Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Here it is, all summed up in a nutshell.

Democrats nominated Kerry because he was a frickin' war hero, and they thought that would appeal to the red states.

But the people in red states think that there is no such thing as a Blue war hero. For instance, the people that reacted with utter disbelief when someone pretended that his "Battlefield:Vietnam" character was John Kerry.

So as things get progressively worse in Iraq, they progressively think that it would be too "risky" to elect Kerry. They don't see the irony there, because they still see Iraq as having something to do with 9-11, and they go on their gut feeling that Bush is a righteous man instead of the facts that prove he is a frickin' idiot that kicked over an ant bed and won't call the Orkin Man.

Kerry needs a plan.

Unfortunately, Kerry cannot use the 1964 strategy, in which incumbent Johnson managed to show that even though he was a Coca-Cola enema of a man, he was still the best choice for the Democratic base because Goldwater was worse. Kerry doesn't have that "starts a war at the drop of a hat" credibility.

And Kerry can't go 1968, because the Bush team has already started yammering about the Iraqification of Iraq. It's just that they're doing such a damned poor job of it. For instance, Ahmed Chalabi's nephew Salem -- who is a business partner of Douglas Feith -- will now be in charge of trying Saddam Hussein for his crimes. I'm sure the "street" will see that as a completely legitimate process.

Of course, Kerry could try that nonsense about having a "secret plan" to end the war, but the people and the press only let Reds get away with that.

The 1972 option is fatal. He has to actually have a plan, unlike McGovern.

Kerry is left with a nuanced, carefully considered position. That puts him right there with... well, with Adlai Stevenson.

 9:39 AM

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?