Skip to main content

Why is Kerry Not the Democratic Front-Runner?

If your presidential candidate did very well in the last election despite losing, wouldn't you want him to run again? Not if he was simply a not much more palatable alternative to the other guy.

Despite the fact that I think a lot of the things the Swift Boat veterans said about John Kerry are exaggerated or false, I still don't think he would have made a very good president. (Truth be known, I didn't vote for George Bush either--for the same reason.)

Some people I know said that Kerry would have been a much better president than George W. Bush. Well, now's his chance--but he's not taking it.

John Kerry did very well in the 2004 presidential election. He came pretty close to winning. He should be this round's front runner, shouldn't he? Why then is he not even running again?

If he had to run against George Bush, I might be able to understand why he wouldn't want to try it again. But George Bush can't even run this time. Kerry could run against an open field.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that Democrats don't really like John Kerry. The only reason they put him to run against George W. Bush is because Howard Dean gives the occasional appearance of being mentally unstable.

In other words--most of the people who voted for John Kerry didn't really want John Kerry to be president. They just didn't want George W. Bush to be president worse.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Unknown3/19/2007 09:53:00 AM

    Let me tell you a funny story. When I was a little kid, I would ask my mom and dad who they voted for. Their response was always a him and a haw, and a response, "Mickey Mouse." I knew that wasn't the case but when I was a little older, I asked again to get the same response but this time I asked, "why do you always say that? My mom continued by saying that sometimes (most the time?) you have to choose the better of the evils. I now understand what that means, as I see that happen all the time. It almost seems like the norm. I think its a sad truth that this is the case in almost all elections.

    ReplyDelete
  2. rmwarnick3/21/2007 01:01:00 PM

    Frank, nobody voted for Kerry. He was a lousy candidate. We voted for "anybody but Bush."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frank Staheli3/21/2007 01:05:00 PM

    At one point in my back and forth comments with Cliff at OneUtah, I got the impression that he really liked Kerry...Maybe my inference is wrong.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.
2 comments
Read more

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...
67 comments
Read more