Liberal Lunacy Becomes Democratic Despair
...which is, sadly, the normal pattern:
Privately, but no longer quietly, Democrats are beginning to despair.
They cannot fathom why their man, John Kerry, cannot seem to fathom how easy it should be to put President Bush away, seize the high ground and take command of the issues of the war on Iraq and the war on terror.
This is just proof of their lunacy. It should not be "easy" to beat Bush. In fact, I think a more reasonable take is that Kerry is doing very well considering Bush's tarnished-but-still-considerable popularity and the advantages of incumbency. As well as being a tried and tested Commander in Chief.
But let's move on (TM):
...
Democrats despair because, given all of that, a majority of America's voters still tell pollsters they believe that Bush, not Kerry, can better command the war on terror. And mainly, the Democrats privately despair because they know why the people feel that way. They know it is because Kerry has been pathetically unable to answer, clearly and forthrightly, the simplest questions about the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Kerry cannot explain just what he would have done and what he will do now to better command and win the unwon war on terror.
Wow.
Who knew I'd be in such agreement with liberals about Kerry?
Democrats say privately they don't know what is wrong with Kerry. Here is what's wrong: The Democratic presidential nominee has no clearly defined conceptual framework that is the basis of what he thinks about the war on terror and the war in Iraq. ...
Without that conceptual framework as a foundation, Kerry has been despairingly unable to clearly and forthrightly answer even the simple question a reporter put to him during a photo op moment at the rim of the Grand Canyon.
Here's what Kerry was asked: If you knew at the time the Senate voted on the resolution authorizing the president to go to war in Iraq all that you now know, would you still have voted for the resolution?
Here's what Kerry should have answered: "If we had all known back then what we now know, there is absolutely no way that the Senate would have passed that resolution. I wouldn't have voted for it....."
But here is what Kerry actually did answer. Kerry answered that, yes, he would have voted for the resolution anyway. "I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Kerry added. Which was not just a lame and lousy answer, it was untruthful. But at least it was better than what he once said when a similar question prompted him to forthrightly declare: "You bet I might have."
"It's frustrating as hell," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., as quoted in the New York Times. He said Kerry is being "asked to explain Bush's failure through his own vote. I saw a headline that said 'Kerry Would Have Gone to War.' That's bull. He wouldn't have. Not the way Bush did."
Kerry's problem is that he has been spooked by Bush's political basher-in-chief, Karl Rove, who so successfully painted Kerry into the political landscape as a flip-flopper that every time Kerry is asked that perfectly fair question, all he thinks is: Oh-oh! Gotta be sure I don't look like I'm flip-flopping!
So Kerry gives another knee-jerk nuanced response. But all that the people want to hear is straight talk. From someone. Just once.
There's an easier way to explain this. John Kerry's main problem is that he insists on concealing his actual positions on life-and-death, war-and-peace questions from the voters whose support he courts. He poses as a warrior to pro-war moderates and a war-protestor to pro-terrorist peaceniks.
This isn't nuance. This is deception. One of those two groups are being lied to (and I strongly suspect it's the former).
It's time for the media to stop soft-pedaling Kerry's lies and evasions as "nuances" and "complexities" and call them what they are.
The American people have a right to decide an election based upon a candidate's actual, clearly announced/admitted views.
If John Kerry will not inform us of his actual views, it is the duty of the media to do so.
Two Instances Constitute a Trend! Update: Remember the Liberal Conventional Wisdom of two weeks ago? That this election was "John Kerry's to lose"? (Moderate/semi-liberal Mickey Kaus had some fun with that notion; his basic theme was that Yes, the race may be Kerry's to lose, but don't underestimate Kerry's determination to do just that.)
Well, it seems that liberal Chris Sullentop, writing for the amatuer leftist newsletter Slate, is impressed with Bush's political skills. His conclusion? "He's that good":
... Even from a distance, I can see why Bush charmed the press corps during his 2000 campaign. He's likable, winning, and self-deprecating. He's also quick on his feet, not with an instant recall of statistics but with snappy retorts that break up the room.
...
After last week's Democratic convention, I felt that John Kerry had become the favorite in the presidential race. Now, after only two days with President Bush, I'm not so sure. He's that good. Unlike many people, I'm not threatened by the president's religious rhetoric. It must be the Midwestern Catholic in me. Like the people in the audience, I find it familiar and comforting. I can see why so many people believe the president is "one of us," no matter how rich or how elite his background. And I can see that Kerry will have a tough time besting Bush in all three debates.
Via Itz News to Me and PoliPundit.