Can the Iraq War elect Kerry?

self

[dano1]

Once more this morning I turned to the Internet looking for news of the election and found nothing. It seems the Kerry campaign has settled on a strategy of maintaining a very low profile for their candidate. They are hoping, it appears, that public discontent with the war in Iraq, abetted by a constant drumbeat of negative coverage from the press, with particular emphasis on the prison scandal, will buoy their candidate into the highest office in the land. In short, they hope that the Iraq War will elect John Kerry.

Can the Iraq War elect John Kerry? It seems to me that it oughtn't be able to, although perhaps it may. Kerry's and the Democrats whole strategy rests on one fatal flaw - a carefully concealed mistaken premise which gives the lie to their whole approach.

The Achilles heel of the Democratic reasoning is simply this: even if one accepts the premise that Bush's approach to international terrorism has been in many respects flawed, there is no reason whatsoever to simply assume that John Kerry would have done a better job.  Every realistic indication in fact is that Kerry could not have done even so well as did Bush. If he want's us to think he could do better than Bush, Kerry, an unspectacular Senator at best, needs to step in front of the cameras and prove his case with evidence and arguments, and let the public decide.

Rather than face the press in open dialog, Kerry and his cohorts seem content to rest on an elysian fantasy that in "Kerry world" no errors would ever be made. Dwelling on the negative, they implicitly deride Bush for everything that has gone wrong, from failing to prevent 9/11 to failing to prevent isolated instances of prison abuse, while ignoring any Democratic culpability in the events leading up to the war, and always with the unspoken argument that no such unpleasantness could possibly have occurred under the administration of "the man behind the curtain".

Even while we see the Kerry camp grapple with relatively minor decisions, such as whether or not to accept the nomination at the convention or who should be the vice-president, we are supposed to think him a leader incapable of error while he sits safely ensconced outside of the public view.

It seems to me that if Kerry is to be beaten, this ridiculous premise of the whole Presidential campaign must be brought clearly to light. Kerry shouldn't be permitted to hide this lie under a turtle shell of negative press coverage on Iraq. We have to make it clear that, to paraphrase Mohammed Ali, Kerry can run for President, but he can't hide for President.

[goldstategop]

Al Qaeda is hoping to do that for Kerry. For them beating Bush is nearly as important as defeating the United States overseas.

[ambrose]

Al Qaeda is hoping to do that for Kerry. For them beating Bush is nearly as important as defeating the United States overseas.

No... for them, beating Bush is nearly tantamount to defeating the USA overseas.

[Joe 6-pack]

I wonder if al-qaeda realizes that Kerry served in 'nam...

[Jalapeno]

Al Qaeda is hoping to do that for Kerry. For them beating Bush is nearly as important as defeating the United States overseas.

I disagree. For AQ, we all need to die. They truly could care less who is President.

[BonnieJ]

Kerry can't hide forever. He has his convention coming up and after that more will be expected of him. Who will vote for a hidden candidate, simply because he isn't Bush? Only the fringe group he has already won over.

[pop-aye]

A pacified sheep is much easier to slaughter than a defensive bear.

I believe AQ certainly wants certainly wants the hate America groups to win control. Tis the easiest way for us to begin to destroy ourselves from within and then they can finish the job.

[Cicero]

Probably the press has distressed a lot of ordinary Americans about the Iraq situation, which they have seriously misrepresented. It certainly plays to the peaceniks, the aging hippies, and the left in general.

But in American history there is a long record of support for incumbent presidents while a war is in progress, whether or not it seems to be going well. "Don't change horses in midstream" was the mantra I remember as a little child during the Second World War.

The press has worried people about American deaths in Iraq, but I don't believe they have persuaded anyone who wasn't already persuaded that Bush is doing a bad job fighting the war. Nor has Kerry successfully portrayed himself as someone likely to do better. That's one reason why he was so desperate to draft McCain. He needs a genuine war hero in the people's mind, and he hasn't really persuaded them that he is one.

[Mike4Freedom]

No... for them, beating Bush is nearly tantamount to defeating the USA overseas.

They are going to be mighty disappointed. Kerry is not a peace candidate. He will continue the war, probably with more soldiers. His main complaint is that we went in with poor plans and not enough manpower. We will have a draft with either Bush or Kerry. We will have continued war with either Bush or Kerry.

If you want the war to end and you also want a free nation at home, there is only one choice, Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party. Anyone else and you are trying to pick the lesser of two evils and you will get an evil result.

[goldstategop]

Just the point I was making. Its easier to let your enemy do all the work for you. So I wouldn't be surprised if there was an "October Surprise" a few days before the election.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Kerry has already indicated that he will NOT pull the troops out of Iraq. His vote in FAVOR of the war makes him very little difference from Bush other than the fact he would prefer the permission of the UN. I don't buy it, and I don't believe many of the very far left believe it either.

This is why Kerry DESPERATELY wants Nader to drop out of the race. He wants to give the far left no other choice.

[Paladin2]

I was amazed when I watched one of the SeeBSNBCABCs Thursday(first time in a month or so).

They had 3 negative Bush stories and then when they outlined the rest of the broadcast (NO Kerry stories promised), I turned it off.

The media are obviously on the same (non) message.

[goldstategop]

If you're right, it won't be long before the Walter Daum types hate him as much as they hate Bush.

[Jalapeno]

I see Kerry no different than Bush in this regard. If the WTC (or some similar attack) would occur on his watch, he would react accoringly.

I'm not saying Kerry would be better than Bush on fighting these guys, in fact I believe the contrary (Bush sees there is a need for a long term approach). But to AQ Kerry is not a "pacified sheep".

I believe it is a mistake to think people in AQ percieve people like Kerry and the Left as we do....It is an assumption that this group and the Radical Islamic culture in general have similar logical thought as we do....they perceive us and the world in an entirely different way.

This is why they are such a challenge to us. Because we do not know and understand our enemy as we should. The are fundementally different from us in the way they think. They don't make the same moves we would and certainly not for the same reasons.

[TomGuy]

This is the poll that was on FoxNews today:



But, a week is a lifetime in politics. With 4 months still to go until the election, allot can happen.

Until the Dem Convention is over, I still have doubts that Kerry will head the ticket. I still have doubts Hillary won't be on the ticket. I still have doubts about the GWB team's seeming lack of PR strategy that allows Abu Ghraib (a molehill of a dozen malcontents) to take centerstage for weeks upon weeks.

If thing go awry in Iraq, GWB will be blamed. If another significant terrorist attack happens on US soil, it's a toss up of who the electorate will trust.

The media right now is Kerry's best friend by keeping him off the TV screens, except for brief, carefully selected newsbits. The more of Kerry that is seen/known, the lower his numbers go. In his case, less is definitely more.

And remember Hillary's omen about an October surprise. Hillary may lie about her namesake and about Chelsae jogging around the towers, but her omen is unsettling. She has the keys to the full Clinton political machine---and that is powerful, don't think for a moment it isn't.

[Jalapeno]

This is why Kerry DESPERATELY wants Nader to drop out of the race. He wants to give the far left no other choice.

Don't count Cobb out. He is quite popular in California, and will now get more recognition due to the Green endorsement. I think he is a dark horse in this for the Left.

[ZOOKER]

If Al Queda thinks they can sway the election with terrorist acts inside the US (like the Spanish railway bombings) they are sadly mistaken IMO.

Such an attack would trigger a landslide for Bush and bury any candidate who is seen as "soft on terrorism".

OTOH, attacks on coalition troops and sympathizers in Iraq, staged atrocities by US soldiers, etc. which the media can exploit as "deepening the quagmire" in the ME can hurt Bush and might affect the outcome.

I think the towelheads are bright enough to know that overseas attacks are most effective - we pulled out of Beirut and Mogadishu after they bloodied our noses.

Attacks on US soil create a groundswell of righteous outrage that will get you invaded or carpet-bombed (or both).

[dano1]

Al Qaeda is hoping to do that for Kerry.

I agree. I don't think all the negative coverage such as on the prison scandals has been lost on the terrorist. We remember a prisoner who is forced to wear women's underwear and forget the invasion of Kuwait.

[dano1]

Kerry has already indicated that he will NOT pull the troops out of Iraq

Kerry's inconsistencies might be one reason for this low profile strategy the Dems seem to have adopted.

[Wolfstar]

Who will vote for a hidden candidate, simply because he isn't Bush?

Don't kid yourself. Tens of millions will vote for Kerry for one reason only: he is the DEMOCRAT nominee. He doesn't have to do or be anything else. All he needs is that 'D' after his name (and that's IS no matter how Clintonites define the word). And it wouldn't matter whatsoever to these people who the Republican nominee was.