Speed Gibson

If you had any misgivings about gloating this week, you shouldn’t. Today’s Sunday Minneapolis Star Tribune’s “Op Ex” section has six unfavorable articles on President Bush and his 2004 campaign.

• Ad man Bill Hillsman of Wellstone and Ventura fame blamed some prominent Democrats and organizations, and then asked: “Where would the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party have been without Howard Dean … MoveOn.org … Michael Moore … George Soros … Rock the Vote … [and] Air America?” Leaving aside whether these were all positives, a better question would be: “Where would the Democratic Party have been without John Kerry?”
  
• Professor Dan Hofrenning of St. Olaf also believes that Kerry misplayed a winning hand by stressing how he would better manage Bush’s problems without providing any overall vision of his own. This is true as far as it goes, but then assumes Mr. Kerry actually had a vision to share. Kerry said he had a plan for everything on his web site, but there was nothing there but restated platitudes. Mr. Hofrenning makes the error of seeing his candidate as he wants him to be, not what he is.
  
• Professor Garry Wills of Northwestern writes a piece that can only be described as raw bigotry, stating that religious Neanderthals had outvoted the enlightened secularists. That the Star Tribune would publish such an article is surprising even to me.
  
• Paul Krugman of the New York Times expects “more and worse scandals” from Bush’s second term, without enumerating any from his first term. But he too thinks anyone concerned about abortion and same-sex marriage is not worth chasing. We wouldn’t want to challenge the thinking and loyalty of the “tolerant” leftists in the Democratic Party.
  
• Professor Lawrence R. Jacobs of the University of Minnesota says Bush is guilty of further polarizing the country by encouraging his base. Why Kerry or any other Presidential candidate is not guilty of this he does not explain. Bush “faces nearly unified Democratic opposition, suspicions among independents, and unease within some parts of his own party.” Why Bush’s situation is any different than any previous President, again, Jacobs does not explain.
  
• Finally, Professor Steven E. Schier makes the remarkable observation that “the Bush effort could only succeed by tying the Iraq occupation to the broader war on terror.” Why else would we be in Iraq? How many times does the President have to make this point?
  

There apparently was no room for George Will, William Safire, or any other opposing viewpoints. We have every right to gloat, at least until they admit the voters just might have picked the best man for the job.