To: sea_biscuit who wrote (42297 ) 8/30/2005 12:20:58 AM From: American Spirit Respond to of 93284 Actually, if Kerry had been anti-war in 2003-2004 he would have lost all the swing-states. The public didn't really figure out that Bush was a total charlatan until the Terri Schiavo case. That unmasked the entire rightwing as radical hypocritical panderers. Their popularity dropped 10% in one week. If the election had been held six months later Bush would have been roundly defeated, even with the Ohio Diebold machines. Also remember, by saying Kerry was wishy-washy you're repeating the phony Bush spin against Kerry, that he was a flip-flopper. In actuality, Kerry's position on Iraq never changed from 2002 to 2004. Not only that, he was 100% right. If he didn't make that clear enough maybe it was because the Bush echo chamber was bombarding us with the flip-flopper label 1000 times a day. Rove knows what Goebbels figured out. if you repeat the lie enough times it "becomes true". or at least confuses people. Also, no one has ever beaten a presdient during war-time that I remember. Even Nixon won during Vietnam in a landslide though people did not like the war. Finally, if you believe Diebold machines cost Kerry in Ohio, then you're really saying Kerry won. If Kerry had won Ohio he'd be president. And maybe he did. My one criticism of the Kerry campaign was that he didn't immediately confront the Bush smearvet campaign head-on and turn it against Bush as an issue. Kerry tried to take the high road, which was admirable, but Bush wasn't following the gentleman's rules. He was playing very dirty. Kerry should have hammered him on it. So Kerry's one fault was being - too decent. Otherwise, he can't help it if he couldn't fake a southern accent.