My point is, when all those who voted for Bush second time thought like you (and me, but that don't count) then he wouldn't be reelected.
Well now wait a minute, I didn't vote for the man, but elections are funny things, and past elections doubly so. We really have no way of knowing whether the alternatives would truly be better or worse, except guesswork. In the case of 2004 you had Mr Kerry backing off his vote in favor of Iraq, so hard that he managed to contradict himself in one sentence, the infamous "I actually voted for it before I voted against it". As a result, to many voters, the 2004 choice was dumb-and-principled versus smart-and-political. The former was the devil we knew, and I don't blame them too hard.
We think of things as Bush versus not-Bush right now because that's how the Ds have strategically moved the discourse; that was the approach in 2006 and it worked. While the most political hay can be made by merely criticizing, all pols are doing it. Nobody seems to notice that this, too, is in lieu of actual leadership.
|