Friday, October 22, 2004
IF KERRY LOSES
By Stockton
As the Presidential race concludes, you may see some serious posts on LB in '04. For despite our mirth, this is the most significant election of our lifetime. That cliche is misused every election year and this might be the first year since I was eligible to vote that it's accurate. Did anyone really think a Dole Presidency in '96 would have been a calamity? A Dukakis Presidency? The result now could be.
If Kerry loses this election, please, lets forgo the recriminations. As Democrats, it may be difficult, but no recrimination is deserved.
Has Kerry run a perfect campaign? No. Does anyone run a perfect campaign? No. Has Bush made mistakes? Yes. Has Kerry? Yes. Could I ask more questions? Yes? In theory, two candidates could run perfect campaigns, hit all the high notes, and one will still suffer defeat.
The fact of the matter is, the campaigns are probably where they would have been without any Swift Boat lies or Bush's horrendous debate performance. That is, extremely close. Bush's strength lies with those who view him as a "good christian" and a "firm, resolute" leader. Those people cannot be swayed because they are inoculated against reason. Kerry's base lies with die hard Democrats and anti-Bush people. They cannot be swayed because reason has them in its grips. The undecideds? I don't who or how someone can be undecided. Secretly, I think there are less undecideds than the polls indicate. Some take a perverse pride in declaring themselves independent or undecided. As if those two positions occupy some moral high ground. Get off the high ground, join the fray. Don't be mere witnesses!
No candidate is ideal. Each of the major Democratic candidates would be in Kerry's position right now, give or take a state or two. Each had their strengths and weaknesses. Each would have benefited from the "Bush is a miserable failure" feeling among many people. Each would benefit from the bitter aftertaste of 2000.
Gephardt
Gephardt is probably the candidate most interchangeable with Kerry. Both are men with years of experience, neither has any real ethical baggage. Their resumes are impressive. Gephardt would have suffered for being something of a retread candidate, a man that had been around forever. Ironically, many believed Kerry and Gephardt would be pounded as "Washington Insiders." That attack never really flew because the Bush people began touting foreign policy experience (did the choice of Edwards take the Washington Insider theme off the table?). Gephardt could also give a damn fine stump speech. But, just where are his eyebrows?
Edwards
Yes, Edwards was charismatic, with boyish (Stockton-like) good looks, but he would have been hammered by BC-04 and the media on the gravitas issue. Fair or not, it would have happened. So, which is better, gravitas or charisma? This year, gravitas.
Edwards may have played better in the south. But, would playing better in the south translate into wins? Doubtful. Maybe Arkansas. But, would he have played well in NH or WI or PA. I dont' know, but chances are he would have had his shortcomings somewhere. Edwards has a future (perhaps as the lead in The Music Man), but I question whether he would have survived the constant "foreign policy gravitas" barrage from the media and talking heads.
Dean
I began 2003 very interested in a Dean candidacy (ask Tweed). Dean turned me off fairly quickly (as someone said, he reminded women of their first husband). He turned on many, however, and did energize the party. I shudder to think what Rove would have done with the "scream". Imagine the campaign commercials? Ugly. Yes, the "scream" was shamelessly replayed by the media. Still, a campaign that could try and portray a war hero as a traitor and a draft dodging junkie as a war hero would have gotten a lot of mileage out of the "scream". Is it right? No, just a reality.
Dean would also have suffered from a "lack of foreign policy" attacks, much like Edwards. Assuming the accuracy of some state polls, Dean would not be within striking distance in VA, NC, or WV right now. Conversely, I feel that with Dean as the candidate, MN, WI, & OR would never have been considered battle-grounds.
Clark
I can't say much about Clarke. In debates, he was weak. His stump speeches did end up sounding pretty damn good towards the end of the primaries. I think there was some raw material there to work with, just not enough time. He's the biggest question mark in my mind. It could have been a brilliant victory. It could have been a major defeat.
Lieberman
Anyone who seriously utters the word 'Joe-mentum' is not qualified to be President.
So, I question those who will say "Dean would have been better....Clarke would have been better...Gephardt would have been better." I don't see it. I don't see any significant change in where we are today if another nominee had been selected. Those who once thought only Dean could galvanize new voters are those same people highlighting new voter registration. Those who believed Dean's courageous anti-war stance would somehow be unpopular are witnessing a growing tide of people disillusioned with our foreign adventure. Those who thought Gephardt would be tarred with the "Insider" label are seeing an insider on the brink of bringing down Bush.
In the end, Dean, Gephardt, Edwards, Clarke would likely be within striking distance of Bush. Each would have stood as viable alternatives to Bush. Each would have faced the Rovian juggernaut of lies and deceit. So, in one sense, Kerry is not as important as what he, or any other Democratic candidate embodies, a rational alternative to Bush.
But, John Kerry has risen to the occasion. John Kerry has stepped up. John Kerry has endured a massive assault on his courage and his convictions. John Kerry has had to watch as a Man-Child questioned his metal and his medals. Kerry has been on a relentless pace that must be physically and emotionally exhausting. Kerry is out there, pounded by nasty attacks and under a biased media microscope.
Kerry is fighting for us as much as we are for him. If he has to fall, he will fall fighting what may be the most disasterous presidency in history. Lets not, with perfect hindsight, critically deconstruct everything the man has done in the past three months. We deserve better than Bush and John Kerry deserves better than that.
|
By Stockton
As the Presidential race concludes, you may see some serious posts on LB in '04. For despite our mirth, this is the most significant election of our lifetime. That cliche is misused every election year and this might be the first year since I was eligible to vote that it's accurate. Did anyone really think a Dole Presidency in '96 would have been a calamity? A Dukakis Presidency? The result now could be.
If Kerry loses this election, please, lets forgo the recriminations. As Democrats, it may be difficult, but no recrimination is deserved.
Has Kerry run a perfect campaign? No. Does anyone run a perfect campaign? No. Has Bush made mistakes? Yes. Has Kerry? Yes. Could I ask more questions? Yes? In theory, two candidates could run perfect campaigns, hit all the high notes, and one will still suffer defeat.
The fact of the matter is, the campaigns are probably where they would have been without any Swift Boat lies or Bush's horrendous debate performance. That is, extremely close. Bush's strength lies with those who view him as a "good christian" and a "firm, resolute" leader. Those people cannot be swayed because they are inoculated against reason. Kerry's base lies with die hard Democrats and anti-Bush people. They cannot be swayed because reason has them in its grips. The undecideds? I don't who or how someone can be undecided. Secretly, I think there are less undecideds than the polls indicate. Some take a perverse pride in declaring themselves independent or undecided. As if those two positions occupy some moral high ground. Get off the high ground, join the fray. Don't be mere witnesses!
No candidate is ideal. Each of the major Democratic candidates would be in Kerry's position right now, give or take a state or two. Each had their strengths and weaknesses. Each would have benefited from the "Bush is a miserable failure" feeling among many people. Each would benefit from the bitter aftertaste of 2000.
Gephardt
Gephardt is probably the candidate most interchangeable with Kerry. Both are men with years of experience, neither has any real ethical baggage. Their resumes are impressive. Gephardt would have suffered for being something of a retread candidate, a man that had been around forever. Ironically, many believed Kerry and Gephardt would be pounded as "Washington Insiders." That attack never really flew because the Bush people began touting foreign policy experience (did the choice of Edwards take the Washington Insider theme off the table?). Gephardt could also give a damn fine stump speech. But, just where are his eyebrows?
Edwards
Yes, Edwards was charismatic, with boyish (Stockton-like) good looks, but he would have been hammered by BC-04 and the media on the gravitas issue. Fair or not, it would have happened. So, which is better, gravitas or charisma? This year, gravitas.
Edwards may have played better in the south. But, would playing better in the south translate into wins? Doubtful. Maybe Arkansas. But, would he have played well in NH or WI or PA. I dont' know, but chances are he would have had his shortcomings somewhere. Edwards has a future (perhaps as the lead in The Music Man), but I question whether he would have survived the constant "foreign policy gravitas" barrage from the media and talking heads.
Dean
I began 2003 very interested in a Dean candidacy (ask Tweed). Dean turned me off fairly quickly (as someone said, he reminded women of their first husband). He turned on many, however, and did energize the party. I shudder to think what Rove would have done with the "scream". Imagine the campaign commercials? Ugly. Yes, the "scream" was shamelessly replayed by the media. Still, a campaign that could try and portray a war hero as a traitor and a draft dodging junkie as a war hero would have gotten a lot of mileage out of the "scream". Is it right? No, just a reality.
Dean would also have suffered from a "lack of foreign policy" attacks, much like Edwards. Assuming the accuracy of some state polls, Dean would not be within striking distance in VA, NC, or WV right now. Conversely, I feel that with Dean as the candidate, MN, WI, & OR would never have been considered battle-grounds.
Clark
I can't say much about Clarke. In debates, he was weak. His stump speeches did end up sounding pretty damn good towards the end of the primaries. I think there was some raw material there to work with, just not enough time. He's the biggest question mark in my mind. It could have been a brilliant victory. It could have been a major defeat.
Lieberman
Anyone who seriously utters the word 'Joe-mentum' is not qualified to be President.
So, I question those who will say "Dean would have been better....Clarke would have been better...Gephardt would have been better." I don't see it. I don't see any significant change in where we are today if another nominee had been selected. Those who once thought only Dean could galvanize new voters are those same people highlighting new voter registration. Those who believed Dean's courageous anti-war stance would somehow be unpopular are witnessing a growing tide of people disillusioned with our foreign adventure. Those who thought Gephardt would be tarred with the "Insider" label are seeing an insider on the brink of bringing down Bush.
In the end, Dean, Gephardt, Edwards, Clarke would likely be within striking distance of Bush. Each would have stood as viable alternatives to Bush. Each would have faced the Rovian juggernaut of lies and deceit. So, in one sense, Kerry is not as important as what he, or any other Democratic candidate embodies, a rational alternative to Bush.
But, John Kerry has risen to the occasion. John Kerry has stepped up. John Kerry has endured a massive assault on his courage and his convictions. John Kerry has had to watch as a Man-Child questioned his metal and his medals. Kerry has been on a relentless pace that must be physically and emotionally exhausting. Kerry is out there, pounded by nasty attacks and under a biased media microscope.
Kerry is fighting for us as much as we are for him. If he has to fall, he will fall fighting what may be the most disasterous presidency in history. Lets not, with perfect hindsight, critically deconstruct everything the man has done in the past three months. We deserve better than Bush and John Kerry deserves better than that.
