As Goes Instapundit, So Goes the Nation?

Posted 10/07 01:08 PM

Glenn Reynolds, aka the Blogfather, aka Instapundit, is an interesting measuring stick of the election. His politics tend libertarian, pro-gun and pro-gay marriage, and so he's not exactly a natural Bush supporter. With just a little effort or strategy, the Kerry campaign could be, or should be, able to get a guy like him to pull the lever for the Dems in November.

But Instapundit has been unenthusiastic about Kerry since this campaign began, and today he simply dismantles Kerry's foreign policy plan:

No weapons have been found, but the Iraq Survey Group's report makes clear that Saddam wanted to outwait sanctions and then start making the weapons again:

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."

But hey, Kerry voted for the war, so his arguments on that topic boil down to either (1) Bush lied, and I'm gullible: or (2) Bush and I both got fooled, but I'll do better next time. Neither is very compelling.

The real centerpiece of Kerry's foreign policy stance, though, has been that he would be better than Bush at getting allies together, and at passing the "Global Test" before taking military action. And that case is in total collapse this week.

Forget missteps like his dissing of our allies in Iraq, Australia, and Poland — which drew a stinging response from the Polish President ("It's sad that a Senator with twenty years of experience does not appreciate Polish sacrifice.") Now even Kerry is admitting that he's not going to be able to deliver on his promises:

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.

The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.

"Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that," he said.

Body bags. This sounds like the John Kerry of 1971. I can't help but think that, for Kerry, every war is Vietnam. And if he's President, I'm afraid that might turn out to be the case.

Glenn concludes, after reading reports about Saddam bribing the French, that "It's hard to pass the "Global Test" when the people grading it are being bribed to administer a failing grade. Perhaps Kerry should change his stance, and promise that a Kerry Administration would "outbid the bad guys." That approach is more likely to succeed than the one he's been touting, which even he has admitted is doomed."

Now - picture the Democrats nominating a candidate who takes the war on terror seriously, who wants to finish the job in Iraq, and who doesn't see every foreign policy issue as a rerun of Vietnam.

A Tony Blair - style Democrat would probably be trouncing Bush right now. Karl Rove & Co. are very lucky to have the opponents they do.

UPDATE: Again, many readers suggest that Joe Lieberman was a Tony Blair-style Democrat, and that the Democratic base rejected him. Let me throw out another point - would Bush be getting trounced against a Tony Blair-style Democrat who wasn't associated with the Gore campaign and who looks and speaks more like Tony Blair and less like Droopy Dog. Don't get me wrong - I was caught up in the "Joe-mentum" earlier this year, but I think that to many voters, he just doesn't look the part of a commander-in-chief.