Congratulations to President Bush for his re-election.
He was the first Republican presidential candidate I've ever voted for. I don't agree with everything he has done or everything he promised to do. And yes, mistakes have been made in the war in Iraq. But he has the right answers to the biggest questions that matter to me most -- maintaining our national security by taking the war to our enemies; and persevering in that war against the misguided idealism of apologists and appeasers, no matter how strident.
The President was vulnerable. We face difficulties in Iraq and Bush is not the best communicator. The Democrats could have won this, but they failed to present a compelling alternative. The Michael Moore/Howard Dean fever swamp wing of the party, in particular, alienated more voters than it attracted.
Kerry was a terrible candidate. The wrong man for any place and for any time. Here's why I think he failed:
1. Kerry failed the "regular guy" test. Bush speaks to the social and cultural norms of more Americans; George and Laura Bush have more attractive interpersonal skills than John and Teresa Heinz Kerry.
2. Making Vietnam the centerpiece of his personal narrative was a disaster, as he was more notable as an anti-war protester than a soldier. That doesn't sell well to many people when we're at war.
3. His lack of a concise, coherent vision on anything, least of all on the current war.
4. The dreamy internationalism, best encapsulated by his "global test" comment. More Americans view this as dangerously unrealistic than a smart way to defeat our implacable enemies.
5. Ultimately, the throughline of his entire career, from anti-war protestor, to anti-defense Senator, to his attacks on the current war, is one of reflexive oppositionism. He's a whiner and a complainer and not a fixer. And as in any company, the guy who can only condemn, criticize and complain without offering positive alternative solutions doesn't get the promotion.
To their credit, Kerry and Edwards bowed out gracefully.
The President won a victory in the popular vote, the Electoral College and a wider majority in Congress. Let's hope he uses the mandate wisely.
As for me, he'll earn both my support and my criticism as appropriate.
Congratulations are indeed in order to President Bush.
This is a good post, Shark. I think you pretty well nailed it, especially with Kerry's inability to meet the "regular guy" test and offer a meaningful alternative to foreign policy.
The Republicans have clearly demonstrated their electoral superiority. I hope now that will translate into meaningful ideas for how to advance this country's interests.
Posted by: dinesh on November 3, 2004 12:12 PM
I, too, agree with you Mr Shark, at least about points 1 through 3 as to why Kerry lost. I'm not so sure about 5, can't say Kerry had any less vision than George H.W. Bush, but I certainly agree that W has a very strong and clear vision for the future. I hope you are wrong about 4, since I find it unfathomable that we are better off fighting the war on terror alone rather than with the full-hearted help and partnership of the rest of the world.
Personally, I'm sad that this country wants to be led by a "regular guy." I want my President to be better than me: smarter, more persuasive, more energetic, harder working, more knowledgable, more skillful, and more insightful. I've never had a beer with a President and don't particularly plan to. Sure, I hope the President understands the hopes, concerns, and challenges of people from all walks of life and values them as equals in the sense that "all men are created equal." But we all know that we are not truly created equal: some are faster, some are stronger, some are taller, some are smarter, some are more creative, some are more patient, some are leaders, most are followers. I want our President to be an exceptional person, the best of the best, someone we can all look up to and aspire to be like. I've got plenty of regular guys around I can have a beer with. Alas, I guess I'm in the minority on this point.
Now that Bush has won 4 more years and has even more support in congress, I hope he and his supporters will finally stop blaming Clinton and the Dimmicrats for all that is wrong with the country. They probably still won't listen to us, so I hope that you, Mr. Shark, will voice your criticisms of Bush and the Republican congress (when you have them) as loudly and clearly as you have voiced your criticisms of Senator Kerry. Perhaps they will listen to you.
I'm sad that this country wants to be led by a "regular guy." I want my President to be better than me: smarter, more persuasive, more energetic, harder working, more knowledgable, more skillful, and more insightful.
In other words, smart enough to screw you over and make you like it.
People simply don't trust people who are too much smarter than they are, because they don't -- can't -- understand their motivations. That's what they're really worried about and it's why Bush has been so successful: his supporters feel they can trust him, because they know how he thinks, because he thinks like they do.
Posted by: Jerry Kindall on November 4, 2004 12:08 PMWhy in the world should I assume that either Dubya OR Kerry are smarter than I am?
Smoother, probably.
Chose a different path, definitely.
Smarter? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.
In fact, in the wake of the likes of Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, LBJ, and Richard Nixon, any belief that our Presidents are somehow supposed to be smarter than the average bear is hard to hold.
Posted by: Dean on November 5, 2004 08:19 AM