Other Columns by Mike Bayham
Mike Bayham Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Early Wednesday Morning QB
By Mike Bayham
November 3, 2004

As of 4:15 AM EST, the networks, citing a newfound desire for accuracy in reporting, have not declared a winner in the 2004 presidential election. I on the other hand do not share their fears of being wrong as the electoral map and popular vote clearly point towards the re-election of President George W. Bush.

Though the sun will soon be rising over Bayou Bienvenue, I have compiled a set of reasons and observations indicating why Bush was able to win a second term, and a few tenets why John Kerry failed in his presidential quest, though they are not listed in any particular order.

1) George W. Bush's greatest asset is his personality. Though surrounded with the trappings of power, Bush has consistently come off as a very "real" person. The elder President Bush suffered from the perception that he was out of touch and distant from the public, providing the greatest contrast between father and son and possibly also between the two major candidates in 2004 as well.

2) The issue of gay marriage energized the evangelical voters, who might have had reservations about the invasion of Iraq, and proved to be an outlet to connect with socially conservative black voters, who typically go Democrat upwards of 90%. In no state did the matter of same-sex marriages have a more profound effect than the key swing-state of Ohio, where a measure prohibiting the legal sanctioning of gay marriages was on the same ballot as the presidential election.

It's probably not a coincidence that one of the states where Bush received his highest level of minority support was Ohio. Though Democrats will cry foul over the injection of this issue into the campaign, they can thank their leftist comrades on the bench for mandating the inception of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and a gaggle of fringe local officials led by the Mayor of San Francisco for giving the GOP a sword.

3) John Kerry benefited from tactical victories in the debate portion of the campaign, but would lose strategically thanks in part to two "gasoline can shaking" moments: the global test and broaching the life-choice of Mary Cheney. The former caused voters to suspect he would outsource American foreign policy and defense to either the EU or the UN, hurting him amongst men, and the latter showed an air of callousness, costing him dearly with women.

Though Bush stumbled and bumbled more often than I would have liked in the debates, I'll happily take criticism for overusing the words "hard work" over Kerry's two beauties.

4) President Bush has defined his administration as being tough on terror. Osama Bin Laden's reemergence at first hurt the Republican because it reminded the voters of the White House's inability to bag the world's most wanted man. But as Election Day neared, I suspect many people adopted a different take on the tape by dwelling on Bush's aggressiveness, which reinforced his image of strength. People were never convinced that an indecisive Kerry could do a better job hunting Bin Laden, making Bush the default beneficiary of the terrorist's message.

5) The assault by the Swift Boat Vets caused more damage to Kerry's candidacy than flip-flop, Botox, or his tax votes. John Kerry was forced into making a decision as the Iowa caucuses approached about creating an attractive image, since the aura of "John Kerry the Undistinguished Gentleman" was not lighting fires under anyone. When he reinvented himself as a Democratic version of John McCain with the inclusion of war images from his tour of Vietnam, Kerry's campaign took off virtually over night.

The Swifties made short work of taking some of the shine off his medals (at least the ones he did not throw away in protest) and emphasized his days as a celebrated trasher of our armed forces.

6) I have always maintained that John Kerry was the least dangerous of the Democratic presidential candidates, in large part because of his controversial past and a profile that would not resonate with the public. Next to his Vietnam War congressional testimony, the gravest mistake John Kerry made was picking John Edwards as his running mate.

I've hit this point many times, but it still awes me how a seasoned politician like Kerry could have engaged in such a blunder. John Edwards brought nothing to the ticket, neither the state he was born (South Carolina) nor the state he represented in the US Senate (North Carolina). Realizing that the presidency is decided in the Electoral College, Kerry should have gone with someone who could have flipped a key state. Instead, the lesser-half of the Democratic ticket got spanked by Dick Cheney in the vice-presidential debate and will be mostly remembered for his "revival tent" comments about the exaggerated healing powers of Stem Cell research.

7) The final factor I believe to have tipped the election for George W. Bush has to do with their wives. If Bush and Kerry contrasted on issues, than their spouses provided a far more vivid differentiation in style and temperament. People see in Laura Bush a gracefulness that might have beckoned memories of Jackie O. Teresa Heinz Kerry on the other hand seemed to be an amalgamation of Zsa Zsa Gabor, Martha Mitchell, and the Habsburg Empress Maria Theresa.

Heinz-Kerry's mouth cost her husband votes by the truckload, with her arrogant snipe about the First Lady having never held a real job reminding toss-up voters that she is part of the Kerry package. Also, I don't think many female voters ever got past Kerry divorcing his first wife to hook up with a billion dollar heiress. This could be the first time in American history where the wife of a presidential candidate proved to be more of a liability than an asset.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.