I've come, a little late, to this entry from the much-hyped Noam Scheiber:
"I've never thought the chances of John Kerry winning this fall were very good, since it's become clear these last four years that George W. Bush and his advisers are more cynical and ruthless than pretty much any group of politicos in the country's history."
First things first: Anyone who has paid even a little bit of attention to this race since January has known that (a) John Kerry is a much more formidable politician than the conventional wisdom indicates; and (b) George W. Bush has been clearly vulnerable for the last 18 months.
Second, the Bush campaign is the most "cynical and ruthless" group "in the country's history"? Ever? More ruthless than, say, the Clinton braintrust? More cynical than Team Nixon? I mean, if the people behind Bush are such ruthless, cynical, geniuses, how is that that they blew a double-digit lead in 2000, wasted millions of dollars campaigning in California, lost the popular vote, and only won the election on a fluke?
This is the kid who's going to be Mickey Kaus's boss some day?
35 minutes ago
Yet another incident of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), which seems to be cropping up more and more as the election draws closer; _vide_ Kerry's latest bloviations on the draft, notwithstanding the repeated pricking of that bubble. People on the Left talk a lot about the supposed "desperation" of Bush & Co., yet it seems to me that it's Team Kerry that's exuding a lot more flop sweat.
John F. Kennedy's people used to have a reputation as quite unscrupulous and tough -- as Hubert Humphrey, much less Richard Nixon, might testify if a seance was held. Memories seem to be short.
Post a Comment