Many among the rightwing think Kerry will be a pushover because he can be easily compared to Michael Dukakis, the failure of '88. They mean that he can be easily tarred and feathered by Limbaugh-like attacks: "tax and spend elitist" and so on, banking on the idea that people are just as stupid and tautological as themselves, and so will slur any Democrat from Massachusetts as an effete pinko.
Great strategy! Please stick to it!
But, alas, some wingnuts are too clever and, perhaps, too evil, to think such a strategy will work. The Kristolmethodists at The Weekly Standard are a case in point:
"Republicans often liken Kerry to Michael Dukakis, the wimpy Democratic presidential nominee in 1988. But perhaps it's Bush who should worry about falling into the Dukakis trap. Bush and his team seem to assume opposition charges won't hurt because, of course, voters will know the charges are unfair and disingenuous. It's Kerry and his adviser Bob Shrum, with their relentless attacks, who are following the example of Bush's father and Lee Atwater. We know who prevailed then."
Actually, I don't think it matters if Bush "fights back." The only thing that will save him is a timely instance of Wag The Dog, probably in the capture of Osama bin Laden, which I fully expect him to attempt if not commit.
(As an aside notice the "wimpy" epithet given to Dukakis when it was in fact Bush senior to whom the label notoriously adhered. Good old revisionism. Also, the moral equivalence of Kerry's and his advisor's attacks to Bush Senior's, which included the demonicly unfair Willie Horton ads. But wait. Don't the Kristolmethodists consider Kerry's attacks unfair? Ahh, after all these years, an admission. Or else they just forgot their point, which would also be typical.)
posted by RETARDO MONTALBAN @ 5:36 AM
<< Home