"The Top 7 Reasons You Can't Blame..." (Part 1)
By Mark Shirey
7/18/06


This is the first installment of a 117 part series known as "The Top Seven Reasons You Can't Blame..........", modeled after the ESPN Classic show with the similar title.  (They call it the Top Five, but then always add in two more reasons anyway)  This series will challenge conventional thinking on social and political matters.

This article is The Top Seven Reasons You Can't Blame....... The American people for electing George W. Bush (twice)  Otherwise put, the top seven reasons you can't blame the vast right wing conspiracy for the fact that George W. Bush is the President of the United States.

We've all heard it (or thought it or said it) before:  "How on earth is this man the President?"  We know the conspiracy theories:    Selected not elected,  the hanging chads, the swift boat veterans, "W. is the puppet of Cheney/Rumsfeld/the big oil companies", the skull and bones society, etc..   But before the black helicopters swoop down and blow the wigs off of our heads, let's take an alternative look at the picture.  Not that I don't love a good conspiracy theory.  But in this case, the reasons for the Bush presidency are fairly straight forward.  Here we go with those top seven reasons:

7)  Politics 101   (2000, 2004 elections) Democrats have failed to execute on the basic fundamentals.  Rather than Karl Rove being an evil mastermind behind the curtain, Democrats have simply been beaten to the punch.   In the last 2 presidential elections, they've gone with the outdated formula of nominating Senators and Vice-Presidents for president (and one of them from the Northeast no less). Of the last five presidents, 4 of those 5 were governors from the southern half of the United States.  The reason:  If you're governor, you're not as well known nationally.  Nowadays, to know you is to not love you.  With this formula, you're also better able to pick up the mid-west, which on the political map now stretches almost from coast to coast.  See also #3 below for my ageist remarks about The Congress and Senate, which ties in with this explanation.  As another example, John Kerry and other Democrats voted in favor of the use of force in Iraq when he probably didn't want to, but felt pressured.  Whether you're on the left or right, were in favor of the Iraq war or not,  going against what you truly believe usually spells trouble.  This kept his criticism of the war muffled.   Also, the Republicans worked harder at finding swing voters in the nooks and crannies of Ohio in 2004, which made the difference.

6)  America doesn't care about Viet Nam Era Antics  (2000, 2004 elections) George Bush may well have had some strings pulled to get him out of combat duty in Viet Nam.  For swing voters, this was perhaps a sore spot, but not a deal breaker.  In both elections, this was the mud that was slung at Mr. Bush, but in both elections, only so much of it stuck.  The problem is that it was 30 years, and America wants to forget all about the war, and has wanted to forget about it for a long time.  This includes, heroic and non-heroic activities, draft evasion, and even draft dodging.   Any heroics by John Kerry in the  Viet Nam War earned him a one-handed applause in a forest with trees falling and no one to hear them in the 2004 election.  If I'm an anti-war swing voter, why do I want to hear about heroism in war?

During the later stages of the Viet Nam war,  young men were avoiding the draft in large numbers.  Hiding in the basement, moving to Canada, simply ignoring their draft notices, going into the national guard, claiming section 4-F were all  common occurrences. This is not excusing any of this behavior, but it is simply a statement of fact.  Of all of these evasion tactics, Bush actually chose the most honorable one in the eyes of middle America.  So there was little traction with this issue.  What's interesting is that Bill Clinton's shenanigans turned out to be a non-issue
(protesting against America while on foreign soil in England in the 60's). It didn't work in 2000 against Bush, but that was nevertheless the focus again in 2004 by the Democrats.

5) Democrats Are Divided.  (2004 election) Democrats are divided between traditional, pro-establishment leaders, versus far left of center Democrats, and Bush has nothing to do with this. In fact, if you think John Kerry got a little beat up during the last Democratic primaries (Dean, Kucinich, Al Sharpten), this next election is going to be highly interesting and entertaining.  As an example John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi recently got rousing ovations when they called for the troops in Iraq to be brought home now, where as Hillary Clinton received a chorus of boos when she opposed immediate withdrawal.  Democrats are divided amongst themselves, and within themselves.  John Murtha proposed immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and then voted against a resolution that called for such a withdrawal in November of 2005.  The resolution read as follows: " It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately".  Nobody could have scripted such a scenario where someone votes against a straight forward resolution which outlines the very proposition being made.  Yes, much of the division has manifested itself more clearly post 2004, but it was obviously present prior to the election. It is also going to be difficult to find a suitable candidate in 2008, who can reach both sides of the divide.  I'm glad it is not my problem.

4)  No Terror Attacks on U.S. Soil.  (2004)  With a loud knock on wood..... even with all the controversy about little old ladies having to take off their shoes at airports, with frustration over border control, controversy over eavesdropping, the bottom line is that we have not been attacked at home when virtually all experts said we would be attacked again by now. American's are pragmatic, and blame their leaders when things go badly, and give them credit when things go well.  With no attacks on U.S. soil, this frees us up to ponder more important things such as Britney Spears having babies (and dropping them), wardrobe malfunctions, and Vince Young's knee being down on that dreaded Rose Bowl drive in the first half.

3)  A VERY Few Good Men  (2000, 2004) There is a dwindling number of good candidates for president.  The reason that George W. Bush is president is because more and more often, only very wealthy and or political hobbyists run for office.  Steve Forbes and Ralph Nader come to mind.  (Oops, Ralph Nader, should he be on this list?)  Who in the world would want to go into politics now, and have everything they've ever done or said scrutinized, and have their character and reputation trashed.  Thus, there is an ever dwindling number of good men and women entering politics.  There were simply no Jack Kennedy's out there to defeat Bush, and no Ronald Reagan's out there to defeat him in the primaries.  Instead of new blood coming into the Senate and Congress, we have "The Wheeze Kids" dominating politics.  10 of 29 Senators running for re-election this year are over 70.  Nothing wrong with being 70 or even
88, or even 100 like Strom Thurmand (well, that's stretching it).  But this suggests that we're not getting an influx of new blood into politics. Campaign finance reform will merely ensure that mainly rich people will be running for office (another topic for another day).  A statistic to ponder:  When Bush's approval ratings hit 29%, the approval ratings of the Congress were even lower.

2) Monica Lewinsky  (2000)

Yes, I know that it was "just" sex.  But nevertheless, the scandal  forced Al Gore to distance himself from Bill Clinton, and to run as the Family Values president. Family values talk is something that makes democrats, and many swing voters reach for the vomit bag.  The American public, always in the mood for a circus, was glued to the story, and would have been so regardless of impeachment hearings.  Here are some excerpts of what Al Gore was forced to say.

Al Gore stated that he would ``take my own values of faith and family to the presidency, to build an America that is not only better off, but better.''   He simply took the phrase family values and rearranged the words.       

He stated that he was upset by Clinton's illicit affair with a former intern. ``I felt what the president did, especially as a parent, was inexcusable,''  

This distancing put Al Gore in the position of saying "Hi, I'm Al  Gore, the man who will be different than the hero of the Democratic party for the last decade"  The two men were rarely seen together at political functions. This cost him enough votes to lose the election.  Without Monica-gate, Al could have simply said "let the good times roll".  No hanging chads, confusing ballots,  or supreme court would have even come into play.

1)  The Debates. (2000, 2004 ) Going into the 2000 presidential debates, the race was very tight.  During extremely close races, presidential debates are important for not only substance, but style and likability. Who "wins" the debate incorporates all 3 of those elements.   In the substance department, it was anticipated that Al Gore, the "smarter" of the two candidates, was going to clean George W. Bush's clock, especially with his known debating prowess.   Further, it was anticipated that with his smoother style, command of the English language, and experience as Vice President, that he would win on style points as well.

Gore did neither of those things.  Although Gore won the first debate, it was clear that there was no knockout punch by either man.  Bush holding his own was somewhat of a victory for him.  Bush then went on to win the next 2 debates.   In the style department, Al Gore acted very oddly.  He was very aggressive in one debate.  He came across hot-headed, and appeared to try to intimidate Bush by literally walking up to him and getting in his face. Bush was unfazed

Then, in the next debates, he was very passive, and awkwardly docile.
(He also has an odd accent).   This was Al Gore "reinventing himself" in microcosm.   Some statistics to chew on:  An ABC poll found that 46% percent of viewers thought Bush won the second debate against Gore, compared with 30% who felt Gore won.   After the three debates in 2000, Bush's lead in a Gallup poll increased from 3% to 8% over Gore.  Bush then slid 8% points after the debates.  Had Bush not built up that 8% lead.......... well I won't elaborate or you Democrats might have to reach again for the vomit bag.

In 2004, John Kerry clearly won the first debate against Bush.  Bush was completely unprepared and ran out of gas.  But in the next 2, the president rebounded to narrowly lose, and hence win the debates and the 2004 election.  He was able to effectively hound Kerry for the fact that he voted in favor of the now unpopular Iraq war, and pointed out the 87 billion dollar flip flop, which I won't rehash at this point.  Polls showed that Kerry had a 1 point lead prior to the debates, and after the debates, Bush had anywhere from a 1 to 8 point lead.  So overall, Bush only clearly lost in 2 of 6 Presidential debates, and probably edged out the opponent in 2  debates, with a couple of draws.  If you label your opponent a dummy, you'd better be sure to soundly defeat him in all debates.

So there you have it, from the man who voted for George W. Bush.....once. Which time did I vote for him?  Stay tuned for parts 2 through 117  in the series for clues.  Until then..............