"For all the clutter and clatter, interviews this week suggest that the outlines of a consensus may be emerging among Democrats and Republicans on why the election turned out the way it did, aided by the passage of time and additional studies and polling," concludes a NYT front-pager this first Sunday morning of 2005. Predictably, the article's sensible assessment is tagged on almost as an afterthought at the end of a hand-wringing two-pager (online) of "clutter and clatter" retracing familiar ground:
Did Democrats lose because they were seen as lax on "values," which was the early verdict on the Kerry loss, or because they were seen as weak on terrorism?
News flash to Democrats and fellow travelers in the MSM: It isn't because they were "seen as" this or that. It's because they ARE what they are, and the citizenry saw through the smoke and mirrors. The NYT's conclusion, after a string of predictable soundbites from the usual suspects:
Fittingly enough, this consensus would bring everything back full circle to what both parties were saying a year ago in trying to predict the outcome of the race.
This was, the argument goes, an election shaped by the fears and memories of Sept. 11, and memories of Mr. Bush's steely performance in the days after the attacks. Voters were averse to changing presidents in what was effectively a time of war -- and Mr. Kerry, never a particularly likable candidate, never gave them a reason to do it.
We were delighted with the Times's assertion early on in the article that "Presidential elections often produce a clear story line, a lesson for winners and losers alike. Not this one, at least not yet." At least not until the last paragraphs of their own article.
Comments