Son of Signs I Need a Life, Part II - Stories Liberals Tell Themselves

Yesterday, Jeff Fecke of Blogomodleft left a comment under my "Conservatives and Bush" piece. It contains a number of tropes, memes and urban legends that even moderately reasonable Democrats are telling themselves these days (and while Fecke is by no means moderate - no more than I am - he's relatively reasonable).

Jeff's points are presented out of order - and my apologies for superimposing Fecke's views on the entire Democrat party, but I don't think it's entirely an inapt thing:

Oh, fwiw--yes, it's a January poll, but here's your latest Quinnipiac Poll:

Kerry 51%
Bush 42%

Invincible my ass.

I have no idea how vulnerable your ass is, but I digress.

No credible pundit on the right has ever called Bush invincible - any that did more than a few weeks before the election were either hopelessly deluded or trying to move papers. I think there's an interest in the left media in portraying Republicans as thinking that - to set their guy up as an underdog, of course. But I don't know a genuine Republican who doesn't know Bush can be beaten.

That being said - I doubt Kerry's the guy to do it. Sure, he's leading in a meaningless poll today - he's had entirely favorable press for the past three weeks, the majority of the American voting public has no idea of the baggage he brings to the table (not everyone is an amateur pundit), his negatives are correspondingly low - if he weren't doing very well at this point, he'd have a lot to worry about.

But he still does. He's a Massachusetts Liberal - worse than Ted Kennedy. That's not invoking the "L" word like a bed-time story used to scare the kids; liberalism has consequences. He has a twenty-year voting record that will not play in the hinterland. He has his schizophrenic record on the war, terror, and Hussein - voting against the '91 Gulf War, but for this one - but only in a way that ensured we couldn't do the job.

He's seen as a moderate today only because Howard Dean took all the flak from the left until his recent implosion, shielding Kerry from embarassing allegations of liberalism. Without Dean to soak up the "Liberal Moonbat" accusations, who'll protect Kerry? Kucinich?

And then we get past perceptions, and get down to substantive issues - like his long record in the seventies of sucking up to Hanoi Jane Fonda. Even worse was his shameful abandonment of the POW/MIA issue in the eighties - in the interest of "normalizing" relations with a homicidal dictatorship. How will that play in Sturgis?

Badly.

And that doesn't even scratch the surface of a voting record that rivalled Paul Wellstone's for being off-the chart left.

But the surface will be scratched.

I am predicting a John Kerry victory, and I'll tell you why: Democrats are pretty much ready to vote for Satan Himself if it will get George W. Bush out of office.

Which is how Republicans approached their campaign against Clinton.

In 1996.

Unfortunately for Kerry, it's a truism of politics - you rarely win running against something - and Bush Hatred is the only issue Kerry has. He's illiterate on the War on Terror, illiterate and hypocritical on Iraq, he's peddling Ted Kennedy in a world that's looking for JFK, against a president that has - get this - been successful in one of the most difficult first terms since Lincoln's.

Meanwhile, Republicans are disenchanted with Bush, and while most will vote for GDub, few are excited about it.

"Republicans are disenchanted?" What?

All Republicans?

Or just all the Republicans the Daily Kos chooses to quote?

News for ya - I was always disenchanted with Bush. I said it the other day; I supported Forbes. I gritted my teeth at the convention. And I voted for him rather than a write-in because I figured he needed every possible vote to keep Algore out of office. Would I rather he spent less? Hell yeah!

Do I think John Kerry would spend less? Hell no. And any Republican...no, any voter that does - or worse, mistakes "Deficit reduction" for "cutting spending" (stealth talk for "tax hikes") is deluding themselves.

Fortunately, I don't think we get deluded that easily.

In 2000, the situation was reversed; the Republicans wanted desperately to end the Clinton/Gore era, while the Democrats were only marginally in favor of continuing it.

Which is why so many of them crossed over, right?

In a close election (which 2000 was, and 2004 is going to be), the depth of support of a candidate matters greatly. John Kerry will have every monetary and human resource the Democrats can spare this fall.

Doesn't matter. Bush will have the same resources (and more), and one thing neither Kerry nor George Soros can buy - the knowledge on the part of most people that the War On Terror - the only issue that really matters - is in vastly better hands with Bush than with the vacillating, opportunistic, vacuous, commie-coddler Kerry.

The same cannot be said about 43.

Keep telling yourself that - not just you, Jeff, but all Democrats. We are a fractious lot, we Republicans - in our caucuses, the pro-lifers square off against the libertarians, and come near to blows. And yet, we finally learned how to come together, in time to elect Pawlenty, Coleman, Kennedy, Kline - most of them candidates that the "conservative base" was ambivalent about, all of them upset winners that left the pundits of the left scratching their head. Or worse.

So pack a lunch, GOPers.

I will. Even money I'll be dining on Democrat Expectations.

Besides, Jeff - your prediction curse has already swallowed one candidate; Mad Wesley Clark is DOA. Are you sure you want to add your support to all of Kerry's other upcoming problems? :-)

Posted by Mitch at February 3, 2004 05:06 AM