Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« September 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Friday, 17 September 2004
Kerry's blown it. And so have I.
A few weeks ago, on August 17th to be precise, I decided to write on the Gutshot forum about the US presidential election. I wanted to contact a man who had written an article in a glossy magazine in which he stated that the election was 'too close to call'. At the time Betfair was offering prices in the region of 10/11 on Bush. Unfortunately I couldn't afford to tie up capital for several weeks and didn't make the bet, even though I was certain that it represented tremendous value. Here is what I wrote:

I see in your article about election betting on page 62 of the latest edition of 'Inside Edge' that you consider the US election race 'too close to call' and mention odds from Cantor of 10/11 Republicans and 11/10 Democrats.

I don't think it's as close as that, though as someone who strongly hopes that Bush wins, it's closer than I would like it to be. I freely admit that I'm not an expert on the electoral college system but I do know that it's the same system that was used in 2000 when Bush won. Most polls taken now seem to report that it's neck and neck. If this is the case, then Bush should win it for one simple reason - all of the negative news and comment that one can make about him is already out in the open. People have had four years to get to know him and he's been the target of a volley of abuse. One minute he's an inarticulate simpleton, the next he's a sinister genius who tricked Democrats like Kerry into voting for the war on the basis of lies. It's all been said a million times.

And it's true that there are many Americans who would like to vote him out. But you can't just vote someone out, you have to summon the energy to vote someone else in and it's here that Kerry has the problem. He's gotten by so far by being all things to all people and trying to find a safe position on every issue. His best weeks, polls-wise, were when he went on holiday and didn't get reported on in the media. That's over now. He's had his convention, accepted the position as candidate and will increasinlgy be asked tricky questions that he can't evade forever. In his convention appearance, he talked about his Vietnam service and made almost no mention of what he did on his return from the war or what he's done in the Senate for the three decades since. The benefit of mentioning Vietnam (which he said was unimportant when backing Bill Clinton in 1992) is to contrast him with Bush, who didn't leave America in those years.

The only problem with that is that everyone knows that Bush was a total failure during that period. He was an alcoholic. I know. I've downloaded the interview with him at a wedding party in 1992 when he's totally smashed and descibes the wedded couple and the other guests as 'boring people, don't like to drink, don't like to smoke'. This is all known. It can't do any more damage. Meanwhile, Kerry, who is claiming to be a hero in his youth, is going to have some real explaining to do, as many of his former soldiers lambast him as unfit to serve. One shocking illustration is the picture of his group of 20 that he used in his own glorification. Of the other 19 people in the picture, two are dead, four are silent, two support him and a full 11 (!!!) state unequivocally that he's unfit for service. A doctor who treated his injuries at the time says straight out that he lied to get the first of his purple hearts!

Furthermore, he's already having to backtrack on a claim that he went on a covert action into Cambodia on Xmas Eve 1968. He's told the story many times over the years, but now it seems to be complete nonsense. What does this say about his integrity and how did he think that he could get away with lying about it? This story isn't going to go away and indeed it shouldn't if Kerry wants to make his record there the centrepiece of his appeal. Then there is his voting record which is mostly far to the left of most Americans but dives to the right for the sake of expediency when the occasion arises.

Soon there will be the televised debates. In 2000, I expected these to aid Gore and was stunned when they didn't. This time around, they will show Kerry as aloof and waffling. I've seen him talk on US TV and believe me, he's so boring it beggars belief. Bush is funny and warm on TV. Add to that Bush's advantage of being the incumbent, having his convention last and appealing to rural white males in the southern states where Kerry has absolutely no chance and I think it's nearer to a 4-7 chance that he wins.

Whatever you do, don't pay any attention to what the US media's political pundits say. The US newspapers are in the main, miles to the left of the US public and widely mistrusted. Remember the confusion of the New Yorker's film critic Pauline Kael, who after George McGovern's 1972 crushing defeat at the hands of Richard Nixon, lamented, 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' The most one sided election of all US history and she didn't know anyone who backed the winning side! Keep that in mind when watching any station other than Fox.

DY


Well of course I stand by every word of that still. Since the middle of August when the heat was turned on Kerry's Vietnam service, he's barely given an interview. Sadly the price on Bush has collapsed to 1.5 (i.e. 1-2). It's very frustrating.

_ DY at 2:05 PM BST
Post Comment | Permalink

View Latest Entries