…of John Kerry, I hope! Please, please, please don’t let Kerry win!
I was glad to see one of Kerry’s fellow liberals cutting him down in…the New York Times. Good stuff. According to David Brooks (reg. req.):
John Kerry wasn’t nominated because of his sparkling personality. He wasn’t nominated because of his selfless commitment to causes larger than himself. He was nominated because he’s a fighter. At the end of every campaign he comes out brawling. This was the guy who could take on Bush.So nobody could imagine how incompetent, crude and over-the-top Kerry has been in this final phase of the campaign. At this point, smart candidates are launching attacks that play up the doubts voters already have about their opponents. Incredibly, Kerry is launching attacks that play up doubts voters have about him. Over the past few days, he has underscored the feeling that he will say or do anything to further his career.
*Laughing and sliding out of chair over both paragraphs*
Kerry’s third attack is the whole Mary Cheney thing. That’s been hashed over enough. But remarkably, Kerry has not apologized. You use somebody’s daughter to attack the father and his running mate. The parents are upset. The only decent thing is to apologize. If anything, an apology would make Kerry look admirable. But Kerry, in his permanent attack dog mode, can’t do the decent and politically advantageous thing.
Kerry’s being chided about decency from a liberal! Well I never…
Bush’s key vulnerability is that people fear he is in over his head. By lashing out wildly, Kerry muddles all that. Instead his blunderbuss approach suggests a candidate devoid of perspective, driven by unattractive and naked ambition.Why is he doing this? First, because in the insular Democratic world, George Bush is presumed to be guilty of everything, so the more vicious you can be about him, the better everybody feels.
But there is a deeper assumption, which has marred Democratic politics for years. Some Democrats have been unable to face the reality that people have been voting for Republicans because they agree with them. So these Democrats have invented the comforting theory that they’ve been losing because they are too virtuous for the country.
As long as he wants to share his thoughts on Kerry, David Brooks can comment on my blog anytime.
Update: Spoil my fun, why don’t you? So Brooks is not a liberal; he’s NYT‘s token conservative?
