January 31, 2005

So I was watching some of the Iraqi election coverage yesterday, and I have to say that for a few minutes, I actually thought I was watching US election coverage.

And why not? The same actors were there, all saying the same tired things from the same tired script. One of my most fond wishes for the renaissance of the Democratic Party is for them to hire a new script writer. The one they currently have has to be on his last legs by now, having been in the position for about thirty years.

I mean, how many times did we have to hear on the weekend of November 6 that President Bush couldn't claim a "mandate?" That's rich, coming as it was from the same cast who insisted Bill Clinton had a mandate (I believe it was called a "mandate for change."). It's especially rich on the heels of an election where the winner won an absolute majority of the popular vote, something that had not happened since 1988. But no, we had Dems saying not to put too much stock in that election result.

Which is why my ears perked up when John Kerry, himself no stranger to putting too much stock in things, decided to let us know that we shouldn't "overhype" this election. What, exactly, does that mean? Because it's good news, we ought not "overhype" it? What about the rhetoric Ted Kennedy let loose with during his America Is Always Wrong World Tour '05? That Iraq is Vietnam 4.0? Is that not overhyping the influence an extreme minority has on the Iraq stage? The insurgents (Screw it, from now on I won't dignify them with that title...they are terrorists) did not want this election to go forward at all...and you see how well THEIR strategy turned out.

Or is overhyping the way the erudite John Kerry seeks to dismiss the historic importance of this election? After all, it pretty much validates everything the Administration was saying...that this region needs democracy and freedom, and they'd lap it up like Michael Moore would a Slurpee. The Iraqi turnout percentage was...robust...and to hear the news tell it, they voted under threat of beheading (see "courage"). Yet there's Ted Kennedy out there, recycling his own talking point that Bush "must look beyond the election" as if it didn't mean anything. Leave aside the sheer condescension and absolutely insulting message of that statement. But oh, how similar that sounds to calls that even though Bush won the election, he had to look beyond the election and appoint people who disagreed with him.

This morning, I caught the next talking point...that the election was marred by fraud. Alas, yesterday there was John Kerry, recycling his Ohio talking points, complaining about the legitimacy of the vote:

A kind of legitimacy--I mean, it's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote.

Yeah, all those people who were disenfranchised since the salad days of Saddam Hussein.

And then there's Robert Fisk calling the whole thing a "bloody charade," saying it's basically a dog and pony show. Replace the nouns and you have the standard complaint about President Bush being a puppet for Halliburton. This sort of thing went on ad nauseum in the liberal quarters.

Seriously guys...don't you get tired of saying the same thing no matter what the actual subject is? I mean, the only thing missing was Wonkette breathlessly publishing false exit polls.

Look, the Iraqis voted, many for the first time in their lives, and in the first election that actually had meaning and force. And they were ready for it. Boy were they ready for it. So ready, in fact, that they stared down the anti-freedom terrorists and took the first step toward realizing their own destiny. And in doing so, they validated the sacrifice our troops made for them. Good show, guys. May you forever remain ignorant of "campaign finance reform."

Posted by John Tant at January 31, 2005 07:25 AM

    The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/654