Beware of the “Torricelli Maneuver”
By Christopher G. Adamo
Republicans love to pass around that now famous picture of John Kerry and Jane Fonda, ostensibly sitting side by side at a Vietnam era anti-war rally. Whether or not the picture in question is the doctored version, showing them seated much closer together than they apparently were, the obvious camaraderie existing between the two serves as a huge indictment of Kerry’s leftist ideology.
Unfortunately, an equally incriminating picture exists, by which Democrats can similarly accuse the Bush Administration. The home page of liberal Republican Senator Arlen Specter is highlighted by the Senator embracing Vice President Dick Cheney. With Cheney and Bush’s diligent assistance, Specter managed this week to scrape out a victory over conservative challenger Pat Toomey, thus setting him on the road to chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee where he can corrupt constitutional law even more effectively than ever before.
In light of the razor thin electoral victories in Florida as well as several other states during the 2000 presidential election, it is entirely conceivable that, had such a picture been widely circulated during that election cycle, we would presently be under the authority of a Gore Administration. And since that time, President Bush has been working feverishly to eradicate any justification conservatives might have once had to support him. At present, just two reasons still exist for those on the right to remain in the Bush camp. One of them is 9-11 and the associated threats of Islamic terrorism. The other, unwittingly provided by the Democrats, is John Kerry.
At present, Republicans are enjoying regular Kerry gaffes, and jubilantly alluding to the likelihood of an eventual “meltdown.” However, their celebrations may be entirely premature. Kerry is indeed floundering, and shows signs of completely self-destructing as a viable presidential candidate. Yet something ominous is occurring within liberal ranks. And it should raise the warning flags for wary Republicans.
Liberals are beginning to go after Kerry in a manner which they usually reserve for conservatives. Kerry’s military medal controversy, and more importantly, the inconsistencies of his re-telling of the event, possesses the potential to become an embarrassment on the order of Clinton’s famous “sex is not sex” comment. And the flames of this controversy are being fanned by none other than the network news anchors.
Across the political spectrum, everyone from Rush Limbaugh to James Ridgeway of the ultra-leftist “Village Voice” is suggesting the possibility that Kerry won’t remain as the Democrat nominee. However, it is dangerously naive to assume that the Democrats have any intention of simply writing off this presidential election and biding their time until 2008. They don’t work that way. Unlike Republicans, they play to win.
Consider the events as they unfolded in the 2002 New Jersey Senate race. Democrat Senator Robert Torricelli, having been embroiled in scandal, was severely lagging in the polls. Nonetheless, he had handily won that state’s Democrat primary and was the incumbent candidate. As Election Day approached, and well past any legal deadline for doing so, he suddenly dropped out of the race and was replaced by former Senator Frank Lautenberg who went on to win the general election. As a result, New Jersey’s contested senate seat remained firmly in the hands of the Democrats.
Some predictions are risky to make, especially in politics. However, dirty tricks from the Democrats, between now and November 2, is a safe bet. The Democrats may even once again attempt to ignore any deadlines. One of the distinct advantages of the Lautenberg substitution, occurring as it did during the final days of the 2002 campaign season, was that Republican candidate Doug Forrester was hardly able to campaign effectively against his new opponent, while his own “battle scars” remained intact. If Kerry absorbs all of the Republicans’ arrows while he continues as the official candidate, they will have little unused “ammunition” to direct at his replacement.
A new candidate, unencumbered by the sort of baggage presently dragging Kerry down, would likely appear as a plausible and worthwhile alternative to Bush. Any rapid response from Bush/Cheney against this “fresh new face,” whoever it might be, will largely be perceived as nothing more than partisan rancor.
With President Bush’s “conservatism” being little more than a skeletal caricature of that which got him elected, and with the Republican Party defined by the lowest standard it enthusiastically embraces (in this case, Arlen Specter), it wouldn’t take much for Democrats to find a candidate whose political philosophy appears entirely reasonable in comparison.
|
