This really ought to be an update to my previous post, “License to Kill?“, but that’s way down at the bottom of this page, and I’ve learned that updates to old posts tend to be ignored in the order they’re written.
Anyway, Glenn Reynolds weighs in on the scenario that the war might escalate (for the wrong reasons) under Kerry:
Would fear of seeming like a wimp lead Kerry to escalate the war on terror rather than pursuing the cut-and-run strategy that many of us expect will mark a Kerry Presidency? Good question. That might actually dispose me to feel better about the prospect of Kerry winning, though I’d prefer a president who pursued war with cold-blooded focus rather than one who pursued it for egotistical reasons.
Add to that the fear of seeming like a “civil liberties wimp” in the event of another terrorist attack (ominous in light of Kerry’s past support for taking away liberties) and, well there’s the left-wing case for Bush in a nutshell!
I guess one could also call this the right wing case for Kerry. But the real right wing case for Kerry is that electing him now would postpone the otherwise inevitable running (and likely election) of Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. As Michael Moore and countless conservatives agree, Kerry is the number one liberal. If he loses, it may be the last public “hurrah” for the far left of the Democratic Party (or at least what is commonly perceived as that).
From Hillary Clinton’s standpoint, a Kerry defeat places her squarely in the middle. If he loses, she becomes a moderate. Possibly even a hawk.
That’s enough to send shivers up and down the spine of many a conservative. How Kerry might tap into that fear is another question entirely.
I doubt they’ll vote for him (although how to interpret Pat Robertson’s recent comments has me puzzled).