Local Scribes Offer Election Reflection

By: Dave Astor Most syndicated political columnists have offered their opinions about the 2004 presidential results. But what do local columnists ? who usually know exactly what's on the minds of their readers ? have to say about why George W. Bush defeated John Kerry?

Dave Lieber of the Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram said the president won not only "on the issue of personal security," but because he's "vastly underrated as

a campaigner. I saw his skills close up in Texas. He's not a great debater, but put him in a roomful of people and nobody can touch him. He has the 'real guy' thing down better than anyone" ? along with a great strategist, Karl Rove.

"As the former governor of a neighboring state, and a good-ol'-boy conservative, Bush had an advantage," observed Smiley Anders of The Advocate, Baton Rouge, La. "But I always thought a Democrat who ran a strong, aggressive campaign could win here." Anders, who said Louisiana has a number of Democratic officials, felt Kerry didn't run such a campaign.

"I don't think he ever gave the voters here a clear alternative to the Bush policies in Iraq," Anders added. "There are a lot of Louisiana troops over there, and while the people here support the troops, they don't support rising death tolls and sinking deeper into a quagmire." He also said Kerry "came across as stiff."

"I can tell you in three words why President Bush easily carried West Virginia: God, guns and gays," said Jim Casto, recently retired columnist and associate editor at The Herald-Dispatch in Huntington, W.Va. "The Bush team did a masterful job of putting him on the winning side of those hot-button issues that truly matter to many, many voters."

Bill Tammeus of The Kansas City Star and Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service said Kansas City and St. Louis voted Democratic, as expected. "But the 'values-voter' appeal to evangelicals and others in Springfield and rural Missouri was enough to give Bush the state," he added.

That approach also worked nationally. "Bush won for many reasons, but I believe what put him over the top was Karl Rove's strategy of targeting the 4 million religious conservatives who didn't vote in 2000," said Tammeus.

"I live in a blue county in a red state," said Mark Lane of the Daytona Beach (Fla.) News-Journal and Cox News Service. "The majority here, as in most of the urban areas in the state, voted narrowly for Kerry." But Bush won Florida. "The phenomenon that rather puzzles me is the number of people who voted for Bush while disagreeing with most of his stated policies," said Lane. "Voters who believe in protecting the environment, are alarmed at the deficit, and don't want Social Security privatized, voted for Bush out of a general sense of needing to stay the course in perilous times."

Another columnist from a blue part of a red state ? Mike Leonard of The Herald-Times in Indiana ? said: "I live in a liberal haven in Bloomington, so even though I'm a native Hoosier, I can't say that I always understand the rest of the state." Indiana has a history of sending Democrats to Congress, and it had a string of 16 consecutive years with a Democrat in the governor's mansion until 2004. But the state, he added, "has a thing about voting for Republican presidential candidates. Hoosiers seemed to buy into Bush's 'I'm just a regular guy who wears blue jeans' image."

Leonard added that, "before Kerry had the opportunity to introduce himself to the electorate," the Bush campaign associated the Democrat with "every negative stereotype" of liberalism and tarred his Vietnam record ? which helped distract attention from Bush's "dubious" military service.

Writers from blue states also offered their opinions.

"Illinois was not a swing state and more people did vote for Kerry here," said Carol Mueller, a columnist and managing editor at the Pioneer Press chain of weeklies in Chicago's suburbs. But, she added, the president's victory "reflects a majority of American voters' need for absolutes in an increasingly complex and morally relativistic society. Bush has provided that with his right-wrong, black-white, my-mind-is-made-up-don't-confuse-me-with-facts style of politics."

The San Diego Union-Tribune's Pete Rowe said: "Since California was seen by both camps as a blue stronghold, we saw little of the candidates in person or on TV." But Rowe ? who said Kerry won the city of San Diego and Bush the county ? saw enough to feel that the president "seemed less interested in inspiring than in scaring Americans" during the campaign.

George Smith, columnist and senior editor at The Anniston (Ala.) Star, said: "If this is not a right-leaning nation, we're tilted that way from the middle, and the heartland simply is not going to accept a New England liberal. ... Kerry just didn't connect. His duck hunting was remindful of Michael Dukakis' Snoopy pix in the tank. And how many voters windsail? I know these are small things, but little things do stick with people. Kerry's handlers did a lousy job in trying to sell him as an everyday man. While the voters were not all that much in love with Mr. Bush, they saw even less of Mr. Kerry to like."

Tammeus recalled that Kerry initially polled close to Bush in Missouri, but his campaign later decided he couldn't win the state and pulled most national advertising. "That self-fulfilled the losing prophecy," said the columnist.

"Kerry lost this election because he lacked charisma," said Mueller. "In the up-close-and-personal arena of televised politicking, he was either unable or unwilling to affect the likable, regular-guy persona Bush has perfected."

Leonard said Kerry "did not respond with the proper outrage when accused of doctoring his Vietnam service record. He did not hammer at the budget surplus-to-deficit numbers. He did not even go after the Bush environmental record and the legacy that will leave. People, particularly female voters, do care about the environment."

Casto had a different take: "Kerry did a great job of telling people what he was against ? i.e., Bush's policies ? but never seemed able to explain what he was for. That's no way to win an election."

Rowe agreed. "Kerry never established a compelling positive theme for his candidacy," he said. "It's not enough to point out Bush's deficiencies; voters ? or at least the ones I've heard from ? want to be inspired."

Kerry, like Bush, promised to protect the United States from terrorism, said Lieber. "But his past record as a war protester, votes against weapon systems, and his comment in a debate about America needing to pass the global test probably scared moderate voters," he added.

National Society of Newspaper Columnists President Suzette Standring, a Massachusetts resident, offered a post-election assessment filled with irony. "Kerry lost because he saw issues as many-sided (flip-flop)," she said in an e-mail. "A decorated Vietnam veteran, his aversion to war was experiential (traitor). His openness to stem-cell research reached beyond religious parameters (spiritual unfaithfulness). Kerry tried to be reasoned and measured in his thinking. Obviously, the voting majority of Americans can't relate to that."