[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

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.