A couple of weeks ago I made the observation that John Kerry of 2004 is the Democrats answer to the Bob Dole of 1996. Both wounded and were heroic in the field of battle. Both were running against opponents who didn't come close in military experience (I'm not going to compare Bush and Clinton because they are not even in the same ballpark). Both were pretty boring members of the US Senate. Both had spent way too many years in Washington. Both are trying to defeat a sitting president.
All that said, Kerry does have a pretty decent shot at defeating Bush. The mainstream networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) are going to clearly favor Kerry and that's where most people still get their news. The folks who follow politics have already made up their minds and are the ones who stay informed by going deeper into the news (cable, internet, radio, magazines, books, etc.). For President Bush to win he needs to stay ahead of the curve by acting presidential. He needs to lead domestically by vetoing a lot of spending. He needs to tell people that he took over an economy on its' way down, hit bottom because of 9/11 and is rebounding because of his initiatives, specifically the tax cuts. John Kerry voted against the tax cuts and if that policy had it's way we'd barely have any growth at all. If there were ever a need for tax cuts to spur the economy the two big ones that Bush proposed and passed fulfilled that need.
On Iraq and terrorism I still think Bush has a winner. If Kerry had his way then Hans Blix would still be in Iraq and so would Saddam, Uday and Quasay. Libya would still be nuclear. Sudan would still be being armed. Saddam would be providing training grounds and funds for terrorists.
Bush loses if he cannot make the point that what he's done on terrorism and the economy have been for the positive. He needs to be pounding those two points.
Posted by Tim at February 3, 2004 08:49 PM
