by Klaus Rohrich
November 1, 2004
Despite the near hysterical and frantic efforts of the left to spin Kerry’s lack of a real campaign into an impending victory, George W. Bush will win tomorrow’s election. There are too many questions regarding the Kerry/Edwards’ commitment to the platform they espouse. Repeatedly John Kerry has contradicted himself on almost every issue, save one: involving the United Nations to legitimize any military effort undertaken by the United States.
During a discussion in april of 1994 concerning the involvement of american troops in the former Yugoslavia, Kerry said, "…[american troops] dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean american troops unilaterally going in … the answer is unequivocally no."
His insistence that america not act "unilaterally" isn’t playing too well in Poughkeepsie, as voters are wondering why Kerry would outsource national security to the UN. Other than that, Kerry really hasn’t differentiated himself from Bush too drastically.
Kerry has taken numerous positions in the war on Iraq. as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in the National Review, "There is no place he can go on Iraq that he has not already been. He has said so many conflicting things about it that his every word will count as a flip-flop." Simply saying that he could do better in Iraq than Bush with less money hasn’t impressed anyone, particularly since his assertion was woefully short on particulars.
He legitimizes his bellicosity in hunting down terrorists and killing them wherever they may attack american interests by referring to his Vietnam service. But truthfully, it’s difficult to take him seriously if his only credentials are a four-month stretch in Vietnam over 30 years ago. His opponent has been robustly fighting terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001 and has the destruction of the Taliban and the ouster of Saddam Hussein to his credit. The fact that Kerry recently referred to international terrorism as an "annoyance" has certainly "annoyed" the family members of the 3,000 americans slaughtered on 9/11.
His vote against the Medicare Modernization act has earned him the enmity of the aaRP, the powerful seniors’ lobby, who supported the act, which was signed into law by president Bush last year. His rationale to the aaRP for why he voted against it was he wanted american seniors to have "everything" rather than just "something".
John Kerry and his evil twin John Edwards have repeatedly criticized the president for the high cost of american health care. However, some of that increased cost can be directly attributed to american trial lawyers eager to sue doctors and hospitals in frivolous malpractice actions, which have served to make Edwards a multi-millionaire. In some jurisdictions in the U.S. the annual malpractice insurance premiums for physicians is now at a staggering $100,000+, thanks to lawyers such as Mr. Edwards!
The Democrats’ traditional supporters are also beginning to question the validity of their platform. african americans, whose support for Democrats traditionally ranks in the 80+ percentile, are now down to the mid 60s. Many are wondering how long the Jessie Jacksons and al Sharptons, both Democrat shills, are going to talk about the inherent inequality of american society without them actually doing something about it, other than pose for the camera. Ditto with Jews, who see Kerry’s yammering about "passing the global test" and "multilateral (read that as UN-supported) action" as a paean for anti-Semitism, for which the UN is famous.
Finally, the biggest reason that Bush will win is that the american people no longer have to swallow the pap fed to them by the american media oligopoly. It is easy to note the correlation in the decline in american liberalism and the rise of the blogosphere and talk radio. The Democrats still believe that treating people like mushrooms (keep them in the dark and feed them manure) is an effective political media strategy. While this worked for one or two decades, too much information is now available from alternative sources to allow voters to tune out the likes of Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.
The advent of Fox News has restored balance to the american media mainstream, a fact that is underscored by FN’s phenomenal success against CNN, MSNBC and the three stooges, aBC, CBS and NBC. The left have undertaken attempts to counter the effects of the Internet and talk radio by creating their own house organs, such as MoveOn.org and air america. They have largely failed to capture the imagination of americans because their message is stale and does not address the concerns of the mainstream of american life.
However, the surest indicator that Bush will win tomorrow is the fact that the Democrats have dispatched some 10,000 lawyers across the United States to initiate legal challenges to a Bush victory. Their strategy is plainly that even if they lose by a landslide, they will challenge the elections in the courts, as they challenge everything else they can’t get through legislatively. This will mean prolonged legal wrangling and charges of voter fraud in almost every state just to forestall the declaration of a winner. But the end result will be the same as it was in 2000. George Bush will be declared the winner and it may again take the Supreme Court of the United States to certify that victory.