John Fornicator Kerry--no, wait, this is a picture of Teresa
Posted on 02/13/2004 10:32:04 PM PST by jmstein7
Damn. It happened again. The moment it became clear that the presumptive Democratic nominee was eminently beatable, something happened to bring the guy down. I am referring, of course, to John F. Kerry’s latest apparent effort to emulate his initial-sharer and hero. Just as the whole “Bush AWOL” story had reached its culmination point, and just as people were beginning to focus on Kerry’s treasonous post-Vietnam behavior, this had to happen.
Let’s review the story, because it’s already becoming cluttered and confused. Various internet pundits appear to be taking two different stories about possible affairs (several years apart) and fusing them into a single composite event. Kerry, recently, had an affair with a woman about whom the following things are rumoured: she’s about twenty, she worked for the Associated Press (apparently as an intern), and she’s recently left the country at the encouragement of Kerry. The relationship continued right up until he announced his candidacy for President in the fall of 2002. This is the affair which Matt Drudge was talking about in the story he broke.
Oh, yes, and reportedly there are letters from him to her. A note for future Presidential candidates: don’t send your mistress gifts, don’t write her letters, don’t leave her phone messages, and don’t have your picture taken with her.
People are confusing this story with another story about an affair that Kerry might have had earlier, in 1998 or so: which was already known about in political circles at the time of the 2000 election. This is a different story altogether and the newness, combined with the repeated pattern, makes it far more significant.
Anyone who believes that the reports of an extramarital affair by Kerry won’t sink him hasn’t been paying attention to the reason for his ascent: electability. Democrats, even those who disagree with the Senator on the issues, have been flocking to him because they believe him to be “electable”, a delusion which swept through Democratic ranks like Smallpox through an Indian settlement. However the average Democrat feels about extramarital sex (and, by all accounts, most of them are for it) it seems quite obvious to me that none of them are anxious to spend the next nine months (let alone the next four or eight years) talking about it and defending it.
The Democratic Party of 1992 knew that Clinton was a liar and a philanderer: but they didn’t know the extent. So far as they (and much of the public) were concerned the guy had an affair many years earlier- his wife had forgiven him- and he’d moved on. A quick read-through of Democratic boards and sites today find large numbers of the faithful swearing that they would do almost anything to not have to defend another Clinton. By the time the real truth of Clinton’s venality became public, they had few choices (if they wanted to save the Democratic Party) but to fight for the guy to the death. The results, however, of those eight years must now be apparent, especially to the liberal Democrats who were his staunchest defenders during the Lewinsky affair: a lost Congressional majority, declining identification with the party, no major policy achievements. In the end, the only people who truly benefited from eight years of Clintonism were Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Democratic delusions of Kerry’s ‘electability’ are little more than a strange, self-fulfilling prophecy. Iowa Democrats choose Kerry by default: he was the least offensive and objectionable candidate. A nice solid liberal, who was sold as a ‘war hero’ and who, by appearance and dullness, seemed to be a man of strong Yankee moral rectitude. Voters elsewhere, seeing Kerry’s appeal (and the first-rate free media he received) concluded that, even if they weren’t personally thrilled by the junior Senator from Massachusetts, people elsewhere apparently were, so they’d take their chances. So Kerry’s support built, like money in a Pyramid Scheme. Kerry could continue the illusion of his support, but only so long as his increasing support convinced more people to support him on the grounds that he was capable of winning. There is no compelling personal or policy reason for Kerry’s support: people are jumping on because they think that he’s electable: as soon as that myth is punctured, they’ll jump back off.
I have no idea who leaked the story: there are any number of possible suspects. I’d suggest that, in all likelihood, it was one of Kerry’s Democratic rivals. But that, of course, is far from certain. Were I Karl Rove, and in possession of this information, I’d leak it now rather than later.
Why? Easy: deniability. If this story came out a month before the election, the media would (just as the increasingly David Brock-ified Andrew Sullivan is doing now) would start screaming about “sex-crazed Republicans” and manage, probably, to use the story to rally Democrats to their standard-bearer. Whereas, now, the blame for the leak will fall on Kerry’s Democratic rivals and the people who will have to spend the most time dealing with the rumour will be Democrats. President Bush’s campaign can respond simply by smiling and expressing their confidence in the abilities and popularity of the President.
The timing and method of release are perfect as well: the story will, I suspect, take a day or so to be fully transmitted to the public. Probably it will be too late to have any noticeable effect on either the Saturday caucuses in Nevada or the Tuesday Wisconsin primary. However, as the story moves through the media it will have a more noticeable effect a week later: but the states voting will be small enough for it to inconclusive. Finally, when we get to March 2nd, the myth of Kerry’s ‘electability’ will have been fully shattered by two weeks of media coverage: it won’t be enough to kill him then and there, but it will dilute his support and eliminate the idea of the inevitability of his nomination.
Many of those Dean supporters, the ones who flipped overnight because they were convinced that Kerry could win, will go back home to the screamer. With Wesley Clark out of the race, Edwards might be able to deal a serious blow to Kerry by winning most of the states on “Southern Tuesday” (March 9th). Dean may not win many primaries, but his support will stabilize at a level which will allow him to continue amassing delegates and remain in the race.
Why, then, would Wesley Clark- who is quoted as telling people that the scandal would finish Kerry- going to endorse him tomorrow? I’ve got one guess: he thinks that Kerry will leave the race. Make sense? No, think about it: the scandal gets bad enough that Kerry has to drop out. By this time, he’s got at least five hundred or so delegates pledged to him, possibly more: where do these go? At this point Wesley Clark, the other Democrat who can be sold and packaged as ‘electable’ can re-enter the race, pick up Kerry’s delegates, and muddle things up some more.
Naturally, it is likely that exactly none of what I have outlined above will happen exactly as I have stated it. This race has been strange to date and shows every sign of getting even stranger with time.
What I can tell you is this: two words continue to float in my head, words which I think we’ll be hearing a lot of in the days and weeks ahead: “brokered convention.” If Kerry can’t score a knock out on March 2nd, then the odds are high that we’ll be heading into Boston with the nominee still uncertain.
If this is the case, there will be two people to watch: Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. Both continue, by all appearances, to be conducting strange “shadow campaigns”, seeking to remain within the public view.
As for those who will insist that such person charges “shouldn’t be a part of politics”: tough, they are. Naturally, I’m no fan of them when they go against Republicans: but that hasn’t stopped the Democrats from inventing all sorts of scurrilous lies to insult the President, so we might as well use all this while we can.
John Fornicator Kerry--no, wait, this is a picture of Teresa
oh, and once you're president, don't leave your seed on their garments.
anything I can do to help.
I had been confused there was talk about an event shopped by Lahaine that kept Kerry off of VP in 2000 and drudge was saying recent. Now I see.
Well that will be difficult since I don't expect to see Kerry tending to his duties in the Senate any time soon. What's the story with her?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.