Game Over/Tilt...move on nothing to see here
hughhewitt.com
Monday, October 11, 2004
Posted at 1:00 AM, Eastern
The flood of outraged e-mail over John Kerry's remark that terrorism will become a "nuisance," and Kerry's statement that "it's a different kind of war. You have to understand that this is not the sands of Iwo Jima," is immense. The outrage is palpable. In the New York Times Magazine interview, Kerry has managed to be both ignorant of, and indifferent to, the threat of another devastating terrorist attack, and dismissive of the sacrifice of our military and the intensity of the conflict. Terrorism is not and will never be a "nuisance." Many of the battles already fought and many more in the future will require the valor and sacrifice of Iwo Jima. Kerry is finished. Whatever world he lives in, it is not the world that a vast majority of voters inhabit.
Kerry was already toast, because of the first two debates and his imitation of Neville Chamberlain. But now Kerry is exposed as fundamentally not qualified to lead a nation at war --because he does not understand we are really and truly at war --not in some vast nuisance abatement action.
The president's lead in the Washington Post's tracking poll is back to 5 points and rising. Senator Lightweight appeared on the Sunday shows to badmouth the Afghan elections that the world is cheering. Another indicator: GOP Senate candidate Tim Michels, a veteran of the first Gulf War, is surging in Wisconsin in his race against do-gooder on campaign finance and feckless on national security Democrat Russ Feingold. Other signs abound. The country is not in the mood for any candidate from the party of appeasement. Writes Mark Steyn in yesterday's Telegraph:
"And, if you want to know the real difference, after 90 minutes of debate it came in the final exchange of the night: 'The truth of that matter,' said Bush, 'is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he [Kerry] were the President of the United States.'
Kerry replied: 'Not necessarily.'
That's John Kerry: the 'not necessarily' candidate. Saddam might not necessarily be in power. He might have been hit by the Number 37 bus while crossing the street at the intersection of Saddam Hussein Boulevard and Saddam Hussein Parkway in downtown Tikrit. He might have put his back out with one of his more vigorous concubines and been forced to hand over to Uday or Qusay. He might have stiffed Chirac in some backdoor deal and been taken out by some anthrax-laced Quality Street planted by an elite French commando unit.
But, on the other hand, not necessarily. That's the difference: Bush believes America needs to shape events in the world; Kerry doesn't and, even if he did, because he doesn't know how he'd want to shape them the events would end up shaping him. There would be lots of discussion. Frenchmen would be involved. And, in the end, President Kerry could claim that however things turned out was what he wanted all along because, on Saddam and Iran and North Korea and a whole lot more, who the hell can say with confidence what Kerry wants anyway? How it would all turn out is anybody's guess. And on November 2 America won't be in a mood to vote for a guess."
Exactly. Kerry is a candidate preaching weakness, retreat and appeasement in an election the crucial question of which is whether America ought to be strong or accommodating. Bush is strength personified, even if the Dems want to call it stubbornness. Tom Daschle, Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, and the whole gang of Democrats who have put political advantage at home ahead of unity abroad are facing an electorate that has measured Michael Moore and his allies in the Democratic Party and have decided that national security lies with the president and the senators that will support, not obstruct, him. |
