 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
subject lines: ”Deadline for Iraq,” “Critical races, new faces,” “12
hours to turn the tide,” “Tammy has three weeks to win.” Always
on attractive e-stationary. Always with a button to make a
contribution down at the bottom. Always you recognize them. But
given that it is nearly a year-and-a-half after the most important
presidential election of our lives, one burning question nags with
receipt of each of these thrilling missives.
Why is John Kerry still sending me email?
HE’S BAAAACK!
Actually, if you’ve been on any sort of Democratic Party mailing
list, you’ll note that he never really left. Indeed, the most
charismatic personality to come out of Massachusetts since Mike
Dukakis wowed the nation has become a self-styled, grassroots
trailblazer. Did I miss something? Has the endless campaign been
restarted? Has no one yet had the heart to tell Senator
Excitement he lost? Has his staff been keeping the newspapers
from him and piping in old archival tape from CNN? He certainly
doesn’t seem to know its over. Indeed, solicitations from “Friends
of John Kerry, Inc.” are accumulating to alarming levels in my
inbox. The man who once came within a couple Ohio precincts of
the most powerful job in the world, is now emitting more spam
than Nigerians peddling lucrative money transfer schemes.
But for Democrats, shady offshore banking opportunities are
probably a better investment. At least we know what the Nigerian
is offering. His motives are certainly less murky than Kerry’s,
whose cyberspacial rallying cries never seem to mention the real
goal - a second bite at the presidential apple. Kerry may be
hoping that 2008 isn’t the ”Year of Hillary” after all. I would join
him in that wish. But if Hillary isn’t the answer, Kerry proves that
Democrats haven’t even formed a workable question. I’ll be glad
to help them.
Does John Kerry deserve a second chance at the big office?
No.
Kerry’s defenders like to point out how close he came in 2004.
True enough, but he wasn’t exactly up against the first string
either. George W. Bush is not Ronald Reagan. He’s more of a
hawkish Gerald Ford with nice hair and a Texas accent. In the
end, John Kerry didn’t lose to a strong leader, the sort of mythic
character who comes along once or twice in a generation to
inspire the masses and steamroll the opposition. Nor did he go
down to a Machiavellian genius. Karl Rove is good but he’s not
the evil all-powerful wizard Democrats seem to make him out to
be. No, the truth is that Kerry lost to a politically-wounded,
overgrown frat boy who not only couldn’t construct a coherent
policy but - if you watched the debates - could barely string
together a coherent sentence.
John Kerry’s campaign never really caught fire, say his
apologists. They swiftboated and flip-flopped him to death.
Maybe. Or maybe wet cardboard just isn’t very combustible. We
may have to accept that John Kerry’s biggest problem was John
Kerry.
So will Kerry actually make the run in ‘08? More importantly, will
Democrats let him?
I doubt it but it would not be unprecedented. In 1960, Adlai
Stevenson still had ardent supporters at the Democratic
convention after getting mauled by Dwight Eisenhower twice in
the previous decade. In 1908, it took only one ballot for
progressive Democrats to nominate William Jennings Bryan to
lead the party to its fourth electoral disaster in a row - despite his
having been responsible for two of the other three. Indeed,
Democrats have a long and cherished tradition of rewarding
humiliation and incompetence at the ballot box. The Republicans
have rarely shown such a touching proclivity for, as Samuel
Johnson once said of second marriages, “the triumph of hope
over experience.” Our losers end up as relevant spokesmen on
vital issues for the national party. Their losers retire to a quiet life
of obscurity and Viagra commercials.
So why do we idolize people who get rejected in the voting booth?
Part of it is ideological, I think. Many Democrats truly would rather
“be right” than win. Hence, there seems to be something deep in
the party psyche that forces us to play to what we think people
should want rather than what they actually are asking for. That
accounts for much of the Democrats’ reliance on failures as
spokesmen. When Republicans lose, they clean house and come
up with fresh blood and new tactics. When Democrats lose, we
just can’t resist laying our hands back on the same hot stove.
But for what its worth, perhaps I should pen a “Dear John” letter
of my own:
Dear Sen. Kerry,
You lost. Good performers know when the show has closed. We
have some lovely parting gifts, including Pennsylvania and
Michigan. Congratulations. The exit is stage right.
and tell me
what you
think
blog
to comment
on this article
and view
others