massachusetts, fortunately.

Please take Mort's advice Senator. Especially on the minimum wage. Then we can bring up how an effort to raise it fell one vote short because you were AWOL from work!

"Pay attention to Teddy Kennedy and what he has to say."

If you can understand him, that is. Sometimes the half-dead drunk is barely able to slur to syllables together to make a coherent word.

From tomorrow's Kerry stump speech:

"Ted Kennedy has told me that under George Bush Afghanistan has lost a million jobs!"

Yeah, that's it. Listening to Teddy-boy will really win over undecideds or lukewarm Bush voters. Go ahead, JFK-lite, listen to a man who hasn't had a serious campaign challenge in 20 years.

From the UK, the Kerry campaign recalls the good/bad old days of Old Labour (vintage Michael Foot) versus Mrs. T.

So toast you could put cheese on it and call it a welsh rarebit.

I'm not going to listen to anyone who takes his marching orders from Ted Kennedy.

I swear when I used to read U.S. News and read Mort Zuckerman's editorials I thought I was reading a free enterprise conservative. Was I drunk (well, possibly, but that's beside the point)? We need to raise the frickin minimum wage so that we can keep even more urban youths from getting jobs? Seriously, wasn't he considered a right winger, or was I merely letting the Dan Rather's of the world explain the political spectrum to me. Good grief.

It's a little disconcerting to hear people repeat such tried and true rep. party lines like "we don't know what he stands for except that he served in Vietnam." With even the simplest level of political exercise, you can watch, every single evening, MSNBC, CNN, FOX'NEWS', and any and all local newscasts replay soundbites from the day's campaigning and they ALWAYS contain diametrically opposing snippets from both candidates. For some reason though, the republican spin machine has our simple minds so brainwashed that when Bush says, "Iraq is going well," and Kerry says "Iraq is going poorly" we only hear Bush. How can someone so intellectually lazy as to not take 10 seconds to go to johnkerry.com complain that we don't know what he stands for? There is a very easy way to figure it out if you feel like the evening news is too complicated, too simple, or too unclear. Just like there's an easy way to figure out what George Bush *actually* stands for. But you made up your mind long ago that John Kerry was a flip-flopper because that's such an easy way to justify tuning out of this whole process.

And listening to Ted Kennedy would keep us chasing the same terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 instead of new ones attacking us as march 2002.

I said it first! I said it first!

http://www.legendgames.net/myblog.asp?view=plink&id=130

Ryan, the question was what Kerry stands for, not what he says, usually, when he's not saying the diametrically opposite. And the reason some people are having so much trouble figuring it out is because Kerry stands for nothing at all, except that he wants to be President. Which is exactly the same trap that the Democrats fell into when they nominated him: it's not that anyone really liked him the most, it's that the greatest number of Democrats didn't find him distasteful. And that's because he never took a firm, objectionable position on anything.

And listening to Ted Kennedy would keep us chasing the same terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 instead of new ones attacking us as march 2002.

The specific terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 are quite dead. The lesson Bush (and I) drew from 9/11 was not that terrorists can wreak havoc, but that we can't sit on our butts and hope for things to get better. That means dispatching emerging threats, before they become (not to rehash that phrase) actual, imminent threats. The Left's tunnel vision and simplistic, un-nuanced (heh) separation of "al-Qaeda/everyone else" is what makes them unfit for leadership. That Kerry might fall for this view (becoming a second Carter) or just go with the poll-driven flow (like a second Clinton) is exactly why I don't want him in the White House.

Hmmm.

So far Kerry's been for Iraq, against Iraq, for Iraq, against Iraq, for spending more money in Iraq, against Iraq, for Iraq, against spending more money in Iraq, etc etc etc.

Really. Don't like Kerry's position on something? Just give it a few minutes, he'll turn your way soon enough.

Frankly what Kerry has to do is fake an epiphany. Go see a Catholic Bishop, come out a new man and out Bush-Bush. Be the hawk. Be for trade. Be for anything. Just be more than Bush is. Make him catch up.

Better yet draw out the moderates by forcing Bush to turn on his conservative base. There's a lot that conservatives have put up with Bush. But he's gone just about as far as he can without risking major defections. Immigration, taxes, trade and big government. Force Bush to aggravate his conservative base.

What the heck. It's not like Kerry's liberal base really believes he'll actually do any of that stuff. It would be more along the lines of a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink". Just like in the Democratic Convention when all the delegates followed the playbook.

Hell. Once Kerry's elected he could change his mind soon enough. With the MSM in his pocket Kerry could go back to following his base's demands with almost literal impunity.

Dan Rather's intransigence is hurting Kerry, though I doubt that is his intention. By keeping the controversy alive they prolonge it and invite its escalation. Further, they decrease the time between the controversy's peak and the election. Every day that Dan Rather and CBS refuse to admit their error the chances that this whole mess will be an issue on election day rise.

Poor Lil' Kerry... If he pursues the issue of the minimum wage and falls back on that poopy argument that it's only worth a third of what it was in 1968, it will bring back some VERY UGLY MEMORIES of the 20 per cent interest rates and inflation of President James Earl Carter. I don't think Kerry will get much pleasure from that gambit.

Didn't Kerry already have an epiphany? You know, sitting there, in Cambodia, 1968, listening to President Nixon tell the world that there were no US troops in Cambodia?

I coulda sworn that Kerry actually called it an epiphany....

The only thing that I really agree with here is that we should have been purchasing all the nuclear material from the former Soviet republics that we could get our hands on, and we should have been doing it for the past 10 years.

Oh, and why does he say that it's been stuck at $5.15 for seven years, but it's worth 1/3 less than in 1968? I mean, how much less is it worth now than it was seven years ago? I mean, the Green Bay Packers were coming off of their second Super Bowl (was it even called a Super Bowl?) in 1968. They won one with Brett Favre just about 7 years ago. Gee, it seemed like a long, long time in between, as any other Packer fan will tell you.