Melancholy Democrats Queasy Over Kerry
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett (05/11/04)
REMEMBER the Clinton years? Democrats were so much happier then. Their biggest worry was impeachment—and even that wasn’t too serious. They won easily in 1992, thanks to Ross Perot’s ambitions and George H.W. Bush’s lack of ambitions, and they won again four years later, thanks to Republican Loyalty to Old Senators From Kansas Who Have Precisely No Chance of Winning.
There were problems in those elections for America, of course—dead soldiers in Africa and the Middle-East; Elian Gonzales thrown back to Cuba; cigars in the Oval Office (not inhaled); Osama bin Laden who knows where; and the president’s unelected wife secretly planning healthcare policy. But Democrats didn’t worry. As President Clinton said, ''we'll just have to win.''
Democrats aren’t nearly as cheery as they were then.
The economy is good, which, if you’re a Democrat, is never as much fun as a bad economy. Because of President Bush’s economic policies, over 30 million families with children will get an average tax cut of over $1000; 23 million small business owners will get an average tax cut of over $2000; and six million single mothers will get an average tax cut of $550.
John Kerry’s only economic positions are to cut taxes on corporations, which won’t sit well with much of his base, and to raise taxes on the people. He also plans to unveil a ''comprehensive economic agenda'' which he claims will create 10 million jobs. Specifics have yet to be divulged, but one can assume with rather impressive certainty that it will be more ''vague'' than ''comprehensive,'' and more ''meaningless chitchat,'' than ''agenda.''
And speaking of things that are bad for Democrats, news from Iraq is improving. This is especially good for Republicans since news from Iraq was never too bad. Secretary Rumsfeld, or, as he’s known in Democrat circles, ''Primary Target,'' is not planning to resign any time soon, and the public seems to be about as interested in Abu Ghraib as kindergartners are in Sophocles.
Unlike Democrats, Americans were slightly more offended watching Nick Berg get his head sawed off than they were by seeing photos of sadistic soldiers and petrified prisoners act like they were on some heavily-caffeinated version of ''Fear Factor.''
Happily, we now have a legitimate reason to stop talking about Abu Ghraib and focus on one of liberals’ favorite topics: weapons of mass destruction.
As the observant reader will recall, liberals began screeching about WMD approximately twenty minutes after the war began. We quickly found three trucks designed for the assembly of poison gas, but liberals said this didn’t count—much like babies in the womb, Floridians who voted for Bush, and presidents sodomozing subordinates.
Then on Monday it was reported that ''traces'' of sarin nerve agent were found in an exploded artillery shell in Iraq. By Tuesday we learned that there were over three liters of sarin gas—enough to kill thousands. (This, The New York Times wrote off as ''no major threat.'')
To summarize: we found an exploded shell (''weapon'') filled with gas capable of killing people (''of mass destruction.'')
I guess liberals were wrong about this one, too.
And as if Democrats don’t have enough reason to be down in the dumps, John Kerry’s numbers are dropping. According to a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, they’re even dropping among Democrats, which, if my calculus is correct, is an important group for a Democratic candidate to win.
Unlike Clinton, the senator from Massachusetts doesn’t have the ability to energize the folks and methodically work his way to the top. Kerry is tedious, overbearing, aloof, and comically palaverous. Plus he’s wrong about everything. For Goodness sake, even The Village Voice thinks he’s a boorish bore.
Like Cindy Lauper’s ''girls,'' Democrats just want to have fun. They value power and fame more than America, so they’ll do anything to win. But while winning requires new ideas, Democrats are stuck in the seedy pawn shops of past failures.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Isaiah Z. Sterrett
