by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright November 5, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

trutting into his first news conference since his stunning victory on Nov. 2, President George W. Bush outlined bold new plans for his next term. Armed with 52% of the popular vote, four new Republican senators and six House members, the president spoke confidently about his priorities, including reforming Social Security, rewriting the tax code and completing education reforms. “I earned capital in the campaign—political capital—and now I intend to spend it,” said Bush, offering bipartisanship but promising to move ahead with his conservative agenda. While he feels a tailwind from his constituency, he faces a headwind trying to railroad a shrinking but more defensive Democratic minority. Bush survived a bruising campaign, attacking every aspect of his first four years. Had it not been for the squeaker in Ohio, he wouldn't have gotten a second chance.

      Much Democratic hand wringing now centers what the Party did wrong in '04. Why, with unprecedented spending, did Kerry and the Democratic Party fall short? When you examine facts, Kerry got extraordinary mileage out of his candidacy. No one expected him to go so far, pushing Bush nearly to the brink. In the end, a confluence of factors determined the outcome. Kerry's deficits—both personal and political—couldn't inspire enough swing voters or crossover Republicans. His inability to articulate clear differences, especially on Iraq and the war on terror, left voters unwilling to change horses. Without oozing charisma, Kerry still scored enough points to make the contest a horse race. Bush followed a carefully prepared script, remaining focused on key talking points about Iraq and terrorism. At the end of the day, voters saw no reason for new management.

      Bush tapped into a growing cultural trend, celebrating a renewal of “family values” and Christian fundamentalism. Kerry, though a Catholic, comes from a proud secular liberal tradition, leaving God and bible at Sunday morning services. Bush sees nothing wrong incorporating prayer into his daily routine. Kerry couldn't compete with Bush's close relationship with fundamentalist churches or those groups and institutions associated with the religious right. Growing disdain for “Hollywood” or the Eastcoast elites, both in and out of the media, left Bush better able to capture bucolic and suburban voters disgusted with the depraved big city. Exit polls indicate that “family values” swayed more voters than the war on terror or Iraq. While Kerry hammered Bush on Iraq and the economy, he couldn't make inroads on “family values,” leaving small-town America alienated.

      Kerry still suffered, as Al Gore did four years earlier, from “Clinton fatigue,” lingering disgust over the former president's disgraceful behavior in the Oval Office. Clinton's shenanigans helped galvanize programming at the Fox News Channel and promote what's known today as “right wing” talk radio. Popular conservative talk shows helped solidify Bush's conservative base, while, simultaneously promoting liberalism as a social disease. Bad news on Iraq or the economy couldn't make a dent in Bush's loyal base, more focused on spreading Bush's brand of conservatism than worrying about constitutional amendments banning abortion and gay marriage. Those wedge issues put Kerry so far to the left that he had little chance of winning conservative-minded independents or Democrats. Where Bush stumbled on his words, right wing talk radio picked him up.

      Kerry's performance in the presidential debates both highlighted his strengths and weaknesses. While he won the arguments, he lost the emotional bond with voters dredging up Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary, outing her as a lesbian. Lynn Cheney got it right calling Kerry's remark a “tawdry political trick.” Voters couldn't help but call foul, watching Kerry cross the line. Edwards pulled the same stunt in his one debate with the vice president, proving, if nothing else, that it was scripted by his Democratic handlers. Kerry and Edward's remarks antagonized Bush's base, giving extra incentive to go to the polls. Neither Kerry nor Edwards needed to give the GOP more motivation heading to Nov. 2. Yet both acted against their best interests, legions of loyal campaign workers and the Party. Kerry and Edwards miscalculated that there are still rules of engagement for political campaigns.

      Winning a second term, Bush showed he connected better to his base than Kerry, who struggled throughout the campaign to define himself and his agenda. His low charisma coefficient hurt his ability to reach out and inspire crossover voters unhappy with Bush's Iraq war. While Bush showed consistency, Kerry flailed around with too many trial balloons. Unwilling to commit to a true antiwar stance, Kerry pussyfooted around, offering voters no real alternative to resolving the war. Bush put his cards on the table, telling voters exactly what to expect in a second term. While he'd like to spend his “political capital,” he faces stubborn resistance by Democrats on Capitol Hill. No one knows what will happen in Iraq. One thing's for sure: No matter what the costs, Bush plans on finishing the job. While 3.5 million voters gave Bush a second chance, they didn't give him a license to make more mistakes.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.