By Scott Italiaander

In the pressure-cooker of the final days of a contested election sometimes events conspire to concentrate the mind on what is at stake in that election. Despite all the carefully drafted talking points, the poll-tested commercials and the scripted appearances on the Sunday shows, something unplanned and unintended happens that peels back the artifice and reveals the true nature of a person or party. The John Kerry “you get stuck in Iraq” comments at Pasadena City College Monday is just such a thing.

Not that many of us didn’t think Kerry was contemptuous of the military and a contemptible human being, even for a politician. Sometime later I will post an unpublished piece I wrote following Kerry’s despicable Mary Cheney remarks in the 2004 debates that proves, at least, that I knew he was a creep. But most of us didn’t think he was stupid and arrogant enough to insult the members of our military directly. (I should note that I am inclined to believe that he did “botch” a bad joke about Bush. But even if that’s what he intended, the fact that he would make a joke about Bush and Iraq while 140,000 troops are over there is telling enough).

The spinmeisters on cable TV tried to minimize the incident by noting that “John Kerry isn’t on the ballot.” Well, last time I checked neither is George Bush, but that hasn’t stopped Democrat operatives from desperately trying to make this election a referendum on Bush. Anyway, the unfortunate fact for Democrats is that just 2 years ago Kerry was their nominee for President, and as such is still the standard bearer for the party. So Kerry’s comments do not reflect only on his character, but also on the character of the party that elevated him to Commander-in-Chief-in-waiting. And that reflection does not diminish in the face of Kerry’s latest “apology.”

And what a reflection it is. The party that gave us John Kerry now wants to re-take Congress and, at the very least, assume control of the purse-strings that would surely be used as a bludgeon to wreck Bush’s foreign policy. What are the chances that a party so contemptuous of the men and women who serve in the military will pass legislation that is designed to strengthen their hand in battle, to give them the tools they need to win the war in Iraq? When the new chairmen and leaders of Cngress make their speeches for C-Span or prime-time what is the likelihood that they will be sending a signal to the enemy that they stand firmly behind their president that the only exit strategy is victory? When the committees hold their hearings on the conduct of the Iraq war and Bush’s foreign policy, what are the odds that they will be conducted in such a manner as to show the highest regard for our fighting men and women and for their mission abroad?

Before the Kerry episode broke, I had asked some friends and acquaintances who share my political views whether they plan to vote next Tuesday. No one has said he or she doesn’t plan to vote, other than those who never vote anyway. I suspect that more than a few of them are not happy with Congress or for that matter President Bush on a variety of issues, but so what? Most voters know that politics, like human nature, is complex and given to ugly excesses. They know that like most people, politicians are a mixed bag, and do things that are sometimes noble, sometimes dastardly, often stupid and never without calculation. But until we replace our two-party system, elections will never just be a referendum on the s.o.b.s in power, but a choice between those s.o.b.s and the other s.o.b.s.

Its worthwhile then to peer into the abyss, if you will, and ask what the “other s.o.b.s” offer. What can we expect from the party of Dick Durbin, who compared our solders to Pol Pot, the Nazis and Soviet prison guards? Of John Murtha, who during an investigation by the Pentagon of the Haditha incident accused U.S. Marines of killing innocent Iraqis in cold blood? Of John Kerry himself, who last year accused American G.I.s of “breaking into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women?”

I think most conservatives, no matter how unhappy they may be with the pace of the war, its difficulty or its civilian or military leadership, recognize that the price of leaving Iraq before the job is done would be much higher than the price of staying. They would expect the party of Durbin, Murtha and Kerry to do everything it can to undermine the administration, its mission and the troops performing that mission. And because elections are primarily about choices, I do not expect the Republican “base” to sit around next Tuesday and let that happen.

Last week I would have guessed that conservatives would have held their collective noses and voted to keep the current majority party in power. After the Kerry incident, though, apologies or not, the “base” may instead feel the urge to wake up and run to the voting booth on election day.