The Command Post - Op-Ed

November 09, 2004

Why Kerry won

The election's been over for almost a week, so I think it's time to look back at what lead to the Kerry landslide:

Kerry's win in Arizona - something that would have been incomprehensible in August or before - was clearly due to his support for Prop. 200. See also "Arizona Calling: The brewing immigration backlash" and "Fighting back". Supporting 200 (and thereby opposing the elites of both parties) was a very gutsy move on Kerry's part.
Kerry's constant discussion of Bush's "guest worker" plan played the predominant role in his easy win in Ohio. Ohioans realized that their situation would get much worse with a plan to bring millions of foreign workers here to take American jobs.
Recall during the final debate when Bob Shieffer asked about the flu vaccine shortage?
Bush answered with an excuse: "Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizen..."
Kerry responded by bringing up that it appears the flu vaccine shortage was due to FDA incompetence. And, he said that under his administration he'd make sure that everyone knew they had to do their job or they'd get fired. He also discussed things like he would be open to all forms of input, even if was something that he didn't want to hear. And, he forcefully said he wouldn't try to blame-shift.
And, finally, Kerry overcame Bush's supposed security advantage by talking about border security. Remember how Kerry went to Texas and did those photo-ops with Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), a congressman who's been warning about border infiltration and terrorists forming alliances with a cross-border gang? Remember how that turned the tide on Bush's homeland security advantage, and people realized that Bush has apparently decided that cheap labor is more important than homeland security? Remember how Kerry kept making the point that Bush's DHS has released thousands of Middle Eastern illegal aliens into the U.S., and how the DHS doesn't know how many of those could be terrorists? Remember how Kerry kept saying that he'd make sure to both take the fight to the terrorists and keep the homeland secure while preserving our civil liberties?

What's that you say? Kerry did none of those things? Oh.

Posted By The Lonewacko Blog at November 9, 2004 03:08 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Yes, had Kerry spent his time making real policy decisions that solved key security and economic issues he might have won. Instead he spent all his time voting for things before voting against them, promising to withdraw from Iraq before sending more troops, aluding to Bush being AWOL or Hitler, and passing the global test.

Posted by: Brian at November 10, 2004 07:48 AM

There was an article last week about the 10 things that Kerry did wrong. I wish I had that article to share here but I can't remember where it was. In any event, Kerry isn't a terrible person really. I didn't want him as president, but had he won, I would have given him a chance by supporting him for the next 4 years. However, he just made some big mistakes. A few comes to mind from the article. One was his running on a Viet Nam war record and all the medals he won. He played that card too much. He complained about all the deferrments Dick Cheney got but neglected to mention his deferrments. His verbal "flip flopping" was another mistake. But according to the article, the things that hurt Kerry the most was "Rather-gate," being associated with Ex-President Carter, and most important, Michael Moore. I have watched a lot of news shows since the election and the one "biggest blunder" made by the Kerry campaign, was Michael Moore. Every news "expert" I listened to, (including Colmes) said Moore did more to elect Bush than any other individual.

Posted by: BH57 at November 10, 2004 10:02 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse � it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we�re sorry it didn�t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.