Little Red Blog

In his latest column, Dick Morris, points out that even those voting for Kerry aren't doing so because they like him. They are voting against President Bush. Taken along with the latest from Michael Tomasky, of the American Prospect, and it becomes clear that the Left still doesn't understand where we are as a nation.

Tomasky writes that on "health care, the environment, investment, education, just about everything except national defense, majorities lean toward the Democratic position". And yet the Republicans win the Presidential election except when the Democrats offered "an unusually articulate and charismatic candidate named Clinton (and when it was possible to win with 43 percent of the vote, as Clinton did in 1992, or when the Hobbesians nominate a septuagenarian hatchet man, as they did in 1996)." Tomasky, aside from his statement that Democrats seek a rational world, and his assertion that he is not a conspiracy theorist, asserts that the Republicans, whom he calls "scurillous liars", win by means of attacking the Democrats character and leaving the voter with this thought on November 2 -

"Gosh, I just don't think John Kerry can be trusted to fight the war on terror."

Tomasky fails to make an argument for Kerry's being anything other than that which he claims the Republican's assert:

• "First, label him a flip-flopper. Establish him as unreliable. When dealing with someone who's been in the Senate for 20 years, casting thousands of roll-call votes on everything under God's sun, that's child's play.

• Second, go after his war record in Vietnam. It's the one obvious resume advantage Kerry has (had?) over Bush. Erase it with a bunch of old and not credible charges. Turn Kerry's advantage into a wash.

• Third, bring in Kerry's 1971 testimony. That should have the effect of planting the seed: Gee, if he spoke out against America then, can we be sure he'll defend America now?

• Fourth and last, once the historical groundwork is established, bring it up to the present. Tie it into terrorism and Iraq. Kerry -- the flip-flopper, the war-story embellisher, the critic of American military aims -- can't be trusted."

Morris notes that, as it should be, the number one issue for American's is National Security, a role the President is charged with and has the greatest direct influence on. Morris includes the results of a recent poll showing that Bush voters are voting FOR President Bush, not against Kerry, while Kerry voters are voting AGAINST the President.

"Bush voters emphatically say, by 82-13, that they are voting for the president rather than against the challenger."

And among Kerry voters

"support for Kerry (41 percent) or by opposition to Bush (51 percent)".

The primary issue at hand is character. And despite Tomasky's claim that other issues, policy issues, show Democrats support Kerry, the reality is in the numbers. Kerry fails on character and the effect is that those punching his chad do so not because of his stand on issues, but out of their opposition for President Bush.

It is troubling that so many would vote against rather than for, but it shows the lack of rational arguments for the Left and their candidate.

UPDATE: King of Fools offers some insight on voting FOR a candidate, rather than against. He starts from a piece concerned that a mass suicide might occur should Bush win. No really.

UPDATE: Blogs For Bush's Matt Margolis now has a piece on the Morris article and the Kerry Campaign's Woes.