W's Second Term

So what does it mean that George W. Bush won a second term? One thing it means is that we won't have to listen to what would have been more endless rants of the leftists about stealing an election, selected not elected, disenfranchisement, and on and on and on. Winning it as big as he did, with a nearly four million vote margin, helps his cause immensely. Taking seats in both the House and Senate was also huge. If nothing else, it should emphasize to the left that their ideas of government are not mainstream ideas. The country has seen how the left works and has mostly found it wanting.

So why did Kerry lose? Here's a quote from an article on the L.A. Times' web site, 03-Nov-2004, the day after the election, awkwardly entitled "Kerry Failed Boldly to Portray Himself" by Matea Gold. (Why not "Kerry Failed to Boldly Portray Himself"?):

"They missed a wonderful opportunity to tell the country about what was wrong with Bush," [Dan] Payne [, a Democratic media strategist in Boston who worked on three of Kerry's Senate races,] said. "They figured, 'All we have to do is reintroduce John Kerry.'."
Within days, the senator was under fire from a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an organization of Vietnam veterans still seething about Kerry's antiwar activities when he returned home from Vietnam.
Initially, advisors told Kerry to ignore the group, even as the former soldiers began running television ads that suggested that he concocted his injuries to receive wartime decorations and criticized his antiwar statements.
The charges were ultimately discredited by other veterans who were eyewitnesses to the incidents and by media accounts. But by the time Kerry fought back in mid-August with a pugilistic speech and new ad, the attacks had eroded his standing in public polls.

I'd say that last part would be a good thing. It looks like for once, at least some parts of the left realizes that Kerry couldn't portray himself without the world finding out about his antiwar, anti-US persuasions. The part about the Swifties being discredited is ludicrous. They were never discredited. The were despised and feared by the left, but unfortunately for left, they were never discredited. And it wasn't just two or three or ten disgruntled vets. It was hundreds of them, with the message to Kerry: Payback's a bitch. I mainly agree with this part of the article. The Swifties were huge in exposing Kerry's true character. If they weren't boycotted by TV shows like "Today" & "Good Morning America", the impact would have been even greater. It may be that Kerry was lucky the election ended how and when it did, since there appears to be mounting evidence that he may have gotten out of the Navy without an Honorable Discharge. Wouldn't that have been wonderful? A president with less than an Honorable Discharge? Maybe he'll just shut-up now. Doubt it.

Enough of Kerry. Bush stated in his November 4th press conference that he was going ahead with his agenda on, among other things, reforming the tax code and strengthening Social Security. These are both incredibly huge things to accomplish. Social Security has been called the third rail of politics, touch it and die. While that won't bother Bush very much, it will bother every Senator and Congressman who has to vote on it, and expects to be reelected. The tax code is the foundation of power in the Legislative Branch. It's how the Congess doles out money to special interest groups. While all of Congress would like to revise the tax code to better suit their individual needs, there is little or no incentive to make a truly fair and unbiased tax code. Any progress that Bush can make on either of these two very divisive issues would be fantastic. I'm anxious to watch it all unfold.