Bush "Man of the Smear"

Why is Bush Time's `Man of the Year'? Conventional wisdom is beginning to spout the idea that he won the election by being bold and forthright and connecting with the American people. Actually he ran the most negative, most smear-laden campaign in my memory, which goes (a little shakily) back to '68. There have been tough campaigns but the unrelenting negative ads were remarkable and I watch very little TV but even I saw them, apparently you couldn't not see them. Look at all the press the swift boat liars got for their ad buy--they couldn't buy that kind of coverage and they didn't have to. Look, at the time I thought Kerry was doing the right thing, playing Mr. Nice Guy, don't scare the people, show that you're presidential, that you have gravitas, that you will protect them. I did not like it but I thought `alright, don't piss off that mythical swing voter but pull him in by being respectful of the President, better not go for the jugular, too risky' but in the cold light of 20/20 hindsight I see that I was horribly wrong, taken in by the desire to win instead of the desire to do the right thing.

Wouldn't it have been better for Kerry to be honest and attack the President head-on for his incompetence and his mendacity and make the case that lies had gotten us into this war and into this financial quagmire? Did Kerry even put Bush on the defensive on Social Security privatization after he announced it at their convention? And do not get me started on the conventions, yes, I loved Obama, he is my last my hope, the image of a politician who is honest with the people and who reminds us that we are the government and that it is not us against them. But contrast the Dem convention and its minimal attack with the Repubs full out assault. I mean you can't play good cop unless you have a bad cop, for crying out loud.

So when all the dust has settled and it appears that we lost, wouldn't it have been better to have lost while savaging the President. At least bring him down a few notches, splash some mud on him, make him respond to all the lies he uttered, remember "Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in" with Kofi Annan standing right behind him. And why in the world are their still so many people who think Iraq was involved in 9/11, because we did not make that an issue. Look at Kerry's weak response on the vote for the $87 billion, how hard would it have been to say `if we fight a war let's at least pay for it'. In retrospect, we were afraid to tell the truth because we thought it might hurt us. They smeared and we did not respond in kind. The Repubs smeared Clinton because even when they lost it made him weaker, and if Kerry (or Gore) had won they would have been weaker as a result of those unfounded attacks. At least our attacks would have had the merit of being true. Maybe if Kerry had gone on the attack the loss would have been worse, but I would have felt better and even if Bush had won he might have been damaged in the process. I am sure we all saw the comment once, if not a hundred times, you can't bring a knife to a gunfight. Maybe Obama will prove me wrong, I sincerely hope so, but Kerry needed to go on the offensive, I kept waiting for him to turn the boat around and go straight at `em but he never did. I know a good part of the blame goes to the corporate media but Kerry had his moment and by playing it safe he not only lost the election but sacrificed the best opportunity to attack the President. Now that chance is gone and we are back to fighting delaying actions. As I said earlier, I thought Kerry was doing the right thing at the time, I was a good trooper, anything to beat Bush, but next time--if we are going to lose let it be while fighting tooth and nail. I think if Kerry had attacked Bush on the smears, the cronyism, the fiscal ineptitude, gutless taxcuts, and constant lies, Bush may still have won but he might not be `man of the year'.