While viewing political analysts for the American Enterprise Institute on C-Span this week discussing the 2004 election [Election Watch via AEI: April 15th session] I was struck by several factors.
This is a group of exceptionally bright and candid people who concisely report analysis of all trends affecting the upcoming election even when their findings expose vulnerabilites of the current administration. George continues to claim he isn’t affected by the polls. AEI doesn’t waste time peddling that sort of misinformation.
Does Kerry Need A Plan of His Own?
“Even if it (Iraq) becomes the equivalent of Afghanistan where it moves from a boil to a simmer then I think he (Bush) can probably win that battle in terms of the judgement on the incumbent.”
-Norman J. Ornstein
I agree with Ornstein and absent cataclysmic misdealings by the coalition forces Bush has nothing to fear on the Iraq front. High profile Democrats pushing the need to stay the course in Iraq are effectively marginalising this issue to a non-debate even while the Bush administration surgically implements damage control the moment it’s needed. For instance, Kerry’s call for more U.N. involvement gained some attention as public support fell during the recent escalation in violence and George called in Lakhdar Brahimi. Kerry couldn’t be bothered to get his name right first during a fundraising breakfast speech at Manhattan’s “21 Club” and then again during a news conference in Harlem. Who looks more serious about getting the U.N. involved?
Charles Rangel, who appeared with Kerry in Harlem, is continuing to call for a more equitable draft as if the only thing wrong with the U.S. presence in Iraq is that children of the elite aren’t being made to join in the killing. Maybe Charlie didn’t get the memo that Kerry’s aiming for swing voters?
Joe Biden gave a speech sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies that was revealing in a number of ways and offers a glimpse into the mindset of these Democrats who facilitated the pre-emptive strike and support the continued occupation. You see, Joe Biden believes Iraq should have been invaded, his criticisms lie in the planning. He labels hypocrites those allies who wouldn’t sign on and seems convinced that had more care been taken from the onset they could have been brought along for the ride.
He addressed bringing them on board now as if Iraq is a pie and the U.S. is entitled to divide then serve the pieces. Any noise John Kerry makes that his plan for Iraq is different than Bush’s will continue to be negated by these laughable U.S. claims on Iraq and its future. Biden contends that handing power over to the U.N. and shifting peacekeeping responsibility to NATO while maintaining a U.S. presence that will last for “years” will effectively blur the American face on the occupation and result in support pouring in from the “hypocrites.” Move over, Chris Rock. Mr. Biden is on a roll.
It’s no wonder the AEI analysts were very optimistic about George’s election prospects. And their presentation included a recurring reference that can only be described as macabre prognostication. They agreed that the elections will be determined by huge, “earth-shaking” events we should expect to see in September and October. Toward the end of the video [54:12] James Glassman states it would be fun to predict what those events might be and Ornstein and William Schneider oblige to the delight of the crowd:
1) Another terrorist attack, possibly on the homeland: Depending on context and timing, could turn opinion for or against George.
2) Capture of Osama bin Laden: “He better be killed, capturing him alive would be a nightmare.”
3) Republican convention met with serious disruption and violence: Likely to cause sympathy for George.
4) Trial of Saddam: No real opinion on reaction to such an event.
No mention of the obvious candidate for #5. The “discovery” of WMD’s in Iraq so close to the election there’d be no time to investigate their true origin.
Nader’s focus on being included on the ballots of the battleground states was cited as a serious problem for Kerry. I don’t think it matters if Nader were to drop out of the race entirely. Kerry is going to lose this election because he offers nothing significantly different on the foreign policy front. His ideas for domestic growth are nothing more than nostalgic footnotes to the platform of a party that exists in name only and these proposals have no chance of being passed by a Republican-controlled congress. Democrats will take back the Congress? Side-splitting.