October 19, 2004

SASSO, SHRUM, AND PRAY FOR SPAIN:

DRAFTS AND DYKES: Kerry’s scare tactics: Who pays the price? (Russ Smith, 10/19/04, NY Press)

IN THE EVENT John Kerry is elected president on Nov. 2—or in the weeks to follow—it may not be immediately revealed which one of his countless advisers suggested he allude to Mary Cheney's homosexuality in the final debate a week ago. A victory washes away all the goofs any candidate, especially a national one, inevitably commits during a protracted campaign. However, if Kerry's rep as an indomitable "closer" falls short, the fingers will be pointing in all directions.

Who authorized, for example, the media photo-op showing Kerry windsurfing or riding an $8000 bicycle, at a time when the patrician was trying desperately to prove that he's a champion of the middle class, a hunter and former farmhand who milked the cows each morning? And the insistence of the Kerry team to base his qualifications for commander-in-chief on his service in Vietnam, which induced narcolepsy among those living in the 21st century and outrage from some vets, is bound to become the subject of a lucrative tell-all book. As is the selection of lightweight John Edwards as Kerry's running mate, a politician with limited experience (who probably won't even carry his home state for the Democrats).

Edwards forced his way onto the ticket by sheer persistence. Although Kerry didn't like the son of a mill worker very much, the media's spin that the North Carolinian possessed more charisma than any pol since Bill Clinton and John McCain—despite the fact that Edwards was trounced by Kerry in the primaries—he gave into pressure against his better instincts. Does anyone believe that Dick Gephardt or Evan Bayh would've said, as Edwards did on the Oct. 4 Nightline, "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind"? That kind of sweet talk isn't likely to ingratiate legitimately undecided voters: Is John-John suggesting that once he and Kerry take the White House they'll hunt down Bush voters and send them off to an undisclosed loony bin? Oh, probably not, just another example of Edwards' effort to appear like a rough and tough guy.

More egregiously, last week in Newton, Iowa, Elmer Gantry Edwards exploited the death of Kerry's friend Christopher Reeve, saying, "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." Pass the snake oil, votive candles and voodoo dolls and say amen, Brother John!


We're just waiting for the book that explains how the Democrats reached the point where they could convince themselves thot John Kerry was their most electable candidate.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 19, 2004 4:05 PM
Comments

If Bush's voter approval ratings are over 50%, he wins. Historically, it is very very difficult for a candidate to beat an incumbent President. Add to that a sitting senator from liberal Massachusetts.

Posted by: pchuck at October 19, 2004 4:17 PM

Write it.

Posted by: Matt C at October 19, 2004 4:52 PM

Democrats reached the point in Iowa, when Kerry won the primary there.

Posted by: AllenS at October 19, 2004 4:55 PM

Perhaps the right approach is through a periphrasis. John Kerry is not the Democrats' "most electable" candidate; he is their least unelectable candidate.

A formulation with which I am not disinclined to agree.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at October 19, 2004 4:57 PM

Ever since Mondale's "I'll raise your taxes" speech in 1984,the Democratic Party has been running candidates who try to mask their beliefs as much as possible. As of now, Clinton is the only one who has succeeded in carrying out the strategy to fruition; the problem for the Democrats back in January is too many of those in Iowa and New Hampshire knew Howard Dean wasn't going to go by that playbook, and looked to whichever candidate they thought would use the normal election year strategy.

In their minds, Kerry's Vietnam service in a time of war was a bouns add-on in the "who can best bamboozle the electorate" sweepstakes, and it carried him over the finish line. Their mistake was thinking the senator's post-war activites could be bottled up for 10 months by the national media, given the new soruces of information available nowadays.

Posted by: John at October 19, 2004 5:27 PM

Clinton didn't have any beliefs except in his own perfection. His term in office was a model of skilled opportunism.

Kerry got elected because the Democrats are not a party with a single unifying idea but a group of single-issue constituencies. You have to collect their approval like Easter eggs so you take a series of positions which taken together make you virtually unelectable. When money from the gay lobby is essential to your campaign effort, how can you take a position on gay marriage consistent with the overwhelming majority of Americans? When you are dependent upon contributions from public employee unions, how can you support tax cuts? When you are dependent for votes on the welfare-subsidized minority underclass, how can you oppose racial quotas and support tax cuts? When you need free publicity from the professionl America haters in academia, Hollywood and the media, how can you support a level of force projection with which Americans are comfortable?

Kerry had no great accomplishments which made him no great enemies. He opposed teacher tenure for a while and then the AFT and NEA put the electrodes to his miniscule genitalia and he flip-flopped. He supported NAFTA which alienated what's left of private sector union workers, but they didn't go to Swiss boarding schools so he could treat them as 'unclean.' Since gays, media types and welfare recipients don't care about working Americans, he could jettison the private sector union vote easily.

Posted by: Bart at October 19, 2004 7:02 PM

Kerry was the most nominatable candidate who was the least likely to cause either an open revolt in the party ( a real pro-war candidate like Joe Liberman) or a complete electoral disaster (Dennis Kusinich).

After that the mouth of hel was open wide.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 19, 2004 9:15 PM

They should have nominated Dean.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 19, 2004 10:10 PM
« GOOD AND SCIENCE ARE ALWAYS AT WAR: | Main | IT SELLS IN EUROPE: »