So, this is what it feels like to have your hopes dashed. I have never written an obituary and now I know what it feels like.
As an avid Dean supporter, it pains me to write the following words:
Dean lost. We lost.
The Establishment won. The media won.
George Bush will probably win (although, in all fairness, he might have defeated Dean anyway).
This diary entry has three themes:
Dean is Done
Kerry is a fraud
A small group of intellectually dishonest voters can change the history of a great country
Dean is Done
The Dean campaign swung for the fences with its Iowa and NH spending strategies and struck out. Joe Trippi was supposedly the genius who delivered Iowa to Gephardt in 1988. He knew how to work the caucus system - or so we believed. What was Dean, the well known tightwad, thinking when Joe was blowing most of the funds raised on an ad campaign in a state known for its retail politics?
Hindsight is 20/20. If the gamble had paid off and Dean had swept IOWA and NH we would be writing an entirely different story today.
But what I find disturbing is the thinking behind that strategy.
It is inconceivable that Dean could have raised another 40 million in small contributions between now and the GE. So, when they blew almost all of it in Iowa and NH, the campaign counted on opening up the big money spigots with decisive victories. So, the 40 million we raised from the grassroots was seed money to attract the real money.
I believe in Dean. I believe he is a decent, smart, good politician. I believe in his ideas. I don't think that his opposition to war was a calculated political gamble. I am convinced that he really analyzed the situation the right way in September 2002 and arrived at the right conclusion.
But if he actively acquiesced to the strategy of using the Internet funds as seed money, I am deeply, deeply disappointed and hurt. I find myself agreeing with the Rev Al: If I had spent that kind of money to come in third, I would still be hootin' and hollering.
So, that's it. The end. Finis.
So, where do I go from here?
I will continue to support Dean until (and if) he decides to call off the campaign. I trust him to have learned from his mistake and he is certainly no fool. If he seriously thinks he can take this to the convention, then fine. I am with him.
John Kerry is a fraud
But I will NOT vote for Kerry. I am convinced that Kerry is a political opportunist who would not know an honest opinion if it got up and smacked him in the face.
I never thought I would say these words: But I will vote for Lieberman before I will vote for Kerry. Lieberman has the dignity that accompanies personal integrity. So does Dean. I will even go as far to say that Bush has the courage of his convictions, even if they are horribly flawed.
Kerry simply has no convictions. Zip. Nada.
He is the man who said the following on the Senate floor in September 2002:
With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
<snip>
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.
And then Kerry really got into his stride ...
It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.
Prior to the gulf war, Iraq had an advance nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.
According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year.
Yesterday Kerry looked America in the face and said he wants to replace George Bush because Bush misled us. I am looking at his own statements on the Senate floor and I come to the inescapable conclusion: Kerry believed the exact same reports that he is now faulting GWB for believing. If Bush is guilty of misleading us because he believed the intelligence he so wanted to believe, John Kerry is clearly guilty as well.
I can respect Joe Lieberman. I disagree with him, but I respect the courage of his convictions. Dennis Kucinich will fall on a sword for his convictions. Howard Dean will evaluate facts and change his theory.
Kerry will say (and do) anything to be President.
Which is why I will not vote for him.
I live in Connecticut, a safe democratic state. I will watch the polls and if it looks like Bush leads Kerry in Connecticut, I will turn around and vote for Kerry, because I do want to see Bush out of the White House.
Until then, I will continue to support Dean.
A small group of intellectually dishonest voters can change the history of a great country
A final word on the electoral process.
I know that we are supposed to respect Democracy and respect the will of the voters.
Poppycock.
More than ever, I am convinced that a major portion of the electorate is politically lazy and intellectually dishonest. They are dittoheads. They will vote the trend. Otherwise how do you explain the 4% of overall voters in Iowa and 6% of overall voters in NH for whom the war in Iraq was the biggest single issue in their vote but voted for Kerry anyway? If they had truly bothered to vote their biggest issue on its merits Dean would have tied (or even defeated Kerry) in New Hampshire. He would have been much closer in Iowa.
If you are a Kerry voter in NH whose biggest issue was the war, perhaps you could explain your vote to us.
I sure as hell cannot.