VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- Unlike Election 2000 between George "W" Bush and Al "I Invented The Letter W" Gore, I predict that the race between Bush and John Kerry is not going to end in a photo finish.
This time, I don't believe that the fate of the nation and the free world will be decided by a handful of senile, incontinent old geezers wheeled out from under a pile of mothballs in some Fort Lauderdale, Fla., retirement home and straight into the polling booth. Nevertheless, desperate times lead to desperate measures, and in the last stretch of this marathon race, the "spinsanity" has kicked into overdrive.
The battle between conservatism and liberalism can be summed up as one of fact vs. rhetoric. It's why former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, once said: "If you are not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at age 40, you have no brain." Kerry campaign tactics being used in the waning days of this election perfectly illustrate this sentiment as he trots out every no-brain Hollywood celebrity with a pulse. How can facts ever compete with hysterics like:
-- "If you want rape to be legal, then don't vote." (Charlie's Angels' Cameron Diaz);
-- "And the rich, corporate, horrible, horrible people who have been destructing and ruining everything this country was made on has been really unbelievably damaging to all of us spiritually, emotionally, monetarily." (ex-talk show host Rosie O'Donnell, who has suffered a net gain of millions under Bush's Evil Empire)
-- "All the gay guys, all my friends, all my gay friends, you guys you have got to vote, all right? Because it would only be a matter of time before you guys would be so screwed, I cannot tell you. Because, you know, the people, like, in the very right wing of this party, of these Republicans, the very very right wing, the Jerry Falwell element, if they get any more power, you guys are going to be living in some state by yourselves." (actress/singer Cher, looking out for Mary Cheney)
Kerry campaign mascot, Ben Affleck, has figured prominently in Kerry's final days, as has Bruce Springsteen and Sharon Stone, who blamed President Bush back in August for creating a climate in which she wasn't given the green light for a lesbian love scene with Halle Berry in the movie "Catwoman."
When you turn to the Screen Actors Guild directory and roll Bill Clinton -- fresh off his gurney in the cardiac rehab ward to go stumping for you -- you've pretty much acknowledged that your campaign can't possibly count on using mere facts to win.
The Kerry strategy now seems to consist of nothing more than churning out as much slime and bald-faced lies as it can, while praying that the public will be stupid enough to allow some of it to stick. A New York Times story came out this week suggesting that 380 tons of deadly explosives in Iraq disappeared under Bush's watch. Reports differ as to whether the weapons went missing before or after the U.S. invasion -- but this isn't really the issue.
Their disappearance proves once and for all that Saddam Hussein had deadly weapons, that they were mobile, and that they could have been passed off to terrorists at any time. All this shows is that Bush was right in having gone in and removed Ssddam from power, and that the world is now a much safer place.
John Kerry is making the weapons issue the focus of an ad blitz this week and, according to his logic, people are now supposed to (1) be scared to death of weapons (2) Saddam apparently never had that (3) Bush then failed to secure when he (4) sent U.S. troops into Iraq to get rid of the non-existent weapons.
What are the odds that Kerry guy can send a strong message to terrorists when he even has difficulty sending a strong, consistent message from one side of his brain to the other?
And right on cue, actress/singer/liberal shill Barbra Streisand sticks her nose into the issue. Despite the fact that the missing weapons issue proves Bush's point about WMDs in Iraq, that hasn't stopped Babs from screaming on her website, in BIG BOLD LETTERS: "BUSH FAILED TO SECURE NEARLY 400 TONS OF KNOWN, DEADLY EXPLOSIVES IN IRAQ, AND NOW THEY MAY FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS TO BE USED TO BLOW UP AIRPLANES, LEVEL BUILDINGS AND DETONATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS."
None of this makes any sense coming from someone who keeps harping on about Bush's "imaginary weapons of mass destruction", but WHO CARES! LOOK AT ME! I CAN SING AND ACT AND DIRECT! BUT I CAN'T PUT TOGETHER A LOGICAL ARGUMENT TO SAVE MY LIFE!
As a political pundit, I would have enjoyed witnessing a battle of rational ideas between Bush and Kerry. By no means has Bush done everything perfectly over the past four years. I've made no secret of the fact that I personally disagree with him on issues ranging from certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act to his policy on illegal immigration. Kerry, however, has neglected to capitalize on Bush's biggest weaknesses and, with his changing priorities and inconsistent messaging, has failed to make himself into anything more than an ankle-biter to Bush's big dog. Kerry's campaign is to blame, but the buck stops with the candidate.
If Kerry can't even run his own campaign, then he can't realistically be expected to manage an entire country and the rest of the free world in a time of war.
Yes, Superman died, and people are getting the flu. In a rational, non-politically charged climate, these things wouldn't normally be blamed on a sitting president. Kerry has one last hope this week to defeat fact and logic with outright lies about Bush. As he runs around the country in this last week armed with everything from a gun to a dead goose, pandering to everyone in sight, it becomes obvious that his only hope lies in the ability of voters to assimilate toxic levels of hot air.
In the final analysis, the people will get exactly the president they deserve.
(Rachel Marsden (rachelmarsden.com) is a public affairs and communications strategist, columnist and talk show host who has worked in politics and media in the United States and Canada.)
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)