A veritable Instapundit classic today:
You know, the more I look at the new, Dean-channeling Kerry, the more I think that he doesn’t expect to win. He’s given up trying to convince swing voters that he’s serious on the war. I think this is about firing up the base to protect down-ticket candidates as much as possible.
Underlying assumptions: That the Iraq war is going extremely well, that the public believes that the Iraq war is going extremely well, and that Bush has the election in the bag, and that Kerry also believes the election is over. Omitted: the slightest shred of evidence to back up any of these risibly implausible arguments. I think this is the problem when your idea of a “swing voter” (remember, Reynolds is allegedly nonpartisan) is a complacent reactionary who uncritically supports Bush’s foreign policy irrespective of whether any of the stated goals of this policy are actually attained.
Still, the idea that “seriousness” consists of “making Pollyanish predictions wholly unsupported by any empirical evidence in the midst of some empty bromides” is pretty Orwellian even for the Ole Perfesser. Whether one prefers Bush’s policies or not, Kerry is manifestly more serious in every respect.