For John Kerry: No Memory, No Shame, No Bump
By Richard Davis (08/04/04)
Polls can some times renew your faith in your fellow citizens. The new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll on the presidential race is one of those times. Kerry not only didn’t get the traditional popularity bump from the convention, he actually lost ground to Bush, an almost unheard of scenario. Other polls show a very slight Kerry bump, but if CNN says a liberal from their own party lost ground, that’s credible enough for me.
Which also proves that the mainstream media once again got it all wrong. If you had watched any news outlet, including Fox, on Thursday or Friday you would have thought Kerry’s speech rivaled the Gettysburg’s Address in effectiveness, and that the convention had been an overwhelming success. Didn’t the delegates all cheer like crazy? Journalists heard the applause and saw balloons, and that was the story they wanted. Brokaw, Rather and Jennings were positively orgasmic. Print media universally presented a glowing report. If Gallup had polled the media alone (not a bad idea, actually), Kerry would have had an amazing bump, and every news outlet would have led with that story beginning Sunday night.
But were journalists even paying attention? New York Times columnist David Brooks said he was initially impressed with Kerry‘s performance, then he looked at what Kerry actually said. "I should never have gone back and read the speech again," Brooks wrote in his column. "What an incoherent disaster. When you actually read for content, you see that the speech skirts almost every tough issue and comes out on both sides of every major concern." It’s too much to expect today’s journalists to listen for content. (How many of them have even bothered to read the speech? How many have the ability to read it critically?)
Only conservative pundits on the radio and the internet seemed to notice that the would-be emperor had forgotten a few clothes. Newt Gingrich called the speech "profoundly dishonest." Thomas Sowell talked in his column about the "camouflaging" of facts and "orchestrated disinformation." Several National Review writers trashed the speech, and bloggers emptied both barrels into the whole charade. (Imagine this campaign or life after 9/11 without the internet.)
The only question was how would viewers react? The Kerry campaign is built entirely with smoke and mirrors. It’s cornerstone, one of the low points in American politics, has been the shameless effort to portray Kerry as a war hero who deserves to be elected for military service alone. Forget that he served just four months. Forget the war crimes he admits to committing. Forget the suspicious flesh wounds. Forget the lies and slander against his fellow soldiers. Forget the trashing of medals. Most of all, forget the atrocious voting record.
Are Americans really as stupid as Democrats think they are? This entire hero hypocrisy--and Kerry’s handlers know this is pure theater and simply don‘t care--has only two cynical purposes, to bash Bush and deflect attention from Kerry’s voting record on defense. Bring out more flags. Say "strength" as many times as possible. Surround yourself with veterans (the ones who aren’t calling you a fake and a liar). Just don’t mention the 30 years since you got that last scratch on your ass.
If nothing else, the convention was a nice set up for Hilary’s 2008 rescue plan, which involves a defeat in November, a party in disarray and a white horse. The disarray shouldn’t be a problem. Despite the masquerade party in Boston, Democrats are badly fractured, a party loosed from its center, controlled now by an uneasy coalition of fringe groups and far-left money. When Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter and Al Sharpton are your moral compasses, you’re lost.
Democrats can only pretend to be a party of consensus by deliberately disguising themselves in public. Delegates were actually instructed to dissemble before the cameras, or at the very least to keep quite. Appear normal. Imagine how distasteful that flag-waving display truly was to most of the delegates in that hall. When you’ll fake patriotism, which you’ve disparaged and shunned like leprosy for three years, you’re a party with some ethical (and psychological) issues. Where were the Christian hymns? Why not parade in some non-aborted babies in red-white-and-blue diapers for the cameras?
The party’s much-vaunted centrism is little more than memory and contrivance. And that spells trouble. If the hate and radicalism that motivate the fringe groups drive away the Democrat’s predominately female base, its silent center, the party’s over. That is, unless Hilary can rally the girls for one last hurrah. I’d like to see her ballot in November.
Rhetorically speaking, the convention exhibited all the eloquence of a junior high pep rally. Someone should explain what microphones do. Only Teresa managed a more sedated delivery, though no one has had the courage yet to ask her just what it was she was trying to say. Shove it, merci.
Angry excess is all this party has left. Preach against incivility in politics, lie about what you said moments later and then tell a polite questioner to stick it up his ass. Apologize? For what? Let’s only hope that someday all women will be able to say shove it and be called smart and well-informed like men. Now be a darling and run out to the limo and get my pills.
Democrats believe that calling their opponents hate-mongers actually demonstrates that they’re just the opposite. They’re civil. Ask why conservatives are hate-mongers and its doubtful you’ll even get an answer. Thus Kerry responds to all criticism with name-calling. The questioner is just being negative and divisive. John Edwards tells the convention how much he opposes the "tired, old, hateful negative politics of the past." Such as? Michael Moore unleashes a sick tirade against Republican "hate-triots," who get up each morning "trying to figure out" which minority group they’re going to screw. There’s something very ugly taking hold of the left.
Of course, calling your opponent names is just one way to avoid addressing issues and your own shortcomings (it also plays into liberals’ obsession with portraying themselves as victims). Since Democrats can’t say aloud what they really believe, they resort to righteous indignation. Buy truckloads of flags and call yourself the party of security and defense. Who are they kidding? Demand better education, but just don‘t mention that liberal Democrats have had a literal stranglehold on American education for over 30 years. Now, a trillion dollars or so later, no parent, black or white, wants to send her children to their schools. Racism? Just reverse it and pontificate like MLK on steroids. Will black Democrats ever leave Selma? Can they even imagine anywhere else to go?
For all the volume, the convention was remarkably dispassionate. Not even Jesse Jackson could fire up the usual bombast. No one believed what they were saying. Think of the concerns closest to their hearts which they couldn’t even mention: abortion, affirmative action, gun control, gay marriage, higher taxes, defense cuts, political correctness, open immigration, judicial activism, multiculturalism, welfare, etc. Those issue define Democrats, but they’re no longer part of their public discourse. They can’t be.
And that‘s the Democratic dilemma today. They can’t say what they believe--and how dare you even ask!--and hiding what they think behind flags and f--king balloons only works on some of the people some of the time. Apparently, by today’s poll numbers, that time has run out.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Richard Davis
