Bush beats Kerry

I said earlier today that I wasn't afraid of a Bush loss to Kerry. The reasons for this are simple. First, as some news organizations are discussing, Kerry is a Masssachussets liberal and even more damning, was Lt. Governor under Michael Dukakis. Further, the war hero thing won't play in the general election. Its all nice and dandy now in a primary, amongst communists (ooops, I meant democrats) eager for a nominee who appears strong on defense, but his actual record will be his undoing. By this I mean not just his inconsistent voting patterns, or votes to slash military and ntelligence spending, but more horrifying is a close look at Kerry's actions in Vietnam.

The reasons why he could speak with such details about atrocities that most other veterans didn't experience is because Kerry will be shown to be, by those who served with him and knew him, not only a murdering loon . . . but an especially violent and brutal one who spared no expense towards innocent women and children and willingly took part in the heinous crimes he later described to the cheers of those in the anti American left, like Hanoi Jane.

Beyond all this however, are some basic rules of politics which will stand in Mr. Kerry's way.
First, since 1920, only one person who was a senator or who'se last job was as a senator has been elected President ... JFK
Second, in every race they have won, a current or former governor has won since 1960. There is only one exception ... Kerry's former boss Michael Dukakis.
Third, since 1888 every time an incumbent president has lost it has been to a former governor.

Vice Presidents elected, as the first Bush was, immedialty following their term have had some success. But, as Al Gore learned, it is simply not enough to overcome histories dislike of Senators. Besides Governors, the only other group with any semblence of success in running for the presidency is former military officers, though there the examples are few ad far between and most often involve generals like Eisenhower of U.S. Grant who achieved world changing victories. Perhaps, this is why Colin Powell has yet to run, since he knows the first Gulf War didn't really change much. I would submit that Kosovo changed even less.

Still, judging by history, for Ds to have any chance this fall they need to dump Kerry and Edwards and instead focus on Dean and Clark. Clark, for numerous reasons, is completly unelectable. Dean, on the other hand, was fairly successful as a governor and is the one candidate who I have always thought, and still think, presents the most difficult challenge to the President. Alas, it looks like the Clinton's have kept him out of the nomination, clearing the way for a Bush victory and Hillaries run in 2008.