[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Right. You're going to get one of these once a day between now and Tuesday. They're mostly directed at my friends who are feeling mopish about the potential for a Kerry victory.

Today, I've got an Al Giordano essay for you. Al is one smart cookie. He predicted Kerry's victory in Iowa. He knows Kerry and Kerry's people really well. He is not randomly making stuff up to make himself feel better.

See, here's the deal. Kerry fits nicely into the frame of "another boring liberal from Massachusetts." If you want to take the lazy way out, you just recycle all the Dukakis stories and you've got yourself a news cycle. Now, I liked Dukakis -- but Kerry is simply a tougher candidate. He knows what it means to be on the national stage. He is the guy who refused to let go of the BCCI scandal, he's the guy who defeated an incredible popular William Weld in his last election, he's the guy who wins.

If Kerry wasn't charismatic -- if he wasn't good at what he does -- Nixon wouldn't have singled him out for special attention in the 70s. Nothing's changed. The media frame is wrong. Kerry is not Dukakis.

Read Al's piece. More tomorrow.

Comments

Hold me, Bryant

[bluegargantua]

I've been out to Nebraska where the only Bush/Kerry stickers we saw were on two out-of-state cars (and one of those was from MA!).

Also, I'm not mopish so much about Kerry's chances of winning. I'm mopish that this is even a contest. Kerry should be winning this by leaps and bounds. The country continues to polarize and I dunno what we're going to do about it.

mope
Tom

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[bryant]

Sadly, I can't help with that mope. I think the divisions in this country are incredibly worrisome and I don't particularly have much hope. Except maybe if Bush loses and the Republicans put their house in order. Sigh.

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[mcurry.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I think Bush losing might be the best thing for the long-term interests of the Republican party, if only because it'll demonstrate that a complete disregard for truth and the rule of law isn't a winning strategy. There are saner heads among the Republicans who would probably love to clean house, and Bush losing might enable them to get that done.

Of course, if Bush manages to win, the Repubs seem likely to go spinning off ever further into the fantasy-based world.

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[bryant]

I agree.

I think, actually, that the most significant Senate race of this quarter century was the Kerry/Weld race in Massachusetts. Obviously if Kerry had lost, he wouldn't be running for President -- but more significantly, if Weld had won, it would have had significant repercussions for the Republican Party.

Weld was certainly considering a run for the Presidency in 2000. If he had been able to win, I think he would have run, and I think he would have had a very good chance of winning as a moderate. After Newt's disastrous Contract with America, there was a period during which the Repubs were uncertain of their direction. Consider a New England moderate senatorial block with Jeffords, Chafee, Snowe, and Weld -- it probably winds up including Arlen Spector, and you've got the basis for a pretty strong caucus there.

Could Weld have beaten Bush for the nomination, and would McCain have still run? Dunno, but I'd be willing to bet that either a) McCain would have run stronger if he'd had the imaginary moderate NE Republican block behind him, or b) Weld would have been running with McCain's support.

So yeah. Kerry/Weld was a very pivotal moment, there.

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[rfrancis]

Not to keep harping on Zogby's appearance last night, but another interesting thing he said is right along the lines of your comment -- something to the effect (sadly I can't find a transcript yet) that there are effectively two countries now vying for dominance. That's an appalling thought, particularly how well that's gone historically.

-R

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[bryant]

One of my serious answers to the question is that I think the United States ought to decentralize significantly. Not dissolve, but put more significant power back in the hands of the states. I might think that Texas (sorry, Ginger) would be worse off if it didn't have a liberal federal government preventing certain things, but that doesn't mean I think that Texas shouldn't have the ability to make its own mistakes.

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[rfrancis]

I tend to agree that the argument can be made that increased federalist tendencies on both sides of the aisle, in particularly on some hot topic issues, have rubbed the country pretty raw. On the other hand, states rights have been used to back some awful things in the past. Democracy is hard.

And now I go to lunch. :)

-R

Re: Hold me, Bryant

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

I just think that all the crazy free market republicans should take their ideologies to the logical extreme and stat that the only states whose electoral votes count are the ones that pay mroe in taxes then they get back in bnefits. Oh wait, those are mostly traditional Democratic states....