home > archive > 2004 > this article
Why George W. Bush will win in 2004 -- Part II
By Trevor Bothwell
Is it just me, or does John Kerry act like he's finally found his long-lost boyfriend instead of a running mate? From all the cheek kissing and heavy petting taking place between Kerry and vice presidential candidate John Edwards, you'd think the duo kicked off a "coming out" party instead of a run at the White House.
From the looks of things, it's hard not to wonder whether the two are preparing to build their campaign platform around gay marriage promotion. I'm no political strategist, but Kerry and Edwards may want to consider that there's actually less support for ending marriage as we know it than for ending the war in Iraq.
But I digress. Back in March I wrote a column explaining why President Bush would win re-election. So now that Kerry has finally rounded out his ticket, it's only reasonable to revisit our current state of affairs and to explain -- once again -- why I believe Bush will come out on top this November.
First, we have "the economy, stupid." John Kerry is anti-free trade (at least currently). He wants to create 10 million more jobs by discouraging "outsourcing," mainly by repealing the Bush administration's provision that allows corporations to defer paying taxes on profits generated overseas, as well as the one cutting the corporate tax rate.
Unfortunately, faulty political rhetoric often takes precedence over even basic economic understanding during election season. One reason American companies are forced to outsource jobs or operate overseas is precisely because they are already at a competitive disadvantage due to high corporate tax rates. Indeed, reducing the tax burden on corporations would in itself discourage them from relocating.
Conversely, George Bush wants to make his tax cuts permanent. Inasmuch as it's not even a president's job to "create jobs," Bush's tax cuts are largely -- though hardly solely -- responsible for the one million new jobs we've created in the past three months alone.
Secondly, we can expect to see the image of John Edwards' "two Americas" shoved down our throats for the next three months. A good liberal is nothing if not classist. But the absurdity of this gambit should be apparent to anyone with an IQ higher than most speed limits.
It isn't likely Edwards will explain that ignorance, irresponsibility, and a poor work ethic are more to blame for any perceived economic divide among Americans than the big, bad, "greedy" CEOs who run Wal-Marts and other profitable businesses. But Americans should know that companies like Wal-Mart do more to provide affordable goods to the poor than Sens. Kerry and Edwards ever could.
Moreover, during the primaries Edwards lamented the rising costs of medical insurance for Americans -- no doubt to justify even higher tax collection for the further socialization of medical care. However, liberals opposed to tort reform (like Edwards) enable trial lawyers (like Edwards) to make millions suing doctors, whose insurance companies must consequently raise premiums, which increases costs for everyone but -- you guessed it -- trial lawyers.
Lastly, and most important, the election spotlight will focus primarily on national defense. While the Bush administration has certainly made mistakes in its prosecution of the war in Iraq, things are going far better than worse. Kerry and the Democrats complain that we're failing miserably, but they can't even come up with any better alternatives to be mistaken about (save for turning all homeland security decisions over to the UN).
I have to believe most voters know this. Which is why Kerry continues to accuse Bush of lying about weapons of mass destruction, despite the Senate Intelligence Committee's conclusion that the CIA's WMD intel was severely flawed, and a recent article in the Financial Times reporting that the British are about to release new information verifying that Saddam Hussein indeed sought Nigerian uranium -- two striking revelations that seem to vindicate Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq.
Most remarkable about all of this is that in attempting to paint Bush as a perpetual liar, John Kerry is proving to be the guiltier of the two. After all, does anyone really believe liberals wouldn't be demanding Bush's impeachment -- and rightly so -- if he would have ignored the intelligence findings he was given and we were attacked again?
The sad fact of the matter is that you can't win with liberals. Their downright hatred for our "cowboy" president prevents them from even considering that he could be acting in our best interests. And considering liberals barely agree that we should have invaded Afghanistan -- much less Iraq -- this race will be a lot closer than it should. But my money says Kerry and Edwards are likely to find more voters sticking with a president who at least chooses to fight terrorism as opposed to one who would defer to the sensibilities of countries that have chosen to appease it for years.
At a rally in Dayton, Ohio earlier this month, Kerry said, "We have better ideas, better vision, a better sense of the difficulties in the lives of average Americans…And we have better hair.''
If only the Wonder Twins crafted their policy as well as they coiffed their locks.
Trevor Bothwell is editor of The Right Report and he is a Townhall.com book reviewer. He hopes he doesn't have to tell his grandchildren one day that Americans once thought hairspray was more important than killing terrorists. Trevor can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Other related articles: (open in a new window)
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
© 1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.