The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Worst. Campaign. Ever.

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Zach Stern:

Conservative betrayal (April 14, 2005)
Freedom and responsibility (May 5, 2005)
For everything else, there's bankruptcy (March 17, 2005)
The revolution continues (March 3, 2005)
Voter apathy with reason (February 17, 2005)

by Zach Stern

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Observing the Kerry campaign is like watching a car accident — you just can’t take your eyes off the chaos and destruction. There’s something sickly humorous yet at the same time frighteningly sobering about the doomed effort that entertains in a similar way as old Saturday morning cartoons. Wile E. Coyote and Senator Kerry have something in common: everything they try just keeps blowing up in their face.

The first problem is his choice to run as the “Vietnam war hero” while simultaneously promoting his “Vietnam war protestor” credentials. Not only did he wrongly believe that by touting his military record he could somehow negate Bush’s lead in the polls on foreign policy, but he decided to make the first unbelievably controversial war in American history an issue during the second. Vietnam still polarizes much of America today, especially Democrats. What is worse is that he has attempted to straddle the divide between both arguments: it’s hard to come across as decisive when you position yourself both for and against a war. Seems like he hasn’t learned many lessons from his own past.

As a corollary to Kerry’s Vietnam problem, Kerry has yet to honestly respond to the Swift Boat ads. Certainly, this issue is moot for those who fall into the “anybody but Bush” category, but holds water for many Veterans and honest swing-voters out there. We still don’t know how Kerry got the first of his three purple hearts because he simply won’t release the documentation that would answer that simple question. Clarification would be great for the many voters who cannot help but see Kerry as a conniving Yale elite in the beginning stages of planning his then future presidential campaign in 1968.

Is Bush any better with his military records? Not really. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that Kerry is the challenger here, Bush the incumbent. Bush’s incumbency is experience enough for most moderates — Kerry should have gone beyond the call of duty and been transparent about his time in Vietnam if he wanted to make a good case for why he was qualified to lead this nation. And let us not forget about Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia, which never really happened.

It is this lack of clarity that has driven away Kerry’s targeted constituency of America’s 25 million Veterans from coming out in droves to support him. Indeed, his appearance of flip-flopping has even narrowed the gender gap, traditionally a Democratic no-brainer, with more and more women looking for a leader who at the very least has the appearance of strength and determination coming out in support of Bush.

Ultimately, the problem faced by the Kerry campaign is fundamental: Kerry has yet to convince those who are not so blindly hateful towards the President why he would do a better job. Challengers cannot run campaigns almost purely on a position of “I’m not the other guy.”

But maybe the real problem is slightly more nuanced (to channel Kerry) than that. Maybe it’s because Kerry is such a god-awful candidate that many people just can’t stomach him. This will likely prove devastating for his chances to prove victorious come November, because the negative reaction he elicits may be greater than the reaction toward Bush for the swing-voters likely to determine this election.

Most Republicans who not only plan to vote for Bush also happen to genuinely like him. This is in contrast of course to the Democrats’ opinion toward Kerry, where most Democrats certainly plan to vote for him, but few like him. Of course, if you look at the opinions Democrats have toward Bush, its clear to understand the extremely anti-Bush attitude that crowd exerts.

Will hatred of Bush be enough for Kerry to claim victory this year? Right now, it doesn’t look likely, and Kerry has yet to make the case as to why he would be better to those who are yet undecided.

The goal of a political campaign must be to win the election, and Kerry’s campaign has been off track since the beginning. Even Dean supporters gave him flip-flops before the Iowa primaries months ago, and the Kerry camp has failed miserably to change the impression most Americans have of him. Rather than choosing to stress the issues upon which Democrats are traditionally strong, primarily domestic ones, they wrongly choose to do battle on weaker ground, and this mistake will likely prove fatal barring some catastrophic twist of fate over the next few weeks. It’s not impossible, but as every day passes by, Bush’s re-election becomes more and more likely.

As a Republican, I can’t help but be happy knowing that the Democrats likely won’t be able to pull themselves together to oust one of the most controversial Presidents in American history. As a student of political science, I find it incredibly telling that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about campaign history, political wherewithal and strategy could have managed a better campaign for Kerry. Barring a deus ex machina, years from now future students will be taught the history of this election as a shining example of how not to run one’s campaign for the presidency.

Unless, of course, John Kerry personally shoots Osama bin Laden on national television. Then he might win.

Zach Stern (zstern@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (September 30, 2004 @ 2:15am):

Good joke at the end. Too bad you're wrong about just about everything else.

Josiah (September 30, 2004 @ 6:41am):

It could be worse, George Bush is a liar!! Proven time and again, but you are deaf!!!

Anonymous (September 30, 2004 @ 9:07am):

Did you steal your ideas from Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Sean Hannity? It sounds like Hannity to me, personally, but I don't want to give credit to the wrong right-wing talking-points producing hack.

Anonymous (September 30, 2004 @ 9:55am):

I would like to challenge you to read "Crimes Against Nature" by RFK Jr. before the election. The sooner the better. I don't care if you are Republican or Democratic. I challenge you to open your mind to what he has to say, and what he documents extremely well. I'll even send you a xeroxed copy of it if you'd like. Everyone's been so distracted by the war on Terror and in Iraq that a corporate takeover of the federal government at the agency level has gone unnoticed. They have conducted, mostly out of public view, a war on environmental protection and conservation of our public lands. They have lied, misrepresented the facts to Congress and others, ignored real scientific opinion when it was contrary to their agenda, violated ethics laws, and gotten away with it because Republicans control Congress. They are poised to pollute more than ever before, and damn the people who'll suffer from it, like the tens of thousands who die every year from air pollution alone, and to liquidate OUR natural, national assets for THEIR cash. Have you noticed the increase in oil company commercial on CNN? Have you seen the misleading commercial by balancedenergy.org, a front for the coal and energy industry? Did you notice that the debates (if you want to call them that) will be brought to you on CNN by balancedenergy.org. Open your eyes!
There's even a sad irony in that Florida has been hit so hard lately. Did you happen to hear a federal hurricane center forecaster say that the rought hurricane season is caused by a 1 degree increase in ocean temps? That's global warming! Why isn't anyone talking about that? Perhaps it's for the same reason that the Bush administration eliminated any mention of global warming from EPA reports for the past few years.
This has been the most secretive, deceitful administration in my lifetimes of 53 years, starting with the Cheney Energy Task Force. Their most recent action was to issue a gag order to all EPA employees to prevent them from discussing the environmental record of the Bush administration if and when they are queeried by reporters. The wars have served as perfect "smokescreens" for their work. If you want to vote for Bush after reading this book, be my guest. But, when the environmental bill we've been adding to comes due, and things start to hit the fan, you and every other editor who neglected or refused to tell the story behind one of the biggest cover ups in American history will bear some of the responsibility. Perhaps Kerry hasn't run the best campaign in the world, but then maybe you and everyone else ready to vote for Bush have been manipulated extremetly well. Ever hear of the Frank Luntz memo. Look it up on the internet. He's the pollster who taught the Republicans how to APPEAR green because he told them the environment was their "achilles heel".

Ray Mathis
Health Education Department Chair
McHenry Community High School
McHenry, IL 60050

Anonymous (September 30, 2004 @ 2:11pm):

granted, the campaign has been poorly run up to this point. but keep in mind, the american public has a collective memory of about one week's duration, and kerry has been an extremely strong finisher throughout his political career.

in short, what he's done for the past year is totally insignificant if, true to form, kerry has a strong showing down the stretch. after all, there's no greater 'flip-flopper' than the american populace at large.

Anonymous (September 30, 2004 @ 5:07pm):

No doubt the Bush is more dangerous than just being a liar. He's is going to creat so many enemies for this coutry, that it could be facing its worst times ever.
But the truth is, Kerry has failed to offer any alternative. He's getting up there and crying "vote for me, I'm not Bush" That's not good enough, say we get him into office, and evbery one realizes he has no substance, then a republican will defeat him again, and he'd be like Bush, because that's a right wing of the country, it's not Bush alone.
So until the democrats offer a real alternative, they don't deserve your vote, Vote Nader, so may be in four years, they'll nominate someone who stands for your beliefs.

Anonymous (September 30, 2004 @ 5:24pm):

why? so the democrats can move to the left and get absolutely TROUNCED in four years?

Anonymous (September 30, 2004 @ 6:13pm):

Funny, for someone running the Wost. Campaign. Ever. Bush is facing the Worst. Polling. Numbers. Ever. for an incumbent president going into a re-election. What does that say?

Anonymous (September 30, 2004 @ 6:36pm):

Why is an incumbent spending his entire campaign going negative on the challenger? Maybe because he's almost ruined our country in four short years?

John Kerry finishes stronger than Greg LeMond in 1989. He's going to close this bitch out like Eric Gagne.

Anonymous (September 30, 2004 @ 9:29pm):

Josiah, prove Bush is a liar, even once, much less "time and again".

Kerry is a liar.

Kerry said he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia on orders from Nixon - the memory was seared into him per his testamony to Congress. But it was a lie, he wasn't there - Nixon wasn't even president yet.

Anonymous (October 1, 2004 @ 1:09am):

i have to agree with what Ray Mathis (read comment above) said. Although, Kerry hasn't proven to me that he deserves my vote. Neither one of them has addressed the issue of tuition costs, or the rumors of a draft or including women in that draft. So having people nag me to death at library mall everyday about voting, isn't going to make me want to register and vote. And i would say vote Nader, but he hasn't said much, so no one really knows where he stands. This election is like voting for the lesser of the two evils. I'm not saying they are evil, but they are not the best presidential candidates. I want to read an article that explains to me what Kerry or Bush can do for me, not old retired people, maybe 40 yrs down the road, i'll care about social security and medicare, but right now, i care about out of state tuition, and the price of textbooks, and my friends being drafted, and finding a job after college. So to the people organizing the "20 million votes" campaign at library mall, how about you try to lure me in with something besides the war in iraq? and maybe instead of telling me who lied about what issue, you tell me who is actually listening to what i have to say, and who is speaking to me because they truly care about what i have to say, not just to steal my vote from the opponent.Yeah that's politics for you, but how about changing the rules of the game?