With Joe Lieberman joining Dick Gephardt on the sidelines, both of the Democrats running for President that could be taken seriously on the biggest issue of our age are now gone -- and gone quickly and decisively. I certainly don't agree with much of their politics, especially Gephardt's populism, but at least I wouldn't have worried quite so much about the War on Terrorism if either of them had been the Democrat's nominee this year for president. I contend that this is very bad news for the DNC, because ultimately this election will come down to one issue when each thinking, informed citizen steps into the ballot box and that is who is going to protect America from its real enemies. John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Al Shaprton, and Dennis Kucinich have all been measured and they have all been found wanting. Each of them still seems to fail to understand what the War on Terrorism is all about and they each lack the will to fight it effectively.
This isn't just my perception incidentally, but that of a significant number of Democrats. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about George W. Bush lately, have you found any Republicans openly coming out and saying they will be voting for any of these Democrats? On the other hand, there are already many declared Democrats who are quite loudly saying that it looks like they'll be voting to reelect George W. Bush this November. There's a huge difference between some of President Bush's "base" sitting on their hands and actively voting against him. If John Kerry is the presumptive nominee, there will not only be a number of Democrats also sitting on their hands, e.g. true Deaniacs, but also a number voting for his opponent. In fact, I think these swing votes will almost exactly match the margin of victory in the general election. Like I keep saying, despite the "base" issues President Bush has right now, it still looks like a blowout to me -- even more so if Howard Dean doesn't come back into the fold or if Ralph Nader decides to launch another vanity campaign.
But there's something even worse going on that demonstartes the current political and intellectual bankruptcy of the DNC today. Shouldn't Democrats be arguing that any Democrat is better than reelecting President George W. Bush, instead of having a contest to see who's "most" electable compared to him? Isn't this a tacit admission that it's a race to see who will lose least worst? On the other hand, the circus freak show that includes Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and even Wesley Clark as serious candidates ought to be shaking the foundations at DNC headquarters. This is very bad for the DNC and bad for the future of politics in our country. We should always expect criticism to come from across the aisle, but most of the criticism offered today is nothing more than vacuuous gainsaying of whatever the other guy says. Personally, I'm still looking forward to the issue of The New Republic that chastises the DNC for no longer being a serious party. Unless the Democrats can offer constructive criticism, the Republicans are more likely to drift further and further into destructive policies calculated primarily to further their interests and hold on power, rather than the nation's interests. The Democrats forty year lock on Congress was not a good thing and, frankly, there is no reason to believe that a Republican forty year lock on Congress would be any better.
Anyway, I dread the next nine months of having to listen to the daily repetition of John Kerry's sonorous, monotonic recitation of meaningless talking points. But you want to know what's really scary? Dennis Kucinich got 5% of the vote in New Mexico's primary. I think I'm going to reconsider retiring to the high desert there because there are just too damn many loons on the loose.