|
The meaning of Iowa
A couple of weeks ago, I was saying that the Democratic race was a puzzling contest between two “impossibles.” On one hand, it seemed impossible that the Democrats would nominate an unruly ignorant nut-job like Dean. On the other hand, given the lack of spark and distinction in the rest of the field, it seemed impossible that any of the other contenders could stop him. But now that Kerry and Edwards have slaughtered Dean in Iowa (with the two of them collectively getting 70 percent of the vote compared to his 18), the second “impossible” has been eliminated from consideration, and it’s a whole new ball game. In the light of these new realities, it seems to me that Kerry and Edwards are the only candidates who can win the nomination. Dean and Clark are both pathological, and Gephardt is about to end his candidacy after his miserable showing in Iowa, a state adjoining his own where he had spent the previous two years campaigning incessantly. (Dare we, throwing Gephardt’s brutal bullying put-down of Bush back in his teeth, call him a “miserable failure”?) That leaves Kerry and Edwards as the only plausible contenders among the major candidates. What then of my earlier contemptuous dismissals of the man I called the Untalented Mr. Kerry? Ironically, the capture of Saddam Hussein, which seemed like a mighty embarrassment to all anti-war Democratic candidates at the time, ended by wounding Dean but greatly helping Kerry. With the whole perception of the war altered in a positive direction, Kerry began talking much less about the war, which previously had been his major focus. Once he had stopped trying to explain his inexplicable contradictions on the war while simultaneously sounding oh-so-superior to President Bush, he stopped sounding like a lying incoherent pompous dullard. Instead, he started sounding like your standard Democrat issuing your standard Democratic litany of promises to supply every conceivable human need that Democratic voters love to hear. The voters’ calculations came down to: “Who promises most believably to provide for all my wants, while also seeming stable and presidential?” The answer was, and very possibly will be, the tall, gaunt, Lincolnesque Kerry—assuming that a man so lacking in wit and humor can be described as Lincolnesque.
In any case, the likelihood that Open-the-Borders George will now face an at least semi-presentable opponent has greatly increased. And that is good for America and good for traditionalism. Comments
Mr. Auster makes a grave error in thinkng Senator John Forbes Kerry is “Untalented”. It takes a unique talent to marry a women worth 100 million dollars, divorce her, spend 15 years experiencing the single life, and then marry a second women who is worth close to 700 million dollars ! He may be an empty; elite snob who had the city of Boston remove a fire hydrent from in front of his Beacon Hill estate so he could park his car near the front door, but tonight, and in NH next week, he is just one of us, fighting for the little guy, and the American dream. Posted by: j.hagan on January 20, 2004 3:41 AMIt would have been neat if one of the reporters had asked Gephardt, on camera, “Congressman, would you say that you are now a miserable failure?” There certainly is justice in Gephardt becoming a miserable failure after repeatedly, nastily calling Bush one. I oppose Bush and want him to lose. I also (not that this is relevant politically, but just to explain where I’m coming from) dislike him. But the language of contempt that the Democrats routinely use about him, the president, is completely unacceptable in a democratic republic. I wonder what poetic justice now awaits Kerry for saying of Bush last night, “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out”? Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 20, 2004 10:53 AMClarification: I meant that Kerry and Edwards are the only two _current_ candidates who can win the nomination. They both have notable weaknesses (Kerry’s leftist politics and insufferable Massachusetts snobbery, Edwards’s slickness, opportunism and lack of a real political record), and the race may not produce a clear winner, opening the possibility of something we haven’t seen at least since the early 20th century, a dark horse emerging at the convention (who would not be a dark horse at all, but Hillary or perhaps Gore). Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 21, 2004 12:01 PMBecause of the Iowa caucus rules, Kerry and Edwards seem to have won a bigger victory than they did in reality. When Gephardt fell short of the required 15% in many precincts, his supporters were required to leave or join support of others. Gephardt’s supporters switched to Kerry or Edwards. Few would go to Dean, who had savaged Gephardt in ads. Additionally, Kucinich, at about 2%, had told his people to support Edwards. To read the real preferences of the Iowa caucus participants, one should consider the polled preferences of those Could Thucydides explain to us how the caucuses work and what they are actually determining in Iowa’s delegate selection process? Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 21, 2004 6:42 PM |