Posted on 05/25/2004 3:58:36 AM PDT by VanZant
My Big Theory
So many pros thought that Howard Dean was going to be the guy. How could they have been so off?
What if they weren't off? Howard would have been the guy had the media not given him an avalanche of nasty coverage on the eve of the Iowa Caucuses.
Here's my big theory: Dean was the victim of that high-tech hit in Iowa because the media had learned of the Abu Ghraib scandal. Once they learned about the existence of the pictures, they actively took Dean down and puffed up Kerry. John Forbes Kerry, an unthinkable national candidate, was given the nomination because the media understood that his antiwar (often anti-soldier) activism during the Vietnam Era would be downgraded in importance due to the prison scandal.
The Right was scoring points saying that Kerry had slandered his fellow soldiers. Now with the torture photos, that charge is less potent. Kerry's implicit argument is, "Given Abu Ghraib, was I lying about all that stuff when I spoke in front of the Fulbright Committee?" The Abu Ghraib stuff is totally aberrant, but the Left has decided to tar all American soldiers with it. Kerry benefits immeasurably from that. The media's concentration on Abu Ghraib and their extraordinary and inflammatory decision to run the photos has sucked all the oxygen out of the air.
The media understood shortly after the end of "major combat" that the WMD wasn't likely to be found. They also understood that Bush could weather that because the American people were reassured that Saddam was a bad guy and that we had done a good thing in liberating Iraq and shutting down the torture chambers.
The ascendancy of Howard Dean was because the Left was less concerned with winning (mostly because they believed they couldn't) and more concerned with making a point. Once the media discovered the Abu Ghraib pictures, they knew the antiwar case could be strengthened and public opinion toward Dubya and the War would be much more negative.
It's interesting that Bush had weathered all that the media had thrown at him-- O’NEILL, Wilson, the 9-11 Commission, Clarke and televised chaos in Iraq. The media-- especially old hands like Rather and Hewitt-- knew that Bush was hanging in there because of the reflective glow of the troops. Since 9-11, Americans (save a few nutsy far leftists) have been uniformly in awe of the bravery and decency of our troops. They were the FDNY now and they were in places God had forgotten putting their lives on the line for us. Rather et al understood that their negatives had to be driven up so that Bush's poll ratings would go down--Abu Ghraib was absolute deliverance for the Left in this Country.
The media has replaced Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch with Charles Graner and Lynndie England.
Kerry's laughably Vietcentric campaign has been a joyride for the Left. It's as if Nixon's enemies list has reconstituted itself for one last destructive hurrah. Who was surprised when Sy "Mai Lai" Hersh was tasked to be the guy in the print media to run with Abu Ghraib? No one.
The same people are back -- Woodward, Bernstein, John Dean, Kerry, Hersh. What if America can't afford the contributions of these vessels of 180 proof narcissism in an age of global terror?
The people who always wring their hands about blowback seem fantastically naive about Iraq.
The Vietcong never wanted to come to America, the jihadists do and can. The notion that we can lose in Iraq and not feel it at home is total fiction.
Another myth that the Left likes to peddle --that they care about the safety of the troops more than anyone-- is dead and all Americans should recognize it. How could they care and simultaneously make Abu Ghraib into what they have? The truth is, and some like Gary Kamiya and Michael Moore have admitted it, that every death that has happened in Iraq (especially those that occurred after May 1, 2003 when the President landed on the aircraft carrier) have been welcome and useful to them.
Can America win when a nontrivial number of Americans, with disproportionate political and social power, want more than anything for America to lose in Iraq so they can unseat Bush?
Bush should not just go after the Baathist holdouts, he should go on the offensive against the Leftist holdouts. If he doesn’t, America will leave Iraq in disgrace and he will return to Texas a haunted failure.
I'm sure that when the Army Times published the abuse investigation story earlier in the year, many in the Pentagon knew it was eventually going to hit the mainstream media.
The news business is too highly comptetitive to successfully execute a conspiracy or sit on something. 60 Minutes aired those photos within days of getting them.
The real scandal here is all of the Senators and House Members that knew about this and chose to make is a political tool rather than address it as a human rights issue.
My point is that Kimmit announced it in a press briefing in early January. The public at large didn't really take notice, but the media did.
It's possible that the media had already seen the pictures or heard graphic details about them.
Imagine a Pentagon source telling one big time reporter on the Pentagon beat, "There are pictures all over Iraq showing GIs abusing Iraqis in one of Saddam's old prisons." Imagine a reporter getting tipped off about that in January before a single vote has been cast in the democrat primary, but the trend looks like the nomination is going to a guy who can't capitalize on it. Of course, it went like wildfire through the liberal salons of Georgetown and Manhattan. Remember a lot of Congressmen and Senators knew. Everyone just pretended like the story just broke. It has been around for a while.
What if you had known all the way back in January, O'Neill, the 9-11 Commission, Clarke and all that was just an appetizer. WHo knows, this might even be just the entree, what's for dessert? The media might be the ones to drop a bomb in October.
"If Bush loses--he will go back to Texas a haunted failure."
I disagree totally. I think both Bush and Blair knew right from the very beginning that war in Iraq could very well spell the end of their political careers, but that they felt it was so important that they simply didn't care. Think back to how it was then-- EVERYONE expected the major combat part of the war to be much harder and last longer. Even General Franks said so. (Heck, that's why the postwar planning was so imcomplete-- because the war ended 4 or 5 months before they expected it to.) I know that I personally expected anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000 American combat deaths.
Anyway, I think if Bush loses he'll go back to Texas satisfied that he did everything he could to protect and defend the U.S.. We can only do what we can do, and he stepped up to the plate when it was his time.
However, I don't for a minute think Bush will lose in November. ;)
One thing to know about the photos and another thing to know about them existing!! The scandal was known about. By the way, they had been very busy with O'Neil, Clarke and the gang. Perhaps, this was their doomsady device and they deployed it really close to the turnover date --maximizing the chance that the Iraqis could ask the US to leave and other terrible things. And this is a great time to do it. This and Zinni work very well.
Then this week the Intelligence Commission into Iraqi WMD meets and on the day of the Democrat Convention the 9-11 Commission report will come out. All of this is an anti-Bush symphony. You got to give them credit--they are good at what they do.
I said "if Bush loses."
Waht I'm saying is that if the trend continues and he loses, Kerry will not finish Iraq well. Iraq will be a total failure and devastating to Bush.
If Iraq is to suceed, Bush will have to win in Novemeber. The only way Bush avoids being that Haunted figure back in the ranch in Texas is if he wins and sees Iraq through to victory. Doesn't Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam era tell you that he is entirely comfortable with failing badly abroad and sowing dissension and doubt at home.
Kerry knows that if he pulls out quickly, Bush will be blamed for whatever Iraq becomes.
By the way, they had been cultivating Clarke for years.
And most of Woodward's conclusions were known well before his book dropped.
Chris Matthews has been spouting off about things for years-- in a way that inspired, "What the Hell is he talking about?-- that he couldn't have known without information from Clarke and Woodward.
The thing about Powell being a malcontent has been known for years and is only now being reported in a way that's not general. So the notion that media organizations don't hold information and drop it when it can do the most damage is bunk. They do it all the time.
The "Dean scream" is what really killed the Dean campaign.
The true test of the theory is whether Kerry gets either killed, or is forced to leave the field by Hillary.
If Hillary announces she's taking over, it means that the press really believes that Bush can't win in November.
I don't think, at this point, the press is aiming at Bush so much as they don't want to lose so many Senators that they end up down more than 10. That gives R's a filibuster proof majority (except you're going to need about 63 to keep guys like McCain in line.
Senators are the laziest people on earth. They get reelected every 6 years, and some of them still want to be President, even though everyone knows that you need to be a Governor to win.
A little too much tin foil being passed around in this thread - LOL.
Kerry at least has a chance of passing himself off as a moderate (very slim, I admit). Dean is an admitted liberal and would have lost in a landslide. That kind of a defeat would have spelled doom for the viability of the Democrat Party ( i.e. Hillary).
I think if sentiment turns away from President Bush enough to elect a non-starter like Kerry that will mean grave things for the future of the GOP and for the GOP Congress.
I think if Bush loses it will be an absolute repudiation of the GOP-- I think the odds of keeping the Congress are unlikely if Bush loses.
I think if Bush loses, much of the Republican agenda will have been rejected.
I think Kerry will blow it in Iraq. I think it would be a bad thing for the country. I think it would be a rejection of a muscular defense posture. I think it would move the country further to the Left.
The notion that a Bush loss is inexpensive is just so off the mark. I think it would be devastating for America.
Imagine if Reagan was up for reelection in 86 (during the Iran Contra Scandal) and he lost his second term to a Mondal like figure-- I think the Soviet Collapse wouldn't have happened. There are consequences. Imagine if Reagan had left (BTW, the GOP lost the Senate in 86, so it's possible Reagan would've lost in 86 too) in 86 a one term disgraced President-- like aI said the Wall doesn't fall down and the GOP Congress running on a return to Reaganism doesn't win.
I think Bush must win. It is catastophic if people become indifferent to his reelection.
If the President looses this November, he will return to Texas but he won't be a haunted failure. That's hyperbole on your part.
I think this is the best time for Hillary. Bush is down hard in the polls and the wind is at the back of those who wanted an nonmilitaristic response to 9-11.
No it's not hyperbole. Do you not think that Bush 41 is haunted by his loss to Clinton?
It's human nature. If the people reject you and the mission you lead is abandoned and lost and good men and women died and were maimed in vain--there is a pyshic price. That isn't hyperbole, that's life.
I have always said, that one man, as president, is not going to bring the country to its knees, no pun intended.
That being said, it is awefully disheartening to even think of being in the SURVIVAL mode. Marking time for libety and freedom. Has an interesting ring to it.
Your life maybe... but the President has spoken on this subject countless times. There's more there than political aspirations.
That's where I disagree with you. GHWB is not haunted by his loss. IMO, he threw the election and was happy to go fishin' and sky diving. That's kind of what concerns me about GWB - the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. If W looks at his watch at an inappropriate time between now and November - I'll know he wants to go back to Texas. I've never understood why any normal person would want two terms, anyway. W is sane.
I think it's simpler than that. I think even Iowa Dumbocrats knew Dean was a kook.
But Papa Bush lost in 92 and the 2 years later the GOP came back stronger than it had been in 50 years.
bush is not as conservative as Reagan. He is somewhere between his father and Reagan on the political spectrum.
You are correct on your assessment of the 86 election; a rejection of somebody with Reagan's clarity would have been devastating.
Another "positive", if you want to think of it this way, is that Hillary will probably never be president if Kerry is elected and she is not on the ticket.
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.