<div align="center"><table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#111111" bgcolor="#C9C0A7" width="414" height="66"><tr><td background="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/little_back.gif" width="56"><img src="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/trr.gif" width="56" height="56"></td><td width="358"><font face="Impact" color="#000000" size="6">In My Opinion</font><font face="Arial" color="#000000" size="3"><i><br><b> by Trevor Bothwell</b></i></td></tr></table></div>

Is it just me, or does John Kerry act like he’s finally found his long-lost boyfriend instead of a running mate? From all the cheek kissing and heavy petting taking place between Kerry and vice presidential candidate John Edwards, you’d think the duo kicked off a “coming out” party last week instead of a run at the White House.

From the looks of things, it’s hard not to wonder whether the two are preparing to build their campaign platform around gay marriage promotion. I’m no political strategist, but Kerry and Edwards may want to consider that there’s actually less support for ending marriage as we know it than for ending the war in Iraq.

But I digress. Back in February I wrote a column (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Bothwell20040222.shtml) explaining why President Bush would win re-election. So now that Kerry has finally rounded out his ticket, it’s only reasonable to revisit our current state of affairs and to explain -- once again -- why I believe Bush will come out on top this November.

First, we have “the economy, stupid.” John Kerry is anti-free trade (at least currently). He wants to create 10 million more jobs by discouraging “outsourcing,” mainly by repealing the Bush administration’s provision that allows corporations to defer paying taxes on profits generated overseas, as well as the one cutting the corporate tax rate.

Unfortunately, faulty political rhetoric often takes precedence over even basic economic understanding during election season. One reason American companies are forced to outsource jobs or operate overseas is precisely because they are already at a competitive disadvantage due to high corporate tax rates. Indeed, reducing the tax burden on corporations would in itself discourage them from relocating.

Conversely, George Bush wants to make his tax cuts permanent. Inasmuch as it’s not even a president’s job to “create jobs,” Bush’s tax cuts are largely -- though hardly solely -- responsible for the one million new jobs we’ve created in the past three months alone.

Secondly, we can expect to see the image of John Edwards’ “two Americas” shoved down our throats for the next three months. A good liberal is nothing if not classist. But the absurdity of this gambit should be apparent to anyone with an IQ higher than most speed limits.

It isn’t likely Edwards will explain that ignorance, irresponsibility, and a poor work ethic are more to blame for any perceived economic divide among Americans than the big, bad, “greedy” CEOs who run Wal-Mart and other profitable businesses. But Americans should know that companies like Wal-Mart do more to provide affordable goods to the poor than Sens. Kerry and Edwards ever could.

Moreover, during the primaries Edwards lamented the rising costs of medical insurance for Americans -- no doubt to justify even higher tax collection for the further socialization of medical care. However, liberals opposed to tort reform (like Edwards) enable trial lawyers (like Edwards) to make millions suing doctors, whose insurance companies must consequently raise premiums, which increases costs for everyone but -- you guessed it -- trial lawyers.

Lastly, and most important, the election spotlight will focus primarily on national defense. While the Bush administration has certainly made mistakes in its prosecution of the war in Iraq, things are going far better than worse. Kerry and the Democrats complain that we’re failing miserably, but they can’t even come up with any better alternatives to be mistaken about (save for turning all homeland security decisions over to the UN).

I have to believe most voters know this. Which is why Kerry continues to accuse Bush of lying about weapons of mass destruction, despite the Senate Intelligence Committee’s conclusion that the CIA’s WMD intel was severely flawed, and a recent article in the Financial Times reporting that the British are about to release new information verifying that Saddam Hussein indeed sought Nigerian uranium -- two striking revelations that seem to vindicate Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq.

Most remarkable about all of this is that in attempting to paint Bush as a perpetual liar, John Kerry is proving to be the guiltier of the two. After all, does anyone really believe liberals wouldn’t be demanding Bush’s impeachment -- and rightly so -- if he would have ignored the intelligence findings he was given and we were attacked again?

The sad fact of the matter is that you can’t win with liberals. Their downright hatred for our “cowboy” president prevents them from even considering that he could be acting in our best interests. And considering liberals barely agree that we should have invaded Afghanistan -- much less Iraq -- this race will be a lot closer than it should. But my money says Kerry and Edwards are likely to find more voters sticking with a president who at least chooses to fight terrorism as opposed to one who would defer to the sensibilities of countries that have chosen to appease it for years.

At a rally in Dayton, Ohio last week, Kerry said, "We have better ideas, better vision, a better sense of the difficulties in the lives of average Americans…And we have better hair.''

If only the Wonder Twins crafted their policy as well as they coiffed their locks.

<p>
<center><a href="http://www.therightreport.com/articles/InMyOpinion/myopinion_home.htm"><b>In My Opinion Archives</b></a></center>
Trevor Bothwell is editor of <a href="http://www.therightreport.com/">The Right Report</a>, and he is also press secretary for <a href="http://www.jewitt2004.com/">Brad Jewitt’s (R-Md.)</a> 2004 campaign for U.S. Congress. Trevor can be contacted at <a href="mailto:bothwell@therightreport.com">bothwell@therightreport.com</a>.</font>

Well, here's my take on the whole thing: John Kerry is going to win this election whether Republicans like it or not and despite what they tell themselves (some on the forums here say that Bush is going to even win in a landslide). Hear me out...

I am a big poll guy...that's what I base political analysis on (which it should always be based on and not one's own personal opinion of the candidates). Let us take a look first at "favorablity" ratings from my good friend George Gallup. Here are the results of a July 8-11 poll on favorability:
We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of this person -- or if you have never heard of him or her.
George W. Bush: 52% favorable, 46% unfavorable
John F. Kerry: 56% favorable, 34% unfavorable, 8% no opinion, 2% never heard of
Margin of error was +/- 3 points.

Now this poll was run after several months of President Bush running attack ads on Kerry's record. Apparently the "aces" that the Bush team had to tear Kerry down didn't work. Now polls do show that people view Kerry as a "flip-flopper" as many of the Bush ads intended to do. But from the polls, it seems that that is not that pertinent of an issue to most voters. It is to partisan Republicans, but not to independents and definitely not to Democrats either. Furthermore, it looks like many Americans have still not been introduced to Senator Kerry and there's this wonderful even happening next week called the Democratic National Convention that all of the networks are going to carry. In his acceptance speech, America will come to know of John Kerry and if Kerry delivers a good speech (which is not guaranteed, the guy is not the best speech giver in the world), then the undecideds will fall towards Kerry (in races with an incumbent, undecideds tend to lean towards the challenger).

Now another CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP poll, released yesterday. You can see it here. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/22/prez.election/index.html)
Here's a big one:Asked if Kerry agreed with them on issues that mattered to them most, 49 percent of poll respondents said "yes" and 42 percent said "no." Asked the same question of Bush, 47 percent said "yes" and 50 percent said "no
Another one for Kerry:But more poll respondents, 48 percent, believe Kerry cares more about people like them. Only 40 percent believe Bush cares about them.
And finally:
Kerry also appears more respected among world leaders, according to the poll. When asked if each candidate would have the respect of world leaders, 63 percent said Kerry would while 43 percent thought Bush would.

Granted the news is not all rosy for Senator Kerry. Only 37% say that he would be a strong and decisive leader, while 54% say that about Bush. 46% also see Kerry as liberal, but I am not sure if that sort of a connotation strikes as much fear in the hearts of independents as it did in 1988 when Mike Dukakis let a black man out of prison so he could rape somebody. Still Kerry has three major things going for him: others respect him, he cares about normal people, and he agrees with the people on the issues.

Now for the specific states and regions: Zogby has the Electoral College leaning Kerry's way, which changes because most of the battleground are still within the margin of error. But look at this, and this is major I believe:
In our national telephone surveys, the gap in the south closed from Bush 53% to Kerry 35% in early June. But now it is Bush 50% to Kerry 40%. If these numbers hold in the south, the President's game play will be thrown off as they will at least have to spend more time and resources in the previously thought safe region. http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=842
Bush cannot forgo the South this time around: Kerry has a legit shot in Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. Resources diverted from states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan to these previously solid Bush states will hurt the Bush/Cheney ticket.

My final prediction is this: John Kerry wins the 2004 Election with 49% of the vote to Bush's 48% and carries the Electoral College by picking up Ohio and Nevada while maintaining Gore's 2000 states.

Also, how is the Jewitt Campaign going?

Oh I forgot to add this gem from Zogby...
A majority opposes the President's reelection in fourteen of the sixteen states

As long as Kerry can define himself in the convetion speech and continue to run positive advertising, I think that he is a shoo-in for winning the White House back for the party.

Of course, you're not taking into account that sometime between August 15th and October 15th, Osama Bin Laden will be captured, and all the American flags will be brought back out from basements and toolsheds. The subsequent gush of nationalistic furvor, jingoistic pride and renewed confidence in Bush will give him momentum right into November.




And with any luck during a second term he'll stop trying to please everyone, and grow a pair of balls and actually do what needs to be done. Instead of touting about 'religion of peace', condemning (gasp!) racial profiling at airports, softshoing around with the Saudis and fcking around in Iraq.

Originally posted by Toxick
Of course, you're not taking into account that sometime between August 15th and October 15th, Osama Bin Laden will be captured, and all the American flags will be brought back out from basements and toolsheds.
And with any luck during a second term he'll stop trying to please everyone, and grow a pair of balls and actually do what needs to be done. Instead of touting about 'religion of peace', condemning (gasp!) racial profiling at airports, softshoing around with the Saudis and fcking around in Iraq.

Yes, I wonder when Karl Rove will pull Osama bin Laden out of his ass. That could definitely swing the election (but you know they thought that Hussein's capture would as well). Also, I didn't think that Bush really cared anymore if we caught bin Laden?

Islam is a religion of peace. I have seen alot of anti-Islamic remarks lately on the forums. The enemy is not Islam...the enemy is Islamic fundamentalism which keeps women as second-class citizens and takes a skewed view of the Quaran. bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, etc. are to Islam what the KKK is to Christianity; we should not make blanket statements about Islam the way that I have seen lately. Granted, I see your point about racial profiling at airports and the such.

This administration has got to get tougher with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebhanon, and Syria: those four nations could be just as guilty of aiding terrorists (or even more guilty) than Iraq ever was.

Originally posted by rraley
Islam is a religion of peace. :baby:

On a side note, the Right Report website was interesting; granted, I disagreed with a lot of what was on the site. Is Mr. Bothwell a full-time columnist or is the column on this site just a hobby?

Originally posted by rraley
Also, how is the Jewitt Campaign going? :zing:

Originally posted by rraley
I am a big poll guy...that's what I base political analysis on (which it should always be based on and not one's own personal opinion of the candidates).
Well then if you are a "big poll guy" you should know that the only poll worth a darn is the one taken on the first Tuesday in November when those that care enough to participate actually do the choosing.

Originally posted by Ken King
Well then if you are a "big poll guy" you should know that the only poll worth a darn is the one taken on the first Tuesday in November when those that care enough to participate actually do the choosing.

The only poll that truly means something is the one on the first tuesday after the first Monday in November. Still, public opinion polls do an accurate job of showing the status of the nation's views.

Also, there was a small column in today's Washington Post Opinion section that said that the 2004 Election reminded the author an awful lot of the 1980 Election. He said that people are asking for a reason to vote against President Bush but have not seen one that is big enough to flock to Senator Kerry. It was very interesting.

Originally posted by rraley
He said that people are asking for a reason to vote against President Bush but have not seen one that is big enough to flock to Senator Kerry. That's why they call that an "opinion" section. The author can say anything he wants, but that doesn't make it true. And I always find it interesting when these folks say "people want...". What people? Where? And how did they come by this information? Are we talking two people or millions of people?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
That's why they call that an "opinion" section. The author can say anything he wants, but that doesn't make it true.

I understand that an opinion is not truth and I did not want to pass it off as fact, but it was an interesting article nonetheless. I would provide a link to it, but for some reason almost every website for a newspaper in this nation now requires registration and I don't think that too many people here would like to sign up for more spam possibilities.

Polls are interesting in that they convey an overall message based upon the make-up of the questions and the subjects that are covered. This poll (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/kerry_poll_040726.html) shows Bush ahead of Kerry in most of the results.

Originally posted by rraley Also, how is the Jewitt Campaign going?
nomorehoyer.org (http://www.nomorehoyer.org)

The only poll that truly means something is the one on the first tuesday after the first Monday in November. Still, public opinion polls do an accurate job of showing the status of the nation's views.

I think that rraley is right in saying that polls accurately reflect public opinions. But, you also have to recognize that public opinions change very easily and very quickly. It takes just one mis-step, or one brief shining moment, to completely change how the public feels about anyone or anything. Look at Rudi G. before and after 9/11. He went from Satan to Saint overnight.

I do think that the folly of following polls was very well illustrated by Howard Dean's campaign. He was showing outstanding polling numbers, but when people went into the voting booth, and really thought about what they were doing, he went down the tubes. I see the same thing happening in the Presidential election. I think that a lot of people who say there are going to vote for Kerry will have second thoughts before pulling the lever.

Yes, how about them polls, Rraley...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=15&u=/ap/20040905/ap_on_el_pr/road_to270_3

And...

Both sides said the race probably would tighten after several national polls over the weekend showed Bush opening a 10-point or larger lead.

Kerry got a negative bounce... Bush got a 10 point bounce.

:wink:

why even bother writing a long and drawn out story about why Bush will win the election? The reason Bush will win the election can be summed up in two words. John Kerry.

For years I have watched this guy on TV, and always thought he was such a tool. He definately hasn't improved with age.

Yes, how about them polls, Rraley...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=15&u=/ap/20040905/ap_on_el_pr/road_to270_3

And...



Kerry got a negative bounce... Bush got a 10 point bounce.

:wink:

Ah, FromTexas, don't debate polls with me...I am the self-appointed poll man. Time and Newsweek had Kerry-Edwards with about an eight point lead after their convention; they now have Bush-Cheney with about a 10 point lead. In neither case do I believe that either candidate have such a large lead. The thing is that these polls are more prone to statistical "noise" and are too dependent upon recent events. "Tracking" polls are much more accurate reflections of the campaign. For this, I point to this Rasmussen tracking poll...http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm President Bush and Senator Kerry are tied only five days after the convention and the Republican only received about a four point bump after the convention (similiar to the three point bounce that Kerry received after his convention in the polls).

Now I am not arguing that Bush did not receive a bounce...he did. It is most evident in the individual states and especially battleground states like Michigan and Ohio; he even pushed New Jersey from solid Kerry to more of a lean Kerry state. His attribute ratings went up as did his approval rating, but the same thing happened for Kerry after the DNC. This is still 50/50 as we stand and those attribute ratings will naturally decline as the campaign goes along.

Just for a historical note, Al Gore received a very large convention bounce in 2000; in fact he was ahead 11 points in the Gallup poll on the eve of the first debate and we all know how close it ended up.

I am the self-appointed pole man.
:twitch:

:twitch:
Oh, bad, bad mistake. Sorry about that one...

Why Rasmussen? Why not Gallup? Why not who Rasmussen grabs a lot of info from..Zogby? Let us discuss polls then.

Only 2 out of 7 fitting historical polling precedents could cause a win for Kerry. The other 5 all sway to Bush. How about them apples?

Polls, smolls....

It's all going to be history in less than a month.

Kerry has had the gloves off so to speak when it comes to GW since Kerry become the Democratic front-runner months ago.

GW hasn't really gotten around to "fighting" back. I suspect that you will begin to see a lot of dirt starting to come to the surface when it comes to how fine and great Kerry's character is very soon.

Once that happens, you see the easily influenced voter turning to GW. That five percent or so is what is one Kerry's side right now....

My prediction.... GW will win by 5 points.

I have no interest in driving myself crazy watching polls. I admit, it gives me pleasure when Bush is ahead and I gnash my teeth when Kerry is ahead but it really doesn't mean anything.

The big story right now is Democrats getting all these people registered, presumably as fellow Democrats. Just because they register doesn't mean they're going to vote, so I'm not really excited about that story, either.

[QUOTE=David]"Quite frankly, I would rather read what my neighbors have to say in these forums than listen to what a few pompous, condescending asses (can I say that w/o getting banned?) at the Washington Post or New York times have to say.


Funny....I think 75% of "my neighbors in these forums" are pompous, condescending asses.

[QUOTE=David]"Quite frankly, I would rather read what my neighbors have to say in these forums than listen to what a few pompous, condescending asses (can I say that w/o getting banned?) at the Washington Post or New York times have to say.


Funny....I think 75% of "my neighbors in these forums" are pompous, condescending asses.


:brownnose :deadhorse :yeahthat:

Funny....I think 75% of "my neighbors in these forums" are pompous, condescending asses.
Then that makes us the majority, doesn't it? Or are you one of these people who thinks your opinions are right, even if you're the only person who thinks them, and everyone else is stupid?

Sounds more like you bleachedblonde

[QUOTE=David]"Quite frankly, I would rather read what my neighbors have to say in these forums than listen to what a few pompous, condescending asses (can I say that w/o getting banned?) at the Washington Post or New York times have to say.


Funny....I think 75% of "my neighbors in these forums" are pompous, condescending asses.



:killingme:

Sounds more like you bleachedblonde
At least I'm in the majority, personwitharacistusername.

:popcorn:

:snacks:


:popcorn:

At least I'm in the majority, personwitharacistusername.

Yes, but does it inult just you or retards? :confused: :shrug:

Yes, but does it inult just you or retards? :confused: :shrug:
Whelllup...if the majority think that way, then I guess THEY'RE not the retards, are they now? :really:

Think about what "abnormal" really means. :ladeedah:

<div align="center"><table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#111111" bgcolor="#C9C0A7" width="414" height="66"><tr><td background="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/little_back.gif" width="56"><img src="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/trr.gif" width="56" height="56"></td><td width="358"><font face="Impact" color="#000000" size="6">In My Opinion</font><font face="Arial" color="#000000" size="3"><i><br><b> by Trevor Bothwell</b></i></td></tr></table></div>



First, we have “the economy, stupid.” John Kerry is anti-free trade (at least currently). He wants to create 10 million more jobs by discouraging “outsourcing,” mainly by repealing the Bush administration’s provision that allows corporations to defer paying taxes on profits generated overseas, as well as the one cutting the corporate tax rate.
I'm strongly against outsourcing. Why should we pay Habbajuwaba in India $10 a day to answer a phone? :confused:

I'm strongly against outsourcing. Why should we pay Habbajuwaba in India $10 a day to answer a phone? :confused:

Because they have a better work ethic and speak better English than most Americans making that wage? :shrug: :whistle:

I'm strongly against outsourcing. Why should we pay Habbajuwaba in India $10 a day to answer a phone?
YOU'RE not paying him - the company he works for is. And he's cheaper than hiring a US person and having to match his SS/Medicare, plus give him benefits, then have to worry that he's going to sue you for discrimination when you tell him he can't say emeffer to a caller.

YOU'RE not paying him - the company he works for is. And he's cheaper than hiring a US person and having to match his SS/Medicare, plus give him benefits, then have to worry that he's going to sue you for discrimination when you tell him he can't say emeffer to a caller.
So then we get to unemployment. :ohwell:

Just one comment on outsourcing. GM found it was cheaper to close down it's plants in Flint, MI (remember Michael Moore) and move them to Canada by 30 - 40% per hour. Why? US had health insurance benefits and Canada has socialized medicine.

Right or wrong, I don't know, but it is something to consider.

...always suffer if the labor is not individual oriented.

Steel. Auto's. Mining. Dock work.

These are all jobs were technology and/or foreign, CHEAP labor make the $100,000 a year union guy a dinosauer; he's gonna become extinct. As his surroundings matured, his kid went off to school, his house got paid for, he built a retirement nest egg, it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to reorient Flint Michigan to the realities of the new state of the market.

Toyota could, however, open a brand new plant in the Middle of Nowhere, Kentucky, and hire people who thought $40,000 a year was simply great.

Buggy whip makers switched to saddles or some other craft because they were made by a person who had a special skill.

Last years dock strikes were all about shipping companies wanting to ditch jobs where, literally, guys were making $100,000 a year tracking containers...on a chalkboard. The jobs had simply matured to that point.

The largest issue we face is illegal, uncontrolled imigration. Both parties are to blame.

Jobs that can be done just as well overseas at substantially less labor cost WILL go. It is a matter of time. Either that or GM

You can't get an American, meaning one who was born here and his folks were born here etc, to cut your grass or sell you coffee for $10 an hour. So what the Democrats and Republicans do is let people into the country who will do these jobs, to satisfy constituents.

If this did not happen, or was controlled, over time eventually that coffee job or grass job would rise in value to the point where a typical American would do it.

Auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians all make good money because they have a specialized skill. Building a new car on an assembly line is not a specialized skill.

We're becoming a service economy and the jobs are gonna be in managing services and making them go. In the process hopefully we'll retain ownership of the jobs we're shipping overseas or GM can keep paying people $100,000 a year until we all drive Yugos.

I'm opposed to commercial protectionsism, meaning tariffs against automobiles and other manufactured goods, but I'm not opposed to protectionism in the form of controlling immigration to the point of balancing out our shrinking domestic labor supply and wages.