Looking back now nine years, it is clear that America lost out when George W. Bush, who lied us into a war in Iraq in 2003, and was not keeping track of Al Qaeda before September 11 while on vacation in Crawford, Texas in 2001, defeated John Kerry in 2004 in a ruthless campaign based upon lies and deceit!
Senator Kerry had been an outstanding Senator from Massachusetts for 20 years, had been a courageous soldier in Vietnam, but had the “nerve” to oppose the continuation of the war in 1971 under Richard Nixon’s Presidency, after returning home from his war service.
For this, Kerry was pilloried by the Bush campaign, while Bush served in the National Guard, and was mostly absent, if not reading magazines, while on so called “duty”, gaining preference because of his dad!
So Kerry went back to the Senate, and continued a brilliant career, becoming Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, until he was tapped by President Barack Obama to replace Hillary Clinton in the State Department’s top post.
And now, just months into his time as Secretary of State, Kerry has already shown just how principled, how committed he is to international law, to morality and ethics, to common decency, and to concern for human rights and the lives of innocent men, women and children, who have been slaughtered by outlaw dictator Bashar Al Assad with the use of chemical weapons!
Kerry is a true statesman, a man who hates war due to personal experience, but knows that if nothing is done in this attack against humanity, it will embolden other dictators to think they can get away with this in the future, reminding us of what happened in the 1930s, as people stood by and allowed Adolf Hitler to take advantage of weakness!
But ultimately, the civilized world had to fight Hitler and Nazi Germany anyway, but it was just that much more difficult because of the delay in reaction, and the fear of taking action!
We are indeed fortunate to have John Kerry as our Secretary of State, a true statesman and historic figure, even if he was not elected President of the United States in 2004!
I totally second this!
I am ashamed to admit I was swept along with the republicans in their swift boating of John Kerry. I didn’t really understand the republican’s approach to elections. Lie even if the truth sounds better!
Since then I’ve learned a great deal and followed John Kerry’s career. I agree we lost the chance to elect a great man as resident. Instead we got Bush.
Professor you said it much more eloquently above. John Kerry is a Statesman. He is going to prove to be am excellent Secretary if State. Right man for the job
I think a big reason why John Kerry did not unseat President George W. Bush with the U.S. presidential election of 2004 was that this country was not involved in the Iraq War for long enough. Long enough, that is, for the voting electorate to be willing to have Kerry defeat Bush. The tide seemed to turn after that election; perhaps nearing the end of 2005 with heading into 2006. (I’m not exactly sure. Perhaps Hurricane Katrina, in August 2005 New Orleans, Louisiana, and with how Bush handled it was what marked the turning point.)
The midterm elections of 2006—when Democrats won over majority control of both houses of Congress—was due to Iraq first and foremost. It was very much a national tide. In fact, Republican Lincoln Chafee, at the time the junior U.S. senator of Rhode Island, became unseated by Democratic opponent Sheldon Whitehouse despite having a job-approval percentage past 60. (“ABC News'” election-night coverage showed George Stephanopoulos stating it was 62 percent.) The Democrats came into that election with 45 in their Senate caucus. They needed to flip six Republican-held seats. And they achieved it. Not only that, all senate Democratic pickup winners unseated incumbent Republicans. In addition to R.I.’s Sheldon Whitehouse, the achievements came from the following: Missouri’s Claire McCaskill (who dethroned Jim Talent much due to stem-cell issue); Montana’s Jon Tester (who defeated Jack Abramoff scandal-plagued Conrad Burns); Ohio’s Sherrod Brown (who unseated two-term Mike DeWine); Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey (who ousted by nearly 18 percentage points the No. 3-ranked member of the Republican caucus, Rick Santorum); and, last with the election timeline, Virginia’s ex-U.S. Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb (who beat then-seemly invincible George “Macaca” Allen). Of these six pickup winners, only Webb wasn’t re-elected; he opted not to run for a second term, and the seat was retained in the Democratic column—via Election 2012—by Virginia’s 70th Governor Tim Kaine. (Noteworthy: Chafee went on to endorse Barack Obama for his first presidential election of 2008; left the Republican Party; became an independent; was elected R.I.’s 77th Governor in 2010; and, in 2013, he made the official switch to the Democratic Party.)
When I think about Election 2004, I really think that we were not involved in that Iraq War long enough for The People to turn on President George W. Bush and his administration. That people probably have this attitude to give the benefit of any doubt[s] to a sitting U.S. president; to allow plenty of room just after the launching of a war. But this 2004 election did for Republicans what 1964 did for Democrats. Lyndon Johnson won a full term that year by an epic landslide; but his timeline was different. We entered the Vietnam War in 1965, and we were there for over three years by the date of Election 1968. By then, it became clear even to the 36th president that he had lost the country’s support. Johnson made his official announcement not to run for re-election in March 1968. Had the Iraq War began in, say, 2002 rather than 2003, there might have been somewhat a timing parallel with the presidency of George W. Bush.
In realigning presidential election periods, there is at least a catalyst which causes the incumbent party to lose the electorate in a profound way. The last time the Republicans saw this happen was in 1932. It was due to the Great Depression. These catalysts usher in a new period of dominance favoring the other party. From 1860 to 1968, the periods struck every 36 years: 1860 (Democratic to Republican), 1932 (Republican to Democratic), and 1968 (Democratic to Republican). The timeline of the attack [on Sept. 11, 2001], the beginning of going to war with Iraq, the re-election of Bush (by the narrowest national margin in U.S. history) … that delayed the realignment by one cycle. It arrived not in 2004 but in 2008 (Republican to Democratic).
A cynical remark I’m about to add here, but I’ll do so anyway, is this: George W. Bush was such a disaster that, for the most vile racists, he was the perfect commander in chief to give rise to the first-ever African-American president of the United States: Barack Obama.
“These catalysts usher in a new period of dominance favoring the other party. From 1860 to 1968, the periods struck every 36 years: 1860 (Democratic to Republican), 1932 (Republican to Democratic), and 1968 (Democratic to Republican).”
I forgot to insert the following: 1896 (Democratic to Republican).
As usual, D, you come through with brilliant analysis and interpretation, and again, I commend you for your incisive discussion!
Actually, D, 1896 was a weird election, as the GOP KEPT control of the government, as it had throughout the Gilded Age, but even though McKinley won, and William Jennings Bryan lost, the Populist ideas that Bryan represented ended up in many particulars being promoted by Theodore Roosevelt when he succeeded the assassinated McKinley in 1901, and ushered in the Progressive Era, which followed many of the principles of the Populists. And Wilson as a Democrat pursued Bryan type ideas as well.