"nobody has yet been able to figure out how to combat a major smear campaign which the media reports"
"Oh, thanks for sharing that. What was my approval the day I was impeached? 60 something?"
Bill Clinton
Best thing that happened was Kerry's loss. Let's give him Ohio and 60,000 more votes. Starting with 48 % approval, a right wing Congress he couldn't control, and the press, he would have been totally ineffective. Remember how you cry abut Gore winning by 500,000? Well, try governing with all that baggage, and a loss 7X that playing in the media. He would have been only slightly more functional than Nader, in that he would have a party with a bit of power, and foreign leaders who may pay more attention to him. Iraq would still be Iraq, oil would be maybe 10 bucks lower because he probably wouldn't have threatened to nuke Iran, there would be 2 different, but fairly conservative justices on the Court and impeachment hearings would be happening now. Not because he did anything wrong, but because he (or any other Dem) is incapable of governing under those conditions, and "we have to get rid of him". Cuz they still have the power to do that, and when you have a pres whose ratings would be lower than Shrub's under the same conditions, you do it. That's the way they play the game.
Come back when you have a guy who can drag along 30 House seats and 7 Senate. Come back when you get somebody who can get 52 % so we have no discussions about cheating by one side or the other. It ain't Kerry. 48% mandates won't cut it. That political capital is spent 2 days after the election. |
