Friday, November 19, 2004
The Opportunist
The snorting righties pretty much all make the same point -- that Kerry is grasping at an explanation that does not reflect poorly on his candidacy or his character. They are probably right, in that any excuse that preserves his viability in 2008 is probably just fine with Kerry.
Nobody has observed, though, that Kerry's comments hurt the interests of the United States and all democracies opposed to al Qaeda. Whatever might be said of bin Laden's purposes in releasing the tape just before the American election, it is hard not to believe that at least one of his objectives was to promote the impression that he could influence America's vote just as al Qaeda tipped Spain's. Indeed, the timing alone accomplished bin Laden's purpose -- we do not have to know which candidate bin Laden actually favored for him to claim credit for influencing the outcome, since each candidate essentially argued that he favored the other.
Kerry, in whining that bin Laden's tape cost him the election, is reinforcing the worldwide impression that bin Laden can and will determine the fate of western governments. He has increased bin Laden's stature for no reason other than to deflect the blame for his own defeat. It does not matter in the least that he is probably right.
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Nov 19, 10:52:00 PM:
Tigerhawk, I think that you're the whiner here. You and members of the righty blogosphere basically chastise anything the Democrats do as whining, which means either you're counter-whining or you're just being nasty (which isn't like you), which the righty blogosphere is good at (even though they are wont to castigate the lefty blogosphere for the same character traits that they show). Bottom line is that when the tape surfaced, it had to have an effect on swing voters who wanted to stay the course and back a war-time president. There's nothing novel about that, is there?
Now, I would prefer to see better candidates from both parties in 2008, a McCain from the Republicans and say a middle-of-the-road Democratic governor, but I doubt that will happen.
While you're at it, can the hawkish libertarian defend the House Republicans' shenanigans regarding Tom DeLay (it's ironic that the same group that just lightened up the ethic standards for DeLay was the same group that heightened them for Bill Clinton)? Or Rick Santorum's dinging his home school district for about $100k for cyberschooling his kids, when it may be that he didn't have residence in the district?
Enquiring minds want to know.
The Centrist
By 
TigerHawk, at
Sat Nov 20, 07:39:00 AM:
OK, Centrist, fair enough. I don't like anything about Rick Santorum, except that he randomly votes for things that I support. Frankly, I don't like Tom Delay much, either. I do not care enough about the insider machinations in Congress to have learned the fireside equities in this case, but it does seem to me even if his prosecution in Texas is a sham, so was his intra-census redistricting gambit, which may be lawful but which opens the door to yet more litigation, rather than voting, in our democracy. Broadly speaking, you will see very little discussion of Congress on this blog. I am just not interested in what these 535 ambitious politicians do or say at any given moment. There are many outrageous legislators on both sides who do or say outrageous things, and tallying up the outrages and swatting them back and forth is not what this blog is about.
As for your accusation that it is I who am whining rather than John Kerry, I respectfully disagree. Indeed, I carefully distinguished my criticism of Kerry from other righty bloggers. My point is not that Kerry is a "loser," which is the broad thrust of most of the conservative response to his complaint about the OBL tape. My point is that in making his claim that OBL's tape was decisive in the election, he is enhancing bin Laden's prestige for the purpose of advancing his own political career. This is true even -- indeed, especially -- if he is correct that the OBL tape did affect the election.
So: I am not whining about Kerry's excuse-making per se -- if he wanted to blame the election on the Swifties being lying weasels, or Bush duping all the Christians, or anything else along those lines, I'd probably agree with him. But by crediting OBL with turning the tide, he is conferring prestige and credibility on our enemy. Is there really any doubt about that?
By , at
Sat Nov 20, 06:39:00 PM:
It seems a tad far-fetched to blame failing to win enough EVs on Bin Laden. If anything, Osama surfacing just before the election emphasized for the left Bush's "rush into Iraq" and failure to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora. It could've easily been spun into supporting the "wrong war" mantra. The right could claim Bush would've crushed Kerry if not for the bogus CBS/Rathergate thing, MoveOn, and the host of other hate-mongering.
Blaming losing on that tape ignores all the other issues folks voted, foremost (apparently) Gay Marriage. How reliable the polling is on voter preference is anyone's guess, but Kerry just failed to get the job done. Sooner or later the left is going to figure out that the stern, self-righteous, santimonious finger wagger doesn't resonate with the "people".
It wouldn't surprise a lot of people if Bush started drooling when he speaks extemporaneously, but people like him (I think) because they see the flaws and everyman in him, and they feel he's been his word. Personally, I like that too. Kerry and Gore (two peas in a pod) are the kind of guys you wanted to put the knuckles to growing up, and still do.
In fact, I think Kerry is so bad that I hope he DOES run in 2008, but it's highly unlikely. Clinton's husband wants her turn. But she lacks even half of Bill's charisma. Whether she could ride his as having a former president as "First Man" will remain to be seen. As for McCain, he isn't going to get the call for the Republicans.
Either way, I'm looking for candidates that speak to the real issues. I also hope Bush tackles social security, and for selfish reasons, opens up Cuba again.
By , at
Sat Nov 20, 06:41:00 PM:
It seems a tad far-fetched to blame failing to win enough EVs on Bin Laden. If anything, Osama surfacing just before the election emphasized for the left Bush's "rush into Iraq" and failure to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora. It could've easily been spun into supporting the "wrong war" mantra. The right could claim Bush would've crushed Kerry if not for the bogus CBS/Rathergate thing, MoveOn, and the host of other hate-mongering.
Blaming losing on that tape ignores all the other issues folks voted, foremost (apparently) Gay Marriage. How reliable the polling is on voter preference is anyone's guess, but Kerry just failed to get the job done. Sooner or later the left is going to figure out that the stern, self-righteous, santimonious finger wagger doesn't resonate with the "people".
It wouldn't surprise a lot of people if Bush started drooling when he speaks extemporaneously, but people like him (I think) because they see the flaws and everyman in him, and they feel he's been his word. Personally, I like that too. Kerry and Gore (two peas in a pod) are the kind of guys you wanted to put the knuckles to growing up, and still do.
In fact, I think Kerry is so bad that I hope he DOES run in 2008, but it's highly unlikely. Clinton's husband wants her turn. But she lacks even half of Bill's charisma. Whether she could ride his as having a former president as "First Man" will remain to be seen. As for McCain, he isn't going to get the call for the Republicans.
Either way, I'm looking for candidates that speak to the real issues. I also hope Bush tackles social security, and for selfish reasons, opens up Cuba again.
