March 2, 2004

THE LACK OF PASSION:

The Trouble With Kerry : Your one-stop center for doubts about JFK2 (Mickey Kaus, March 1, 2004, Slate)

As a Democrat, I have two big fears about John Kerry. The first is that he'll lose. The second is that he'll win. [...]

Sometimes a president's initial rapport with the public disappears--as Jimmy Carter's arguably had by the time of his "malaise" speech, or certainly by the end of his term. But Kerry would, I think, be in the uniquely precarious position of starting his term with no particular rapport. (Contrast with John Edwards--now there's a guy who could talk his way back from a 40 percent approval rating.)

I admit, I'm allergic to Kerry. Something in the vibration of that deep, pompous tone he adopts--the lugubrious, narcissistic fake gravity--grates on me. Others, bizarrely, say they don't have this problem. But few would argue that Kerry has formed a special bond with any large group of voters other than veterans. If he wins it's likely to be because voters see him as an acceptable alternative to an unacceptable incumbent, not because he's inspired them. It doesn't help that Kerry has a tendency to play the voters for fools--letting them think he's Irish (when he's not) or letting them think he's cleaner, in the campaign contribution department, than he really is (e.g., saying he takes no PAC money but accepting unlimited "soft money" contributions to his Citizen Soldier Fund).

Or letting them think he gave up his own medals. ....

All this means is that when President Kerry gets into trouble--when his first big proposals stall in Congress, when malaise or scandal arrives--he won't necessarily have the ability to go to the public and dig himself out. He'll be through, over.


Obviously plenty of people want George W. Bush gone, but does a single person in America really want John Kerry to be their president?

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 2, 2004 11:28 AM
Comments

"special bond with any group other than veterans"

That seems like a slight overstatement of his support amongst veterans. Of course the implication is Vietnam veterans, but actually any bonding he has is with the peculiar subset of professional vietnam vets who are still wearing fatigues 35 years after the war.

Posted by: h-man at March 2, 2004 11:49 AM

does a single person in America really want John Kerry to be their president?

I can think of a few:

John F. Kerry, obviously

Theresa Heinz Kerry

Whatever bank loaned them all that money for the campaign.

Ted Kennedy

Planned Parenthood and its affiliates

Posted by: Mike Morley at March 2, 2004 12:29 PM

From what I've read most veterans don't appear to be that fond of Kerry. He seems to have the Democrat veterans in his corner but that's about it.

Posted by: AWW at March 2, 2004 12:59 PM

What h-man said ... in spades.

Posted by: Genecis at March 2, 2004 9:59 PM

Listening to Howard Stern this morning (yes Martha, I am sorry to admit) who, in laying all the fault of his FCC troubles on George Bush, proceeded to call JFK2 "Herman Munster".

Pretty rough when you realize the your alternative to a moron is a charicature.

Your 2004 Presidential Prognostication: Larry, Curly, and Mo.

Posted by: john at March 3, 2004 9:31 AM

The most interesting point in Kaus's essay was that if Kerry does win, he would start out where Jimmy Carter was in 1980, with very few friends in his own party, a weak reputation in the nation at large, and no accomplishments or foundation for his record. And while Kaus didn't say it, there would be a huge shadow looming over him at the other end of PA Ave.

Remember back in 2001, prior to 9/11, when John McCain typically got more press than Bush? If Kerry wants to win, he should probably make Hillary ambassador to the rocks on Mars.

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 3, 2004 9:43 AM
« 60-40 VISION FILE: | Main | THE SANDALISTA SENATOR (via Reductio ad Absurdum): »