By DICK MORRIS
JOHN Kerry is in deeper trouble than the polls indicate. While the Fox News survey taken last week after the Republican convention shows Bush with a small lead over Kerry, the internal data indicates big shifts against the Democrat. For example, Kerry is now seen unfavorably by a record 44 percent of the voters (his personal worst), giving him a slightly higher unfavorable ratio than Bush — whom 43 percent dislike. (Bush's edge comes from the fact that he gets 51 percent to rate him favorably, while Kerry has only a 46 percent favorable rating.)
But worse, the poll shows that Kerry must face a basic problem: His own voters don't like him very much. The Fox News poll asked Kerry supporters if their vote for the Democrat could best be described as motivated by support for Kerry (41 percent) or by opposition to Bush (51 percent). By contrast, Bush voters emphatically say, by 82-13, that they are voting for the president rather than against the challenger. This puts Kerry in a tough position in the coming debates. He has no real base of support and any attenuation of the dislike his voters feel for Bush will weaken him substantially. All Bush has to do is to persuade a few Kerry voters to stop disliking him, and he can get their votes. There is no residual affection for the Democrat to get in the way of their switching to the president.
The polls already have shown how Kerry's own voters break almost evenly on the issues, with half supporting the war in Iraq and half opposing it, and almost equal numbers saying we must stay the course as say we should bring the troops home. So Kerry can't use issues to hold his own in the debates: Whatever he says will antagonize some of his base. And now it's plain that he can't rely on personal popularity to hold them, since most are just voting against Bush. If the president gives an even moderately effective presentation and comes across as even somewhat likeable, he can cut deeply into Kerry's vote.
Continued on Page 49
Democratic Sen. John Kerry on Friday accused the Bush administration of hiding a plan to mobilize more National Guard and reserve troops after the election while glossing over a worsening conflict in Iraq. . .
Why is everybody always pickin' on me??? -John Kerry
And... Hannity is saying he is acting paranoid...
Why is everybody always pickin' on me??? -John Kerry
Ralph Peters
FIGHTING terror is like fighting a fire. It's easiest in the early stages, before the flames spread. But if you sit idly by, hoping that the fire will burn itself out, you're likely to find yourself up against an inferno. Confronted by global terror, the Clinton administration hoped the problem would go away by magic. Faced with incipient terror in Iraq last year, the Bush administration insisted that the magic of freedom would make it disappear. But policies that rely on magic of any kind beg for disaster.
We don't yet face a disaster in Iraq — thanks to the quality and commitment of our troops. And the Bush administration, despite its errors, has had a great stroke of luck in Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who has shown not only a solid grasp of the problems Iraq faces, but the will to solve them no matter what it takes. At the moment, it's almost impossible to find a balanced view of Iraq in America. The partisans of both political parties are out in force, insisting either that Iraq's a magnificent place with a minor litter problem, or that it's an inferno where countless legions of terror are being forged.
The reality's in the middle, but still more hopeful than not. Despite the lurid media reports, more good things than bad are happening in Iraq. Progress is slow and painful. But it's still progress. The media report an increase in violence, occasionally noting that the terrorists hope to influence the U.S. election. But there's much more to the carnage than Bush vs. Kerry.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
09/17/2004 11:49:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Still too pessimistic. I use the "L.A. model", that is, how is Iraq doing compared to Los Angeles? Granted, Iraq is the size of France, with about 3 times as many people, but otherwise, how do they stack up?
Right now, there are still "hot spots" in Iraq that the military is reducing--as military operations. But what percentage of the country has become "under ordinary police jurisdiction?"
Distinguishing the two leads to some very different viewpoints. Except for the hot spots, "crime", what is left over, is maybe twice that of Los Angeles. If you take a particularly frequent crime, say kidnappings, and say they are extraordinary, I can point to otherwise peaceful countries in central and South America with kidnapping rates just as high.
So, what percentage of the country is "at war" and what percentage is "at peace"?
One of the mistakes of the left is using the "Canada Standard" in judging Iraq: that is, until Iraq is *just like Canada*, then it is a chaotic quagmire. Realism dictates that Iraq will be a vibrant, and yes, violent place for a while; but this does not mean that it is any the more damned than is L.A.
#2
Anon - have ever been to LA? you talk as if there are gunnies all over the place? it is a great place to live...yes there are some very poor areas but come on you got the same thing in Kansas City!!! all in all i would pick LA over most areas..but then I like the woman, beaches, acitvities..the night life...
Posted by: Dan ||
09/17/2004 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Samra,
Fallujah,
Najaf,
Tikrit,
Sadr City district of Baghdad
Haven't 90%+ of our combat deaths been in these places since the beginning of the year?
#4
#3 Samra, Fallujah, Najaf, Tikrit, Sadr City district of Baghdad Haven't 90%+ of our combat deaths been in these places since the beginning of the year? There's a whole lot of Iraq besides these places
Really? I don't believe you . . . you must be one of those evil bloggers that hate sKerry and frEdwards. It is just plain wrong to intimate that there mught be anything going on in Iraq but the killing of newborn babies and orgies in prisons.
Oh, wait . . . I remember. I am educated and intelligent. Sorry. Lost my senses there for a minute . . .
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
09/17/2004 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
...you must be one of those evil bloggers that hate sKerry and frEdwards.
And I have bunny-wabbit feet on my pajama bottoms!
#6
I agree this seems too pessimistic. A recent report from the Justice Department cited US crime statistics at a 30-year low, with instances of violent crime (assault, sexual assault and armed robbery) at 23 per 1000 people age 12 and older (vs. 50 per 1000 in 1993). In addition there were 319 property crimes per 1000. The article didn't give a rate for murder but a total for 2003 of 16,420.
VDH "War is a series of catastrophes that results in victory." — Georges Clemenceau
A few conservative strategists — from the Financial Times to Edward Luttwak — have recently floated the idea of a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. "Exit strategy" is suddenly the realist buzz. In addition, Clintonites — for a time staying low as scrutiny turned to their past appeasement of terrorists in the 1990s — now boldly proclaim that Iraq is another Vietnam (notwithstanding 49,000 fewer American dead, no nuclear Soviet Union or China in the neighborhood, and no army of three million insurrectionists under the banner of worldwide socialist revolution).
Nevertheless, given our successful removal of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent increasing chaos in the country, the idea may grow popular to re-declare "Mission Accomplished" — and then quietly leave. We have fulfilled our goals of ensuring that a Baathist Iraq no longer threatens its neighbors or the strategic Gulf states, and can now let Najaf fight Fallujah rather than both of them us. Or so the new wisdom goes.
Furthermore, should another Saddam-like tyrant arise from the ashes, we can always GPS him back into oblivion. That is much easier than losing another 1,000 Americans in an attempt to craft consensual government at the price of some $87 billion in aid.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
09/17/2004 11:45:35 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This "solution" will eventually lead to the 3 part partition fo Iraq, and the US shoudl not withdraw entiurely - we should set up a base in the soon-to-be Republic of Kurdistan. We will need it to strike Iran - or at least to aid the rebellion when it comes, and help precipitate it by suporting Free Iran guerillas.
And maybe negotiate with Sistani a port base and facility in Shia dominated "Shia-stan" in Southern & Western Iraq (in exchange ofr trianing and equipping thier army to keep Najaf and the holy sites safe, and help him hold off the Iranians who want to take over his job).
We need somethign to maintain the geopolitical leverage Iraq gives us, without the costs of policing Baghdad and the Sunni triangle.
#2
Plus we'll need a base on Kurdistan to ensure that the Kurds don't get devoured by the Turks and Iranians. Fine with me; a 50 year lease on an air base and adjoining base for a brigade would be fine. We can rotate troops in and out -- dandy place for a National Guard unit to come in for specialized training.
I'd negotiate with Sistani to have a small base just outside Najaf, you know, for shrine security.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/17/2004 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Can't bug out on Allawi until he bugs out on the coalition.
#4
Iraqi security forces are dying at a rate 3 or 4 times that of American troops. They are making a real effort. The press swings both ways on this - on the one hand, the security forces are supposed to be thoroughly infiltrated with guerrillas - on the other too many are dying because Americans aren't providing enough security. Media people are blowing this out of proportion - it's like someone who provides a close-up of a gory traffic accident and then proclaims that we are fighting a losing battle against traffic accidents.
Voices of Terror: Manifestos, Writings and Manuals of al-Qaeda, Hamas, and other Terrorists from around the World and throughout the Ages. Edited by Walter Laqueur. New York: Reed Press, 2004. 520 pp. $19.95.
In her now classic study on The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt confronted the question of why it was that much of the West was for so long so reluctant to grasp the criminal nature of the Nazi and Soviet regimes. Furthermore, why did so many fellow travelers and other apologists crop up to cover up and explain away the extraordinary atrocities committed under Hitler and Stalin? In the end, Arendt found the answers to her queries in the very nature of quotidian life in liberal democracies: because the democratic body politic is dependent upon certain assumptions about individuals, self-interest, rationality, and the rule of law, it has great difficulty in imagining the violence and terror that are part and parcel of life under totalitarian domination. Consequently, she lamented that "the normality of the normal world is the most efficient protection against disclosure of totalitarian mass crimes."
As the third anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington approaches, it is difficult not to observe that history has once more confirmed the veracity of the dictum that plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Arendt's analysis of the West's failure to appreciate the totalitarian terror that threatened it half a century ago is eerily paradigmatic of its ongoing failure to grasp the nature of the phenomenon of transnational terrorism and political violence that challenges it today. The same historical forces are at work, not only trivializing accounts of the extraordinarily pernicious nature of very real threat, but also attempting to legitimize terrorists into political actors with rational grievances with whom one can treat on the basis of some elusive common ground. While sweeping generalizations are usually unhelpful in statecraft, as one surveys everything from the strategy—if it can be called that—of endlessly pursuing compromises with the firebrand Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq to the almost shameless excuse-making for Islamist violence that goes on in American academia, one cannot help but wonder if the old cycle of wishful thinking, denial and appeasement is putting on an encore performance—or, as Yogi Berra, put it once, "it's dejà vu all over again."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
09/17/2004 11:06:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
