In yesterday’s New York Daily News, Zev Chafets wrote the following:

It is possible that no Democrat could beat Bush this year….despite the polls, I don't think this election will be close, and this time the Democratic establishment won't be able to blame the Supreme Court…. John Kerry is not a bad man. He probably wouldn't make a bad President. But he is a bad candidate in a terrible situation. He represents the wing of the Democratic Party that is imbued with a sense of its own moral, intellectual, cultural and social superiority. In short, he is the standard bearer for the unbearable….

My friend in Kansas predicts a big Bush win, too. In fact, he predicts that Kerry will only carry the District of Columbia, with the rest of the nation going to Bush. I like the sound of that, but I’m not as optimistic. I think Kerry will sweep some of New England. I think he’ll also get New York and California. I think Californians will vote for him for the same reasons they elected Arnold: One, Californians like to “throw the bum out.” Two, Californians like the glamorous candidate. I think Bush will carry Florida, though. A lot of liberals seem to think that only other liberals were energized by the debacle of the 2000 presidential election. That’s not the case. I think Florida conservatives will vote for Bush in droves.

Some of this I’m right about, some of it I’m wrong about, and we’ll find out on election day.

Although I’m not ready to predict a Bush sweep in November, I do expect a decisive win, and I agree with Chafets that the far-left elitists in the Democratic party are grooming their boy for disaster. For one thing, he’s made a list of promises that is absurd. And, the more I watch the campaign, the more I become convinced that the elites really believe that those promise are valid and will be kept. They seem to really believe that getting rid of Dubya is the answer to all their prayers, and that if Kerry is elected, the world will turn into a magic land of sunshine for minorities, women, peaceniks, hippies, artists and ketchup heiresses everywhere. As Penn and Teller might say, bu!!s#it.

From CNN:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday he would have handled news of the al Qaeda attacks on New York and the Pentagon differently than did President Bush.

Bush was told of the suicide hijackings while he was in a Florida school classroom.

"Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to -- and I would have attended to it," Kerry told the Unity conference of minority journalists in response to a question about what he would done.”

Who’s handling the Kerry campaign now, Michael Moore? From what I’ve heard, the seven minutes Bush spent reading to those children was a major point of Moore’s anti-Bush movie. I think that’s why Kerry responded the way he did. And I think that if Kerry had anything real to offer the voters, he’d have answered the question differently. He’d have said something like ”Look, quibbling about how the President spent seven minutes of the worst day in national history is splitting hairs. I’m not going to dignify that kind of partisan distraction. I’m campaigning on real issues and I have real ideas.”

Of course, Kerry doesn’t have real ideas. That’s why the elites handling his campaign are ready to split hairs. They think that the box office take of Moore’s film translates into movie goers who are ready to vote their way. I think they’re wrong.

From MSNBC:

In Washington, Kerry spoke to minority journalists at their quadrennial Unity convention. He was "warmly accepted throughout his speech and he drew big applause with his comments about the lack of minority journalists and ownership of television stations and newspapers," MSNBC.com's Darrell Bowling reported. "He says when he's president he would make sure to bring in an FCC chairman who would fight to increase minority ownership of broadcast outlets."

Who at the Kerry campaign thinks this is going to play in the heartland? Do they think that NASCAR dads (full disclosure: I am one) and the other people who work 40 hour weeks in the fly-over states really care about the owners of broadcast outlets? For starters, we see most of them as liberal. Secondly, any idiot can put two and two together and equate “media owner” with “wealthy liberal.” Most of us in the heartland hear a remark like that as Kerry promising to make more opportunities for minorities to become wealthy liberals like he is.

Besides, if you mention the FCC to most Americans these days, they’ll probably be more curious about what the Commission has done about Janet Jackson’s nipple than what it’s done for elite journalists, minority or otherwise.

The Kerry campaign is digging it’s own hole, folks. I don’t know how deep it’s going to end up being, but it seems pretty clear that it’s going to be just deep enough.