Yet again, the naysayers were way off target. Not only do Iraqis want democracy, they are quite willing to brave terrorist threats to go to the polls. All things considered, that would count as voter intimidation even worse than the “long lines” of Ohio, but don’t expect too many congratulatory words from the Evil party.
Lifelong prig and consort of rich widows John Kerry warned that “no one in the United States should overhype this election” and declared that it is “hard to say that something is legitimate” because the turnout wasn’t even larger. True, the turnout didn’t match the 100 percent numbers during Saddam’s reign, but, at well over 60 percent, only an obnoxiously self-righteous jerk like Kerry could call this anything other than a resounding success.
To be fair, other Dems, including Evan Bayh and Joe Biden were far more evenhanded in their assessment. Give it time, though. If Howard Dean is installed as party chairman, the modus operandi of the Dems will revert to nothing more than attacks on George W. Bush. While such antics can possibly be justified to prevent the reelection of an incumbent, I am at a loss to explain how this strategy will help the Dems right now. Heck, even Hillary Clinton is trying to sound more conciliatory and more moderate, and she might even convince a few really stupid people.
Clearly, she and her husband are opposed to Dean’s new career choice, if only because Dean is at least more forthright in his shrill pinko-lib policies. The Clintons have always been about sounding moderate and acting Leftist, although Hillary is a lot more Leftist than her husband, and quite a bit less likely to actually abandon the convictions she acquired during the 1960’s at Wellesley. It is a particular conceit of the Left that holding fast to ideas—no matter how discredited, as long as they are from their side—is a badge of extreme honor. You need look no further than the misguided idolization of the miserable Hollywood Ten, to see this phenomenon in action.
As if it weren’t obvious to nearly everyone who observed our last presidential election, George Soros, the failed Daddy Warbucks of the Defeat George W. movement, now acknowledges that Kerry was a poor candidate. “Kerry did not, actually, offer a credible and coherent alternative,” Soros noted during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The Kerry campaign “tried to emphasize his role as a Vietnam War hero and downplay his role as an anti-Vietnam War hero, which he was,” said Soros. “Had he admitted, owned up to it, I think actually the outcome could have been different.”
Right, George. Kerry would have glided effortlessly to victory, if only he had come out sounding even more disloyal as a war “hero” than he did. Apparently, in Soros’ fantasy world, there is a vast untapped market of aging hippies and Vietnam era protestors who would have pushed this thing over the top for old Kerry.
One wonders how Soros could have made so much money being as clueless as he is, but then, this is the guy who also said “I find the idea that you can introduce democracy by military force a very quaint idea.” I guess he was absent the day they taught about the American Revolution, and must have been in a coma during World War II.
Certainly, Kerry WAS a rotten candidate. Of the initial front runners, Dick Gephardt would have been a better choice, drawing on his longterm party bona fides, and his heartland image. Arguably, the Kerry/Edwards ticket was the worst possible choice that could have been made. But, that would never have happened without the media infested front-loaded primary system, that is just about guaranteed to produce results like this for the Dems every single time. This truly flawed enterprise, adopted to make things “more fair,” did just the opposite, as the majority of the country is locked out of the selection process. The solution—a national primary, replacing all the other little contests—doesn’t seem to be in the cards, not that I’m complaining.
Positive news from Iraq, continuing missteps from the Dems, what’s not to like?