Chameleon Kerry
Just when you think John Kerry has taken every possible position on Iraq, he comes up with another one. Today, Kerry said flat out that he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein had he been President.
This would have been a clear loser position for the Massachusetts Senator even a year ago. But with the bad news coming more frequently from Iraq, it appears that Kerry has decided to make his move. He is gambling that his anti-war, bring-the-troops home message will resonate with swing voters (if they were swing voters while things were not so bad, how can they not side with him when things are ugly?).
In taking this side, he must paint the war as a catastrophe. Unfortunately, this means that any news coming out of Iraq, good or bad, for the next six weeks will be politicized like never before. It means that in order for John Kerry to win, America has to lose.
It's a crisp, October day, and the press is buzzing in Washington. U.S. forces have just acheived an incredible victory in Najaf, rounding up hundreds of insurgents with no loss of American lives. The AP photo of the day is a woman carrying an infant in one arm, with her other arm around the neck of a female U.S. soldier. Both are crying with joy. How wonderful. But in the Kerry camp it means disaster. It means a morose McAuliffe, a frustrated Carville. Do they start wishing we had incurred more casualties? Even I, as a partisan, do not believe they would truly want that. But they are putting themselves in an awkward situation. More than that, they are putting the country in an awkward situation. Half of the electorate needs to see our effort as a failure. They need to, if not root for, then grudgingly welcome bad news from Iraq as a means to their end.
If five good pieces of news and five bad ones are reported from Baghdad, the Kerry camp must only acknowledge the bad. Given this necessity of seeing only bad outcomes from the blood and toil of our servicemen and women, it now becomes completely disingenuous for Democrats to say they support our troops.
I'm a Red Sox fan. If I were the manager, and in a post-game press conference discussed how Manny Ramirez struck out twice, but I did not mention his home run, and faulted Pedro Martinez for giving up two walks, without acknowledging he pitched a shutout, how could you say that I support my players?
Let's take it a step further. I'd love to see them win the World Series. But I'm a practical man. What if I were to place a bet on the Yankees to beat Boston in the playoffs? Sure, I'm a Red Sox fan, but now I have a stake in them losing. If it's a few dollars, I won't mind losing my bet to see my team win. If it's my entire paycheck, I might think differently. What if I wagered the Presidency? The personal stakes become too high to resist. I'll want us to lose.
Now imagine me with front-row seats behind the plate. Suddenly my calls of "Go Sox!" and "Atta boy, Manny" become fraudulent, their only purpose to make the team and other Red Sox fans believe I'm on their side. After all, I may want something from them later.
This would have been a clear loser position for the Massachusetts Senator even a year ago. But with the bad news coming more frequently from Iraq, it appears that Kerry has decided to make his move. He is gambling that his anti-war, bring-the-troops home message will resonate with swing voters (if they were swing voters while things were not so bad, how can they not side with him when things are ugly?).
In taking this side, he must paint the war as a catastrophe. Unfortunately, this means that any news coming out of Iraq, good or bad, for the next six weeks will be politicized like never before. It means that in order for John Kerry to win, America has to lose.
It's a crisp, October day, and the press is buzzing in Washington. U.S. forces have just acheived an incredible victory in Najaf, rounding up hundreds of insurgents with no loss of American lives. The AP photo of the day is a woman carrying an infant in one arm, with her other arm around the neck of a female U.S. soldier. Both are crying with joy. How wonderful. But in the Kerry camp it means disaster. It means a morose McAuliffe, a frustrated Carville. Do they start wishing we had incurred more casualties? Even I, as a partisan, do not believe they would truly want that. But they are putting themselves in an awkward situation. More than that, they are putting the country in an awkward situation. Half of the electorate needs to see our effort as a failure. They need to, if not root for, then grudgingly welcome bad news from Iraq as a means to their end.
If five good pieces of news and five bad ones are reported from Baghdad, the Kerry camp must only acknowledge the bad. Given this necessity of seeing only bad outcomes from the blood and toil of our servicemen and women, it now becomes completely disingenuous for Democrats to say they support our troops.
I'm a Red Sox fan. If I were the manager, and in a post-game press conference discussed how Manny Ramirez struck out twice, but I did not mention his home run, and faulted Pedro Martinez for giving up two walks, without acknowledging he pitched a shutout, how could you say that I support my players?
Let's take it a step further. I'd love to see them win the World Series. But I'm a practical man. What if I were to place a bet on the Yankees to beat Boston in the playoffs? Sure, I'm a Red Sox fan, but now I have a stake in them losing. If it's a few dollars, I won't mind losing my bet to see my team win. If it's my entire paycheck, I might think differently. What if I wagered the Presidency? The personal stakes become too high to resist. I'll want us to lose.
Now imagine me with front-row seats behind the plate. Suddenly my calls of "Go Sox!" and "Atta boy, Manny" become fraudulent, their only purpose to make the team and other Red Sox fans believe I'm on their side. After all, I may want something from them later.
Comments