Monday, May 24, 2004

Some good news for a change...

Martin Kettle declares that Bush cannot win the next election. Only John Kerry can lose this election now.

He also offers an explanation as to why the Democratic party was missing in action in 2001.

Selected quote:

Back in September 2001, Kerry was one of the Senate Democrats who supported his majority leader Tom Daschle in the hard but uninspiring decision to keep the party's head down on the war on terror. America's mood was such, they argued, that to attack Bush over Afghanistan, civil liberties or Iraq was to walk into the trap that Karl Rove, the president's strategist, was setting for the 2004 campaign. Rove's strategy was and is to present Bush as a strong and successful wartime leader. Daschle's wily response was to lie low. If the war on terror went brilliantly, Bush would win anyway. If it went badly, Daschle and Kerry were determined not to allow Bush to blame it on the Democrats.

It was a huge gamble. Yet if it looked craven in 2001, it begins to look a lot smarter today. As Bush began his fightback strategy on Iraq last night in Pennsylvania, opening a crucial phase of what the distinguished writer Elizabeth Drew this week rightly called America's "most consequential election in decades", it is Kerry, not Bush, who is now the man to beat.

I like reading foreign press reviews of the US. I think their distance from the entire circus often gives them some a worthwhile perspective.

No comments: