I’m not convinced of that, mind you. But I do think that one of these candidates is going to win by 6 to 8 points, and it might be Bush. So what next? Howie Kurtz has one of two Washington Post pieces on that topic. (The other piece is here.)

Kurtz quotes Katrina van den Heuvel as saying that, should Bush win, the left “will continue to fight the good fight during what we think is the dismantling of our democracy.”

What does that even mean? Does van den Heuvel think that in 2008 a President Bush would cancel elections? Repeal the 22nd Amendment? Install Jeb as president in a military junta? Does she think he would abolish the Senate and scrap the Electoral College, as fellow left-winger John Sperling proposes?

Of course not.

Now this doesn’t mean that Bush is a faultless president–or even worthy of reelection. (As Andy Ferguson put it, the thinly disguised secret of the 2004 election is that “Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing.”)

But here’s what it does mean: Almost since the day Bush arrived in Washington, Democrats in general and liberals in particular have been incapable of making a case against him without resorting to hysterical, idiotic hyperbole.

The left could have argued that the Bush Doctrine wasn’t militarily sustainable after a decade of defense build-down. They could have argued that democracy is not a universal solvent and that cultural differences between El Salvador and Iraq make lessons from the one impractical for the other. They could have argued that while removing Saddam was a noble goal, the risks of a theocratic–or a lawless, terrorist-run–Iraq made war imprudent. They could have argued that Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were overly-concerned with transformation, and failed to commit adequate troops to post-war Iraq. If they really wanted to, they could even have argued that, by failing to pay attention to history and the FAA, Bush contributed to the intelligence failure responsible for September 11. They could have–God knows, this would have been nice–come up with a coherent, detailed, strategy for how to approach a global war against Islamist radicalism.

There has been ample room to criticize this president at nearly every turn during his tenure.

But what has the left given us?

* No Blood for Oil

* Bush went to war for his daddy

* Halliburton

* Bush knew about 9/11

* Bush lied about WMDs

* The Patriot Act is destroying our liberties

* Bush is dismantling our democracy

If Bush wins, it will be in large part because a bilious, irresponsible wing of liberalism hijacked the Democratic party. Yet at the moment of Kerry’s defeat, these same forces of insanity will claim that Democrats failed because they weren’t tough enough. And these same people–the Sperlings and Kos’s of the world–will try to convince to main body of the the Democratic party to crawl further out on a limb with them.

If Bush wins–and I can hardly believe I’m saying this–it will be up to Bill and Hillary Clinton to save the Democratic party from itself.

The Scrapbook has great stuff this week. My favorites:

* Jimmy Carter saying that “. . . in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.” I don’t care what you say, Democrats are not the peacenik party. I swear!

* An elder from Presbyterian Church USA saying, “We treasure the precious words of Hezbollah . . .”

* And more on the goings-on down at Duke.

In case you missed it, this weekend was the best celebrity melt-down moment in many moons. Ashlee Simpson was clearly lip-synching during her appearance on Saturday Night Live. She got away with it during her first number, but when she came onstage for the second time, and began hopping around, the music track from the first song came back on. He voice was broadcast. She looked horrified. Her band looked dumbstruck. She hopped a couple more times, and then walked off the stage. Read the Daily News‘ account here, or, if you have a couple minutes to kill, check out the video.

There’s nothing too exceptional yet, though. We all remember Milli Vanilli. Sure, there’s an extra pop of satisfaction since Ashlee Simpson is a product of nepotism and didn’t even have to whore her way to fame like Madonna. I mean, celebrity may come cheap in today’s America, but it shouldn’t be free.

No, the super-duper cherry on top to this story is that after getting caught lip-synching on national television, Simpson “apologized to her fans–and blamed her band for playing the wrong song.” That’s right: She tried to pin her implosion on the minimum-wage Abercrombie models who pretend to play back-up for her. A classy broad, that Ashlee. Or maybe she’s a classy grrrl. I don’t know.

But wait! There’s more! Not that you’d be caught dead there, but I’ve taken the trouble of trawling the message boards at AshleeSimpson.com for you. There are the normal, idiotic support posts, like Don’t Listen To Them Ashlee!!!, where “TeamAshlee2004” says, “You are a Beautiful person Ashlee!! Don’t give in to their negative comments. Believe in yourself. Believe in your inner strength. God is on your side. He believes in you. I know there’s nothing you can’t do. Your real fans will always be with you.” And This Post Is For Ashlee’s Real Fans, which is also by TeamAshlee2004. In case you were wondering, TeamAshlee20004 claims to be Joshua Ortiz, a 19-year-old New Yorker, who says in his AshleeSimpson.com profile, “I’m 19 Years Old and I’m currently living in Brooklyn N.Y. Ashlee Simpson has changed my life . . . She has shown me that its ok to be yourself and to not worry about what other people think, And if you believe in your dreams and know that you can achieve them there’s nothing you can’t do.” Young Joshua seems to be responsible for most of the pro-Ashlee posts since her SNL meltdown. She must be very special to him.

But most of the posts are awfully mean to Ashlee. Abusive, even. I encourage you to read them all.

Bill Kristol catches another revealing Kerry moment. Despite John Edwards’s repeated professions of support for Israel, Richard Holbrooke says that President Kerry will “put more pressure on Israel.”

More pressure to do what, exactly?

If you’ve seen this column by Charlie Brooker, then you’ve probably already read this astonishing paragraph:

“On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod’s law dictates he’ll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr – where are you now that we need you?”

By calling for the assassination of an American president, Brooker isn’t doing anything particularly shocking. This meme first started on crazy lefty-websites, then migrated into Nicholson Baker’s novel Checkpoint. And now, here it is in the pages of the Guardian. Once is chance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy fire.

Remember that debate over whether Bush hatred was crazier than Clinton hatred? Debate settled.

Two observations: (1) Fellows such as Brooker make it awfully hard for conservatives who don’t particularly care for Bush to vote for John Kerry. (2) If Bush is reelected, liberalism may self-destruct. The net effect of eight years of Bill Clinton on conservatives was to push them toward the center. With each passing day under Bush, liberalism is being further radicalized.

Which isn’t good for any of us. A healthy democracy needs energetic, serious, thoughtful ideological opposites. As these two sides engage, they hone their ideas, present them in the public square and, if rejected, come up with new, better ideas. They compete, we all win.

Conservatives have come up with a pretty big idea: That democarcy is a universal solvent. They have applied this theory to a couple of trouble spots in the world and are coming up with decidedly mixed results. This is the perfect opportunity for liberalism to present an opposing theory. Instead, they have bogged down in seething, churning hatred. Their big idea is assassination.

Democracies need an engaged, loyal opposition as much as they need good leadership. Today’s liberals are letting themselves–and the rest of us–down.

Washington Post endorses Kerry for president in typically thoughtful fashion.

One or two quibbles. The Post says Kerry “understood early on the dangers of non-state actors such as al Qaeda.” Not true. In his book, The New War, on non-state actors causing international mayhem, Kerry actually dismissed the Taliban as only interested in drugs. Also, the Post’s comments sidesteps a major question raised by The New War and many of the senator’s comments: Would John Kerry treat major terrorist activity merely as a law enforcement problem?

Bush charges he would and has plenty of evidence to back him up. Kerry has, on occasion, talked tough, as when he vowed to add two divisions to the United States military, a stand the Post mentions favorably in its endorsement. I, too, would like to see more troops made available to the commander in chief as we proceed in the war on terror and try to leave Iraq in some semblance of order (and to relieve reservists of the oppressive burden they’ve come to shoulder). But I just don’t believe John Kerry is going to be a more energetic scourge of terrorists and malfunctioning, terrorist-encouraging regimes than George Bush.

The pivotal terror question of this election is: Can John Kerry deliver all that he promises, toughness equal to or exceeding that of George Bush, yet complimented by greater diplomatic finesse? I don’t buy it. George Bush may be gruff, but his major diplomatic shortcoming is that he really wants to hunt down the bad guys–and will continue doing it his way even if your country objects to his methods (or in many cases the goal itself and the consequences that flow from its realizion). For me, this is the irreplacable asset of the George Bush administration and the number one reason to vote for him.

Can John Kerry also deliver the tax cuts he promises to everyone but the wealthy while keeping the economy on the upswing? Can he deliver fiscal discipline even as dreams of explosive government growth through universal health care and refuses to reform Social Security?

John Kerry wants to be all things to all people, just the kind fo person I don’t trust.

Galley Friend P.C. sends along this link. Scroll down for the new angle captured of the A-Rod slap play.

In response to a reader from North Jersey, herewith my explanation of the debate among Village Voice editors over George W. Bush as vampire:

Says one, “Hey, I got a great idea. How about George W. Bush raping the Statue of Liberty?”

Says the other, “No, no, that would be too obvious. Let’s try something more subtle. Like Bush as Dracula sucking Liberty’s blood.”

(Thanks to another reader for the earlier suggestion.)

Meanwhile, props to David Kaspar of Medienkritik for pointing out this week’s cover story in the German magazine Stern concerning the laying off of thousands of Opel (General Motors) factory workers in Bochum. The cover art? A big American cowboy boot ready to step on tiny German employees.

Thank goodness for subtlety.