"But," the Democrats will complain, "Hating Bush isn't the same thing as loving Kerry!"
True, but nobody is claiming it is. However, opposing Bush in this election is the same thing as supporting Kerry. Longing for the defeat of one man in a two-man race would leave only Democrats unsure as to who you're secretly rooting for. (But then again, given that the Democrats as a whole, and Kerry in particular, vacillate so much, maybe they really would argue that opposing Nov 2 isn't a support to Kerry.)
So now Dems will insist that terrorists hate Kerry too ... they just hate Bush more. The thing is, doesn't that just reveal that the Democrats are eerily similar to the terrorists? Isn't that the position of almost every Democrat? "We don't really like Kerry either, but HE'S NOT BUSH!!!" (I say "almost every Democrat" because there is, I think, at least (but potentially only) one Democrat who unequivocally supports Kerry: John Kerry himself. (At last an issue that he has remained constant on!) I wouldn't even bet money that Theresa's support is rock solid.)
Kerry is such an abysmal candidate for President that not even hard-core Lefties can bring themselves to be enthusiastic about him. So they, one and all, admit to what a pathetic choice Kerry is but then say, "But he's better than Bush!"
David Frum nicely summarized the opinions of the staff at Slate (who are more pro-Kerry than the DNC) when they shocked the world by revealing that 97% of them were hard-left liberals. Their ringing endorsement of Kerry included such moving tributes as:
"I'm voting for Kerry, with no great belief that he will be a first-rate president. I cringe a little at where Kerry's line on terror and Iraq has lately ended up. ...""I'll take a chance on Kerry, but if he wins I'll skip the victory party. Too many of his supporters have proven as divisive, dishonest, and hateful as they imagine their bogeyman Karl Rove to be."
"I don't expect Kerry to be a successful president ...."
"Is [Kerry] a strong candidate? No. Do I agree with all his positions? No. Does he truly represent me? No. Is this a reactionary 'anyone but Bush' vote? On some levels it is, but I've decided he's good enough ...."
"Sen. John Kerry is the least appealing candidate the Democrats have nominated for president in my lifetime."
"Sure he can be long-winded, pompous, and evasive ...."
"Kerry's election-year straddles have left me cold."
And from the editor, Jake Weisberg, himself:
"I remain totally unimpressed by John Kerry. Outside of his opposition to the death penalty, I've never seen him demonstrate any real political courage. His baby steps in the direction of reform liberalism during the 1990s were all followed by hasty retreats. His Senate vote against the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates an instinctive aversion to the use of American force, even when it's clearly justified. Kerry's major policy proposals in this campaign range from implausible to ill-conceived. He has no real idea what to do differently in Iraq. His health-care plan costs too much to be practical and conflicts with his commitment to reducing the deficit. At a personal level, he strikes me as the kind of windbag that can only emerge when a naturally pompous and self-regarding person marinates for two decades inside the U.S. Senate. If elected, Kerry would probably be a mediocre, unloved president on the order of Jimmy Carter."
In other words, like the rest of the Democrats, they realize that Kerry is so atrocious that it's not possible even for them to pretend that he'd be a good president. But they are consumed with such seething loathing for Bush that they will support Kerry.
That would be shameful enough if they were only agreeing with each other. But when your position has become indistinguishably different from that of terrorists, it's time to end the crusade.
No comments:
Post a Comment