Remember them?
Jay Clarke
Posted on 10/28/2004 9:17:38 AM PDT by Constitution Day
happy warrior Prediction City This election can't end soon enough, and it probably won't, not with thousands of Democrat lawyers circling the courthouses of selected battleground states. It's necessary for Bush not just to win, but to win big enough to compensate for the gazillions of New York residents registering to vote in Florida, and for the massed ranks of chad-diviners waiting to descend if that proves insufficient. But Bush owes us a big win anyway. A squeaker will not be good for America and it ought to prompt some serious reflection among Republicans on why the president didn't use his 80 percent approval ratings three years ago to make a serious attempt to shift the political culture. More on this anon, either in our Extra-Embittered All-Recriminations Issue or in our Now That He's Back In, We Can Start Whining and Complaining Again Special. But, as it happens, I think he'll win, and win convincingly enough. In 2000, Al Gore lost because he had no appeal to rural white men, who, despite his claims to be a Tennessee farmer, reacted to him as if he were some effete ninny from Massachusetts. Four years on, the Dems have replaced the faux effete ninny with the genuine article. Arkansas, West Virginia, and Tennessee will be sticking with Bush, and Maine's Second Congressional District will join them. Every loser spinning as he descends says he doesn't believe the polls, but it does seem to me when you look at them that there's something a little Squaresville about the whole racket. It's 9/10 polling, and I'm not sure it catches some of the shifts. For example, everyone keeps talking about New Jersey as a "solidly Democrat state," as if it were a complete mystery and aberration that it's suddenly a swinger. It's true that, in normal circumstances, New Jersey shouldn't be in play. So what's abnormal this election cycle? Well, there was that thing that happened just over the Hudson River three years ago that kinda changed the look of the skyline . . . How many New Jersey commuters to Manhattan feel reassured by Kerry on terrorism? A sliver of "9/11 Democrats" declined to support their party in the 2002 elections. Will there be more or fewer this time?
MARK STEYN
Well, consider Martin Peretz, the executive supremo of The New Republic and a big buddy of Al Gore. Four years ago, he was as chad-hungry as every other Democrat, sticking loyally by Al's side through one spurious legal move after another. Those of us who took the Bush side in the Florida re-re-re-re-re-count were swatted aside, in my case as "an ugly little article by one Mark Steyn." (Gotta love that "one Mark Steyn" business, a favorite formulation of snooty American media grandees.) Mr. Peretz was also one of those Democrats aesthetically revolted by Dubya. "George W.," he sneered, "may not know much of anything. The other night on television, the Texas governor introduced his dog to the American people, and — do you believe it? — his dog is named Spot." By contrast, Al Gore had the taste and sophistication to call his pooches "Shiloh" and "Daisy." Mr. Peretz's strange judgmentalism on canine nomenclature embodied the vicious partisanship of the day: Cry havoc and let slip the war of dogs!
But four years on the great man turns up in the Los Angeles Times with a column called "Kerry the Clueless." Clueless on what? Israel, mainly. The senator, says Peretz, is wedded to "the failed precepts of the past" and would put us on "a road map to nowhere."
If a Gore sidekick like Mr. Peretz can put aside his chad obsession and stylistic distaste for the Texas moron in favor of strategic clarity, how many other Democrats can? If a relatively tiny number of Jewish retirees feel as strongly about Kerry's cluelessness as Mr. Peretz, Florida's safe for Bush, and New Mexico could fall his way, too.
So my bet is that this year it's the Republicans who have the big tent, from the tri-state bridge-'n'-tunnel crowd to Marty Peretz to Pat Buchanan (who's just endorsed Bush in the magazine he launched to declare his disgust at him) to 24-year-old Alexandra Wolfe, daughter of Tom, who told the Sunday Times of London she'd be voting for Bush. ("If I say it out loud, it's death . . . People look at you like you are a freak. I believe in abortion and I totally believe Kerry is right on some social issues, but I just don't trust him on terrorism.")
I don't think the Hail Mary Cheney pass and promises of the crippled rising from their wheelchairs will make any difference to the likes of Miss Wolfe. And, more worrying for Kerry, those afflicted who can already rise from their sickbeds seem disinclined to do so. "Clinton Expected To Be at Fewer Kerry Events: Recuperation from Surgery Is Taking Time," reported the Washington Post. "Kerry officials had hoped that Clinton might spend some of the closing weeks of the campaign on the Democratic nominee's plane, appearing arm in arm at rallies in swing states," but apparently his physicians have ruled it "out of the question."
Hmm.
So I'm optimistic. If, when next we meet, John Kerry is president-elect, I'll look like a complete idiot.
But that will be the least of it.
Ping!!
Thank you for not needlessly excerpting a good author.
flag for later...
(being a digital subscriber helps when trying to beat St. Q)
I think Mark Steyn is right when he says Pre-9/11 poll models don't make sense. I expect a much bigger win by Bush than the polls currently indicate. I think there are a lot of died-in-the-wool Donks who are going to look at those two names, Bush and Kerry, and in the privacy of the voting booth, pick the one that is going to keep them safe.
Praise God and pass the ammunition, the battle is on.
I guarantee this: There will be no died-in-the-wool Republicans who vote for Kerry.
I don't know what the import of that one Peretz column is, because his mag has once again reverted to being an arm of the Dem campaign. I'd be surprised if Kerry is not still his man.
I think Bush would have won easy if he hadn't given tax cuts to people earning over $200,000; that, coupled with the deficit, gave the Dems a lot of fodder. So now we have another damn squeaker.
I love it.
You Rock.
Steve, put the Kool-Aid down and step away from the table.
The Bush tax cuts went to every taxpayer, including me.
And, no, I'm not making $200,000 a year. Yet. :)
I certainly hope so.
However, I am worried by the left's hatred for the President.
It's hard to gauge how many will be motivated to vote against him, rather than for Kerry.
Maybe I am putting too much credence in the amount of anti-Bush sentiment that's really out there.
I'm ready!
I don't know if you are or not, but I am also worried. There is a hysterical mob mentality developing on the left that makes me wonder what this country is going to be like 5 or 10 years down the road. People who are absolute charlatans----and obviously so----are now the darlings of a party that has simply no standards, other than the requirement that one must have no traditional morals to speak of.
Liberalism doesn't know how to make their socialist vision of utopia a reality; but they do know that they have to destroy the present society before they can start a new one.
If not the economy would be in the tank and the Dems would win in a blow out.
Why, thanks my FRiend! :)
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.