Is John Kerry Being Unfairly Criticized?
Jonathan Last at The Weekly Standard seems to think so. (Hat Tip: The Power Line) But I must disagree.
Specifically, I disagree with this:
Add to it that John Kerry was a bad candidate for an even more fundamental reason: He was all over the place. (I mentioned this once to a Democratic canvasser who came to my door--and she admitted that what I said of Kerry was true.) Never once did he articulate a clear and consistent vision, moral or otherwise, about anything.
It will never be enough to "avoid the extreme left"--and as I've said before, "extremism" by itself isn't a vice--it's what you're extreme about that might be vicious. You need a clear and consistent position--or if you have changed your mind, you need to have the moxie to say, "I've changed my mind; I've learned new things since I said what I said before; this is what I believe today." You do not say one thing one time and another thing another time and still insist that you've never said anything different, as Kerry repeatedly did. (The Zucker TV spot, about the bridegroom chasing the maid-of-honor and then the elderly organist at his wedding, was a priceless illustration of Kerry's fundamental problem.)
The trouble is, of course, that your position needs to be the right position. As Sean Hannity repeatedly (and Rush Limbaugh less often) reminds people, liberals cannot run consistently on their real positions, because today voters will reject those positions all the time. Will somebody please tell the worthies at MoveOn.Org that Timothy Leary is dead?
I'll tell you all what might (unfortunately) be a winning formula for a Democrat. Let's say that a prominent Democratic family had its own Theo van Gogh moment. It need not even involve a murder--just the threat of a murder by ritual beheading, especially directed at, or committed in front of, a woman.
Just as an example--and note that I don't wish this on anyone, and indeed hope that this never happens--let's say that Chelsea Clinton and her latest flame fall into the hands of an Al-Qaeda cell, who then proceed to behead the man in front of Chelsea and inform her that she is to be shipped off to Tora Bora to be Osama bin Laden's sex camel, or however they care to express it. Now assume that she gets out of that encounter alive. How would you expect Hillary Clinton to react? I will predict her reaction right now, with ninety-percent confidence: She would spend the first five minutes shaking uncontrollably with totally understandable rage. (What mother wouldn't?) Then she would call a press conference and issue a statement to this effect: "I've changed my mind; what happened to my daughter has convinced me: Kill them all!" Then you would see her introducing a resolution for a Senate Select Committee on Religious Ideals and their Consequences--or maybe she'd call it Committee on Counterintelligence, Terrorism, and Religious Fanaticism. Out of the hearings and final report from this committee, she would build a new Democratic Party platform that combined a total dedication to the secularizing of society with total war against that "religious totalitarianism" that Andrew Sullivan complained about directly after September 11.
And--chillingly--she might win. In which case we Christians would have to brush up on our fieldcraft and prepare to take to the hills, because after she got through with the Muslims, we'd be next.
The reason why this will not happen is that Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants are not that stupid. I'm not saying that they are totally not stupid--after all, their G-3 got caught literally with his pants down and possessing a laptop with secret codes contained in files readily accessible by a user with perfectly ordinary user privileges. It was the worst tradecraft violation I'd ever heard of, and I'll tell you right now--I could never have written such a stupid mistake into any story premise involving terrorism.
But you'll notice that Osama bin Laden was very careful to distinguish between Republicans and Democrats. He offered dhimmitude to any State that Kerry carried. Of course, the people weren't having any of it, so in that sense, even this was a gross miscalculation. But I don't see Osama actually sending orders to have a Senator's daughter kidnapped and her "significant other" murdered in front of her. Look at the backlash in Holland following the Van Gogh Incident, and you can be ninety-nine-percent sure that Osama is looking at it, too. (Besides, George W. Bush isn't going to let a thing like that happen to anybody on American soil.)
So the Democrats are likely to continue to sink into their "blue" funk and talk crazier all the time, until, as Hindrocket says, somebody gets killed. And they'll never live that down in the eyes of this current generation of voters.
Specifically, I disagree with this:
Granted, Kerry didn't help the party as much as he could have by jettisoning the Michael Moore wing. Had he done so, he would have done for Democrats what George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole did for Republicans in the '90s by throwing Pat Buchanan overboard.Oh, really? You could have fooled me. Because now that he's lost, the Moores, Deans, and MoveOns are back in the saddle--talking secession and even, frankly, treason. (If you can make Power Line's link to Bill Maher's list work, I congratulate you. I got tired of waiting and decided to link to John "Hindrocket" Hinderaker's excellent commentary instead.) Nor did John Kerry stop the deliberate campaign of lawn-sign theft, vandalism, and even assault-and-battery (and, in one memorable case, assault-with-intent-to-commit-murder) against Republican politicians and volunteers. (With regard to the assault-to-murder charge, may I remind all that the target was a United States congresswoman. May I also remind everyone that some of these physical attacks continue even today, along with the crazy talk of secession and worse.)But that shouldn't overshadow Kerry's very real accomplishment: He stood his ground as anti-Americanism and knee-jerk pacifism roiled the base of the Democratic party. He prevented the main body of his party from giving in to the Moores, Deans, and MoveOns of the world. And in doing so, he has given them the chance to fight again another day.
Add to it that John Kerry was a bad candidate for an even more fundamental reason: He was all over the place. (I mentioned this once to a Democratic canvasser who came to my door--and she admitted that what I said of Kerry was true.) Never once did he articulate a clear and consistent vision, moral or otherwise, about anything.
It will never be enough to "avoid the extreme left"--and as I've said before, "extremism" by itself isn't a vice--it's what you're extreme about that might be vicious. You need a clear and consistent position--or if you have changed your mind, you need to have the moxie to say, "I've changed my mind; I've learned new things since I said what I said before; this is what I believe today." You do not say one thing one time and another thing another time and still insist that you've never said anything different, as Kerry repeatedly did. (The Zucker TV spot, about the bridegroom chasing the maid-of-honor and then the elderly organist at his wedding, was a priceless illustration of Kerry's fundamental problem.)
The trouble is, of course, that your position needs to be the right position. As Sean Hannity repeatedly (and Rush Limbaugh less often) reminds people, liberals cannot run consistently on their real positions, because today voters will reject those positions all the time. Will somebody please tell the worthies at MoveOn.Org that Timothy Leary is dead?
I'll tell you all what might (unfortunately) be a winning formula for a Democrat. Let's say that a prominent Democratic family had its own Theo van Gogh moment. It need not even involve a murder--just the threat of a murder by ritual beheading, especially directed at, or committed in front of, a woman.
Just as an example--and note that I don't wish this on anyone, and indeed hope that this never happens--let's say that Chelsea Clinton and her latest flame fall into the hands of an Al-Qaeda cell, who then proceed to behead the man in front of Chelsea and inform her that she is to be shipped off to Tora Bora to be Osama bin Laden's sex camel, or however they care to express it. Now assume that she gets out of that encounter alive. How would you expect Hillary Clinton to react? I will predict her reaction right now, with ninety-percent confidence: She would spend the first five minutes shaking uncontrollably with totally understandable rage. (What mother wouldn't?) Then she would call a press conference and issue a statement to this effect: "I've changed my mind; what happened to my daughter has convinced me: Kill them all!" Then you would see her introducing a resolution for a Senate Select Committee on Religious Ideals and their Consequences--or maybe she'd call it Committee on Counterintelligence, Terrorism, and Religious Fanaticism. Out of the hearings and final report from this committee, she would build a new Democratic Party platform that combined a total dedication to the secularizing of society with total war against that "religious totalitarianism" that Andrew Sullivan complained about directly after September 11.
And--chillingly--she might win. In which case we Christians would have to brush up on our fieldcraft and prepare to take to the hills, because after she got through with the Muslims, we'd be next.
The reason why this will not happen is that Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants are not that stupid. I'm not saying that they are totally not stupid--after all, their G-3 got caught literally with his pants down and possessing a laptop with secret codes contained in files readily accessible by a user with perfectly ordinary user privileges. It was the worst tradecraft violation I'd ever heard of, and I'll tell you right now--I could never have written such a stupid mistake into any story premise involving terrorism.
But you'll notice that Osama bin Laden was very careful to distinguish between Republicans and Democrats. He offered dhimmitude to any State that Kerry carried. Of course, the people weren't having any of it, so in that sense, even this was a gross miscalculation. But I don't see Osama actually sending orders to have a Senator's daughter kidnapped and her "significant other" murdered in front of her. Look at the backlash in Holland following the Van Gogh Incident, and you can be ninety-nine-percent sure that Osama is looking at it, too. (Besides, George W. Bush isn't going to let a thing like that happen to anybody on American soil.)
So the Democrats are likely to continue to sink into their "blue" funk and talk crazier all the time, until, as Hindrocket says, somebody gets killed. And they'll never live that down in the eyes of this current generation of voters.
posted by Temlakos at 10:34 AM
<< Home