Thank God Kerry didn't win?

The Democratic takeover last Tuesday was itself a good thing. It makes one wonder if it could have been possible if John Kerry had won the election in 2004. What would our country look like today if that had been the case?

At the time, there was some talk in the blogosphere that a Kerry victory would be the worst thing that could happen to the Democratic Party. Yes, the stakes were high and many voters were right to demand a change in the Executive Branch. But if Kerry had won, he would have faced an incredibly unsympathetic Congress. The Senate alone consisted of 55 Republicans and 44 Democrats. At the very least, for his first two years, he would have already been a lame duck. It's unlikely he would have been able to introduce any significant progressive legislation. The situation in Iraq would be as bad as it is now, since he had no convincing plan for change and didn't favor a withdrawl. Last summer's gas prices surely would have spiked under Kerry the same way they did under Bush.

Fast forward to the second year of the Kerry administration, last Tuesday's midterm elections. Would voters have blamed him for the deteriorating situation abroad? After all, things are way worse now than they were two years ago. They probably would, and it would be hard to blame them. It was Bush's war, but Kerry ran partially on a platform of turning things around in Iraq. It is, in my opinion, an impossible task, and Kerry would have failed the same way Bush has.

More Republican seats in 2006 along with an impotent Democratic president practically hands 2008 to McCain or Guiliani. No contest. The situation now, in addition to simply being better for the country, really makes 2008 interesting.

It seems that those Democrats in 2004 who said a Kerry victory would be devestating were right. That loss may have been the best thing for the party. It gave voters two more years to finally realize the corruption of the GOP.


Jeff said...

Though if you look at every statement Kerry made about Iraq, it seemed to be geared towards a better diplomatic effort to get other countries involved. A different Secretary of State and a different Ambassador to the UN may have allowed for at least the potential for such help. Maybe instead of having countries like Poland pulling out on a monthly basis, we'd have more countries coming in.

Other than on the diplomatic front, though, you're certainly right about everything else.

Michael Corcoran said...

Good points. I also think you could make the argument that Gore losing in 2000, leading to a a Bush presidency, has served to wake the citizenry up.

Beacon Opinion said...

I should clarify, I think Kerry wouldhave been a better president than Bush. But politically is where it would hurt dems. Since the last two years of Iraq problesm would have been dumped on Kerry there is no way the Dems would have won the House and Senate.

Now they seem geared to win in 08. I dont expect a progressive revolution -- just some fixing of what was broken during the Bush presidency.

(Repeals of the Military Commisions Act? Refroming the Patriot Act? Perhaps something to deal with the NSA wiretapping scandal? more money into education? Recognizing Global Warming?)