For weeks I’ve been watching in wonder as one by one America’s conservative pundits (and I mean the true conservatives, not radical windbags like Rush Limbaugh and Oliver North) entertain the notion that the Iraq war may have been a mistake and that Bush may be handling it in a less than ideal way.
I’ve been stockpiling a list of these columns, but I now see that my friend in Beijing, Joseph Bosco, has beaten me to the punch. Check out his laundry list of conservative writers and how they’re changing their tunes. It’s significant — these are the shapers of mainstream opinion.
This is a tectonic shift: they are not lapping up Bush’s lies the way they used to. (The NY Post and Fox News are still lapping it up, but the fact that they’re now on overdrive underscores their desperation.) It says Bush may have to brace himself for the media scrutiny he’s deserved, and somehow escaped, for the past three years. I never thought I’d see it happen, but it has — Bush has no one left to lie to.
I live in a conservative state, and when I talk with my neighbors and hear their disdain for Bush and their horror at Iraq, I know who they’re not voting for come November. And the passion this topic arouses! People are mad. They feel betrayed. And when they see gas prices eat into their savings, they get madder. It really appears today that the election is Kerry’s to lose.
UPDATE: Speaking of lies….this just in from ABC News: “It’s a cover-up.” This is big. Out goes the “bad apples” theory. This was policy. Who initiated it? How far up does the trail of deception go?
1
By jeremy
And lose it, he will.
I still see no reason to vote FOR Kerry beyond voting AGAINST Bush. Shouldn’t we vote for a president by voting FOR him (or her?). Who is the Veep candidate being offered by Kerry? What are his stances? Why is he so freakishly silent right now?
I just don’t see Kerry running a good campaign, if the past month is indicative of his ability. Damn, even Gore ran a better campaign, and that is scary since Gore was the king of giving up.
May 18, 2004 @ 3:23 pm | Comment
2
By richard
Kerry is doing the smart thing. he is going out to the people in states he needs to win and campaigning quietly, talking about jobs and health care and topics they care most about. At this time, with all the media focused on the White House because of iraq, Kerry cannot capture the media. That happens at the convention and in the debates and the road that follows to the elections. Right now, the smartest thing to do is let Bush and his administration implode in scandal and disaster as Iraq breaks down further and Bush gets hopelessly bogged down in the quicksand he created (see Kaplan’s Slate article today).
He is taking exactly as much time to announce his VP as most other candidates do. Can’t fault him here.
80 percent of the voters are firm about who they’re voting for in November. Those who are undecided, if history is any guide, tend strongly to vote not based on whom they most like, but on whether they are satisfied with what the incumbent is doing and whether they want four more years of it. I suspect there will be a huge outbreak of Bush fatigue among these swing voters. And remember Bush’s Achilles heel — women voters, who are becoming more estranged from him every day based on Iraq. No, things don’t look bad for Kerry at all. And just a few months ago I was saying Bush could not lose. But the current scandal is too big. Combined with the misery of the weeks prior, as we watched much of Iraq descend into chaos while our leaders appeared dumbfounded and overwhelmed, it spells a general breakdown in confidence and a sense that Bush’s campaign foundation — “staying the course” — may be a path to a hopeless quagmire with no way out. Kerry is now poised to win.
May 18, 2004 @ 4:19 pm | Comment
3
By jeremy
As always, you are able to logically plot your argument and give persuasive reasons for your point of view.
Unfortunately, politics isn’t based on logic, but on “feelings” and as we’ve discussed before, that’s what Kerry is lacking. There’s just something missing.
Although, that see-through dress his daughter was wearing at Cannes gave me two good reasons to vote for him. Did you catch that photo in the NY Daily News?!?
May 18, 2004 @ 4:27 pm | Comment
4
By Joseph Bosco
Richard,
You are square on target; also, Kerry will be a much better president than candidate. I wish people could more objectively look at his whole life story and see what I–a journalist who has followed his career for more than 30 years, waiting for this day to come–see in spades: The man is a leader who thinks and feels and is not afraid to change his mind.
Jeremy,
That certainly was an eye-popping picture of his daughter. I almost put it up on my site, but then thought better of it. I might still do it. If it would swing just one vote–Conrad comes to mind–it would be worth the charge of being sexist and pandering to MY baser instincts.
Joseph
May 18, 2004 @ 8:41 pm | Comment
5
By vaara
So far, I still haven’t seen anything that would lead me to modify the prediction I made here a few days ago: that Rumsfeld will not resign over this. Nor will anyone else — at least not anyone important.
The Busheviki are fundamentally incapable of acknowledging the error of their ways. They’re right, and everyone else is wrong, and that’s just all there is to it. It goes way beyond arrogance, to a sort of holy righteousness.
May 19, 2004 @ 4:01 am | Comment
6
By hk
There’s only one thing wrong with that picture of Kerry’s daughter. She has some weird mole on her foot. It creeps me out.
May 19, 2004 @ 7:39 pm | Comment