Rove Revels in Democrat Kerry's Lead

[RPankn]

From the Unquotable. It's an excerpt from Bob the big ho Woodward's new book, but I just had to post it because of these lines:

"The good news for us is that Dean is not the nominee," Rove now argued to an associate in his second-floor West Wing office. Dean's unconditional opposition to the Iraq war could have been potent in a face-off with Bush. "One of Dean's strengths, though, was he could say, I'm not part of that crowd down there." But Kerry was very much a part of the Washington crowd, and he had voted in favor of the resolution for war. Rove got out his two-inch-thick, loose-leaf binder titled "Bring It On." It consisted of research into Kerry's 19-year record in the Senate. Most relevant were pages 9 to 20 of the section on Iraq.

Rest here: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19692-2004Apr17.html

[RPankn]

I wish I could post the link to the DU thread where this article is being discussed, but the people running that site probably can see where the referring link was coming from and I don't want the ABB Dems coming here. Anyway, it's funny to see them try and convince themselves that Kerry is not the horrible candidate that he is and this is just a huge psych out on Rove's part.

[POA]

Here are some of the issues that, through Kerry's selection, have effectively been taken off the table:

1) Skull and Bones.

I'm writing an essay about this (although it's going slowly). While this could hardly be a central issue in the campaign, I can envision it having a lot of value in terms of negative campaigning. Just playing up the sheer weirdness of an organization that collects anatomical pieces of famous individuals and calls it's sanctum santorum "The Crypt" enough should shave off a good chunk of Christian voters. "President Bush belongs to a death cult". Essentially, this is the truth.

The problem is, so does Kerry.

2) The lies surrounding the invasion of Iraq

There is so much ammunition in this particular field that Kerry could literally swim in it. "Curveball"? The "Office of Special Plans?"? The Kwiatkowski allegations, all of which have been demonstrated to be true by events? Wolfowitz lambasting Shinseki for being absolutely right?

However, the fact that Kerry also voted for the war hobbles him, because he either has to 'nuance' that he was suckered into it (although coming clean about why he claims that he was suckered in would help), or he has to change the subject and talk about nothing but the post-war events.

3) The PATRIOT Act/Acts

This would be another great wedge issue to peel off Republicans with that also serves a positive principle. A significant chunk of Republicans can't stand it. Even some of Bush's staunchest backers, such as the National Rifle Association and Grover Norquist, have been involved in the efforts to hobble it through the passing of anti-Patriot Act resolutions on a state or local level.

However, since Kerry voted for it, and his policy off of his website is just to gut the parts that are troublesome while leaving the larger structure intact, he doesn't have credibility here.

4) Israel

Kucinich and Sharpton had the best policy regarding this particular issue. Dean had leanings/associations with the pro-Israelis in the Democratic Party, but he also expressed a willingness to be unorthodox which might've meant that we could see some improvement. (Although, at this point, the US has probably gone over the cliff).

Not so Kerry, however. He's made it clear that he'll continue the same destructive policies that have produced nothing but exasperation in leaders elsewhere around the world, and outright fury from the world's population.

[RPankn]

I have been wondering about some of those things myself. There is certainly enough ammunition between the 2000 election -- particularly what was going on in Florida, the Iraq war, Sept. 11th and touchscreen voting for the Democrats to nail Bush, the neo-cons and the Republican Party with. Yet in terms of Florida, it's been nothing but the Democrats continually blaming Nader for Gore's loss without holy hell being raised about the voter purging. In terms of the Iraq war, there's been dead silence from Kerry and the Democrats except for Kerry and prominent Democrats to say they don't agree with the way Bush has, and is, handling it. On Sept. 11th, there's all this evidence out there which shows at the very least Bush and the neo-cons had foreknowledge of the attacks, but the Dems seem insistent on seeing no evil, hearing no evil and speaking no evil.

I'm beginning to think two things. One, the DLC has lead the Democratic Party so far to the right that essentially, the Democrats agree in principle with Republican and neo-con values and principles, they just differ on how these things should be done. E.g., unilateralism vs. the pretense of multilateralism on effecting the PNAC/WTO/IMF plans.

The second thing I'm thinking, which has been nagging at the back of my mind for awhile now, and at the risk of being accused of being a CTer, is that essentially, the DNC/DLC has been actively working to sell out the Democratic rank-and-file by arranging the nomination of a candidate like Kerry, and Republicans and Democrats have just become two different facades for someone(s) and/or somethings pulling the strings behind the scenes who have a larger goal in mind. There's just too many odd events happening lately for this all to be either luck or accident.