THE ICONOCLAST
Kerry can't win it, but Bush could still loseAS THE campaign for the White House drags on in its numbingly repetitious way, two realities have begun to emerge, neither of which says much good about John Kerry, but which taken together may well be causing some in the Kerry camp to begin thinking about setting aside cash for a January trip to Washington.
The first reality is that Kerry can't win. The man just has too many deficiencies, too much hyperbole, too much inconsistency. This is a candidate whose campaign publicly acknowledges that it is still looking for a theme, still trying to figure out what it's about other than its visceral dislike for George Bush. That is the reason why Bush's numbers drop, and yet the president remains easily within striking distance of reelection. But the second reality is the one that counts. Maybe Kerry can't win, but George Bush can lose -- and in the end it all comes out the same. Sadly, for those of us who are Bush partisans, it often appears that the president seems determined to find ways to blow it. It's not the economy. Despite the spectacle of Democrats running around waving their arms in the air and crying, "it's not enough, it's not enough," the economic recovery is indeed real, and especially so in some of the states where the presidential contest will likely be decided. Job losses were never quite as bad as Kerry made them out to be (that hyperbole again), and the recovery is better than he'll admit. All other things being equal, the economy is Bush's strength, not Kerry's. But then there's Iraq. We're past the point of arguing whether going into Iraq was justified or not. The president, relying on information from a CIA director appointed by Bill Clinton and information gathered by an FBI still largely staffed by Clinton holdovers -- information disputed by neither Germany nor France -- decided America's security required Saddam Hussein's removal from power. That, essentially, was the mission: get rid of the perceived threat and afterwards help Iraq develop a constitutional democratic system. Done. Saddam's gone. The threat, if there was one, is gone. We've shown them how to write a constitution and set them on the path to elections. Mission accomplished. From here on, it's Iraq's decision whether to institute a democracy or not. (Which of you reading this actually believes that we must create a democracy in Iraq because if Iraq goes democratic, Libya, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia will hold elections, too? Didn't think so.) I admire Colin Powell greatly, but he's wrong when he says, "If you break it, you own it"; this ain't Pottery Barn. We acted to remove a perceived threat to our security. That's been done. Clearly we need to keep sufficient force in Iraq to keep the thugs from taking over. But 138,000 troops indefinitely? It's called "mission creep" and we're caught in it. Bush has done his job: As president, he has acted boldly and forthrightly to carry out his responsibility to defend the nation. If he can't figure out a way to move on, he may yet lose to a man who can't win. Creative advertising. Recently the Kerry wizards unveiled plans for a big new ad buy. Where are they going to run the ads? Much of the money is going into California, New York, and Massachusetts, states where the only question is whether Kerry will win by 10 points or 20. Did I say Bush might lose? On second thought . . . A coup averted. John Kerry, always a stickler for propriety, has now agreed to be nominated at the party's nominating convention, thereby foiling the plans of those who had hoped to come out of the convention with only a nominee for vice president who could then properly declare a vacancy at the top of the ticket and claim the nomination himself. Or herself. Wouldn't George Bush have been surprised to find himself running against a Dean-Clark ticket or Pelosi-McCain? Speaking of foiled plots, I inadvertently attempted to help Kerry myself, but a sharp-eyed reader, (perhaps subconsciously pulling for the president?), has complained that I incorrectly stated last week that Kerry had voted for a gasoline tax increase. He's right; It was another one of the senator's ideas that never went anywhere. He didn't vote for the tax increase, he proposed it. I'm certainly happy to make that clarification.
Mickey Edwards, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, teaches at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International affairs. His column appears regularly in the Globe. © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
