Which issue will hurt J.Kerry the most?

[Wakie]

Umm ... 3 things ...

(1) The "Jane Fonda" picture was proven to be false.  Even still, should we dig around to see if we can find a picture of Ronald Reagan with Jane Fonda and then crucify him?  I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

(2) Questionable Vietnam service?  The guy is a decorated war hero.  The guys who served with him have come out and said as much.  If you want to blast him for requesting he be sent home after being wounded then shouldn't you also blast Bush for asking to be transfered to Florida and Alabama while in the Guard so he could work on election campaigns??

(3) I know his being from the Northeast is a negative.  But the thing I've always wondered is why are the folks from the South so biased against folks from the Northeast?  Northern voters have no bias against Southern, Central, or Western candidates.  There is no Western or Central bias against anyone.  Seriously, someone from the South please explain this attitude problem.

[Wakie]

Gustaf,

As someone who has lived in both places, I can tell you that the North is perhaps more anti-South than vice versa...they just do it in a more subtle, condescending fashion.

I cannot disagree more.

I'm a consultant, I travel a lot for work and I work with other traveling consultants.

While it is true that in the North people are generally colder/ruder than in the South .... they are rude to everyone.  In the South there is a "you no good Yankee" attitude.  Heck, I got pulled over in TX doing 52 in a 45 and was told "we don't need you Yankees coming down here flying all over the place".

Not only that, but there is no Northern voting bias.  You don't hear people saying "oh ... no one in the North will vote for Clinton/Gore/Bush because they are from the South".  But you have heard the opposite said of Dean, Kerry, and others.

I'm sorry, but in my experience the North is indifferent to the South whereas the South seems to resent the North.

[Wakie]

Umm ... 3 things ...

(1) The "Jane Fonda" picture was proven to be false.  Even still, should we dig around to see if we can find a picture of Ronald Reagan with Jane Fonda and then crucify him?  I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Go to snopes.com. You are correct ONE of the Kerry with Fonda photos is false but their is another one of them at a rally together which is proven fact. The only are referring to is of them on a stage or something shaking hands. Check out the photo section of Snopes.com

OMG ... he's seated 3-4 rows behind her in a crowd!  Saying that this is political kryptonite is ridiculous!

[Wakie]

If I was Kerry I would worry about it. Stamping your medals into the dirt and hanging with Hanoi Jane. Something to be real proud of. I'm not worried though Bush will be re-elected, Democrats senators are saying that too! LoL What hope for the Democrats this year. Sen. Zel Miller and Dick Morris both were saying Kerry is a weak candidate and is going to get hammered on the National Security front. John "Walter Mondale" Kerry will lose, Bush will win 58% etch it.

Where is there something about him "stamping his medals into the dirt"??

And just happening to be in the same place as Jane Fonda certainly isn't political kryptonite.  It didn't hurt Ronald Reagan to have been at the Academy Awards with her back in the 1960's.

Zell Miller (who is campaigning for Bush) is the only Democratic Senator I've heard say Kerry is weak.  But, since he is campaigning for Bush, you would expect him to say that of anyone.

I think you are grossly underestimating Kerry.  Sure, you can attribute the Post-New Hampshire wins to momentum, but he came from far back to win Iowa.  But, for the purposes of this topic this is incidental.

All candidates have flaws ... but a random 30 yr old photo which shows you 4 rows behind someone is hardly troubling.  Heck, 30 yrs ago Bush was a practicing alcoholic.  There's a 15 yr old photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.  I have a hard time with people who are so desperate for a scandal that they scramble for something as flimsy as this photo.

[Wakie]

I'm just slamming Democrats back for their slamming of Bushs' military service. They accuse him of going AWOL and etc. But no one says "Hey that was 30 years ago". IMHO military service does not amount to a good presidency. And I'll use the Democrats hero FDR as a shining example of a Non-Veteran who was a successful president.

I completely agree that military service does not equal a good Presidency.  But the reason the Democrats are slamming Bush on it is because in '88, '92, and '96 the Republicans slammed Dukakis and Clinton for not having a military record.  Now the Democrats have the high-ground on the issue and are using it just like the Republicans did.

It's all part of the game.

[Wakie]

I think a lot of the Republican "big issues" are actually going to backfire.


Gay Marriage -- For the most part Kerry is avoiding this issue while Bush is talking about a Constituitional Amendment.  Traditionally the voters punish whomever makes a strong stand on such a divisive issue, regardless of which way the individual taking the stand leans.  So although I think most Americans do not like the issue of gay marriage, they would rather it go through the courts before they have to deal with it.  I think voters will punish Bush for pressing his side.

Flipflopping -- The GOP attacks Kerry on what is perceived to be his playing both sides of issues.  But I think many Americans are uneasy with Bush's "over-simplification" of the world.  And if the Kerry camp can play up Bush's flipflops on "Nation Building" and "Large Govt Budgets" (2 things he attacked Gore on but seems big on himself)  then this could bite Bush in the butt.

Jane Fonda -- The phoney picture just goes to show how low certain Bush backers will go.  I think dirty tricks are a major turnoff to the American people.


Kerry, like all candidates, certainly has some weaknesses ... but on these 3 issues I think the GOP is barking up the wrong tree.

[Wakie]

They are not being discriminated against. Their style of life is immoral, senseless, abnormal. And BTW sodomy is illegal in quite a few states.

It should be noted that sodomy includes oral sex.  So if you live in one of those states, no BJ's for you.

[Wakie]

They are not being discriminated against. Their style of life is immoral, senseless, abnormal. And BTW sodomy is illegal in quite a few states.

It should be noted that sodomy includes oral sex.  So if you live in one of those states, no BJ's for you.

Make a ammendum to that law

I know you're joking, but your response just begs for me to respond with something like,

But aren't BJ's "immoral, senseless, and abnormal"?

[Wakie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Immoral, no, God doesnt forbid BJs.
Senseless?  Pleasure inside of marriage is no problem.
Abnormal? Depends on your definition of what "normal" is.

Well, what God allows and what God does not allow all depends on who you ask.  IMHO, everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs as long as they don't impose them on others.  Some people believe that because oral sex is technically sodomy, God forbids it.  Should it be illegal?  No ... that would be ridiculous.

What I find incredibly ironic is that since the TX anti-sodomy law was struck down we now have the following situation.  Casual sex between 2 people who hardly know each other is legal.  But a committed loving relationship between 2 individuals is illegal because of their sexuality.