Even fans of President Bush have to admit he is vulnerable thiselection year. His response to the attacks on 9/11 and his domesticpolicies -- whether you agree with them or not -- have undeniablehelped to make the upcoming election the most divisive in recentmemory.
He's been made even more vulnerable by the caricature of him asan uneducated cowboy. Even many conservatives feel uncomfortablewith Bush thanks to the rapid growth in government spending underhis watch. Others strongly object to particular stances like formerFirst Lady Nancy Reagan with stem cell research.
All this makes 2004 a very winnable election for the Democrats,which is why their choice of Senator John Kerry seems to have beena big mistake. When Howard Dean was the leading Democraticcandidate, people were concerned he was simply too liberal to winthe general election. They were probably right.
No liberal's won the office since Jimmy Carter, and he had theadvantage of being in the first election after Watergate (though helied a lot, Clinton was truthful in claiming he was moderate).Since then liberals have gone 0 for 4: Carter and Mondale lost toReagan, Dukakis lost to Bush I, and -- whether you think it wasfair or not -- Gore ultimately lost to Bush II.
Kerry's voting record in the Senate and war protesting past havenow emerged in the public view and are preventing many veterans andconservatives angry with Bush from supporting him. This shouldn'tcome as a surprise to Democrats who apparently thought being lessliberal than Dean meant Kerry was mainstream.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying being liberal is wrong. Infact, many of my own views are liberal (I'm an independent, in caseyou're wondering). But most Americans aren't liberal, which is whyit's an accusation Republicans love to make and a title almost allDemocrats deny.
Besides his liberal image, Kerry must also overcome a number ofother disadvantages. One is his painfully dry personality. Anotheris that he would probably be the least good-looking president sincethe dawn of television. I don't say that in a mean-spirited way,it's just true. Charisma and looks probably shouldn't be what wevote on, but very often they are major factors. Perhaps Democratsdetest Bush so much they thought almost anyone they chose (otherthan someone as extreme as Dean) would win. We don't have to lookback too far to see a similar circumstance. In 1996 Republicansnominated conservative Senator Bob Dole, certain that if they hatedClinton that much, surely others must too.
And how did that turn out? Democrats exploited his years ofspeeches and votes in the Senate to make him look like anextremist... sound familiar?
Democrats would have been better off nominating Wesley Clark(whose war record is undisputed), Dick Gephardt (who's much closerto the political mainstream), Joe Lieberman (who's more likablethan Kerry and could have pointed to his 2000 run for VicePresident), or the young, charismatic John Edwards (who, ironicallymakes Kerry look even more stiff).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not stumping for Bush. At the moment I'mnot a huge fan of either candidate and probably won't decide who tovote for until November. But I am deeply disappointed Democratshave once again made the mistake of going too liberal in theirpresidential nominee.
Write to Jake at
jymoore@bsu.edu
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
