Bush struck out in his presidential 'inning' (Leader-Telegram)

[struggle4progress]

... Bush's legacy clearly will be the Iraq war, which - no matter how hard he and his backers try to spin things - has been an unmitigated disaster. The fact Bush got on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, under a huge sign that read "Mission Accomplished," and announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq is painful proof of how badly he and his advisers miscalculated ...

In a recent column, Gene Lyons of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette called Bush "intellectually lazy," and it pains me to say I agree because I voted for him once. Lyons' observation is backed not only by the ill-advised war Bush launched, but by his support of a vision to revamp Social Security to let those paying into the system invest some of those funds privately.

Can you imagine the disaster such a plan would have been in the wake of the Wall Street shenanigans that continue to reverberate through our economy? But beyond that, Bush never put forth a plan to consider. People bashed Clinton for his national health care plan, but at least he had one. And, by the way, he was on to something. What we have now is unsustainable for taxpayers, employers the tens of millions of Americans with no health insurance ...

In summary, I believe Bush is a decent fellow with the nation's best interests at heart who should have taken the job as commissioner of baseball and left decisions about foreign policy, balancing budgets and regulating Wall Street to someone else. That said, I never thought either Al Gore or John Kerry were blockbuster opponents, and that's a big reason Bush won twice ...

http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-opinions.asp?id=BIT81BR8HNI

[WCGreen]

1. Especially Kerry...

He just didn't have the moxie to make it as president.

And remember, the field that produced Kerry was, across the board, one of the weakest slew of candidates in my lifetime. No one with real gravitas wanted to go up against Bush and his 70+% approval ratings.

Nothing against Howard Dean, but if your campaign is derailed by an over enthusiastic yell after a primary then you probably would have been tripped up somewhere down the line.

The cycle of stars must have been in the wrong place for the world and the right place for GW, that's all I can say...

[Old and In the Way]

3. You have no basis for that.

Kerry actually did better in the primaries than Obama. Kerry would have been a kick-ass President, easily Obama's equal. If anything, Obama benefited from 8 years of this administration...and a lot of remorse from people who voted for Dimson twice.

I'm still not convinced that we had a fair election...the numbers still don't add up to me. Kerry won in the rural districts but lost in the big cities? Doubtful.

[WCGreen]

4. He did better in the primaries because he was running against

lightweights...

Look, I believe Kerry in an honorable man and a fine legislator but that sure doesn't mean he was a good candidate for president. He never went after the jugular and he never defended himself and he fell prey to all sorts of goofy photo ops that made him look as if he was just doing it to be elected president. In other words, just as fake as the other guy.

You have to have a connection with the people that goes beyond issues and I really don't believe Kerry had that type of charisma.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Obama never went after anyone's juglar either.

I could give a shit about how the media portrayed Kerry. He was no "fake". This guy put his life on the line in Viet Nam. He went after the perps on BCCI, only to have a Democratic President shut him down. Total BS....Kerry swept the Democratic primaries in 2004. The difference was Indies and Republicans who finally figured it out.

[WCGreen]

11. Who was his competition...

John Edwards, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich...

I feel bad that you can't divorce your self from your personal perceptions and look at what actually happened.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Thanks for posting all of these OP-EDs

Love to see an honest recap from the local papers. But the author is totally wrong about Gore and Kerry. I don't know how you can understand the Bush disaster yet say Gore/Kerry might be as bad. Damn stupid.

[struggle4progress]

5. I agree with you. But Gore & Kerry both ran poor campaigns. I tore out

my hair and screamed conbstantly through the fall of 2000 and the fall of 2004

Most of the op-eds I've posted are clueless in one respect or another. But they reflect what people are actually hearing from the press

[Old and In the Way]

7. Gore...yes, Kerry, no.

Gore didn't see the debacle coming in Florida...none of us did. But Kerry absolutely kicks ass in the primary, has all Democrats on board in June...yet loses to Bush? After Bush gets selected in 2000? Has 9/11 happen on his watch?Starts an illegal war of choice?

Kerry wins the rural vote in 2004, but loses the big city vote? Sorry - I'll never believe the results - Karl Rove was in control.

[struggle4progress]

8. Kerry ignored the swiftboat attacks and delivered a few dreadful one-liners

(such as "I voted for it before I voted against it"), in addition to running a campaign that ignored states he might have won, like NC where he had a large number of willing volunteers he didn't put to good use

[Old and In the Way]

9. Yes, that's the officiial media talking point.

He made some verbal gaffs...unprecedented in American politics! But I also remember 40-50K people turning out for him in 2004 at the end of the campaign. Who was turning out for George Bush? Zippo. The key here is George Bush wins the hi-density population centers, yet loses his rural base, big time. Why? How?

[struggle4progress]

10. It's not my view that Gore or Kerry lost because of bad campaigns: I simply believe

both actually ran bad campaigns

There's little question in my mind that Gore actually won Florida in 2000 -- and there's just as little question in my mind that Republicans deliberately set out to create long lines and slow voting in key Democratic precints in Ohio in 2004, an illegal strategy that was intended to hand Ohio to Bush by disenfranchising Democratic voters and that very probably had the effect of handing Bush the 2004 election

Those who voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004 were uninformed. They typically changed their minds if they subsequently became informed, but (being human) still sought to justify their prior votes -- on the grounds, say, that Gore or Kerry were bad candidates. Neither was, in fact, a bad candidate -- actually, both were quite good candidates -- but both were also rather poor campaigners