Dear Senator Kerry:
Congratulations - the election results mean that not only will you remain a U.S. senator, it also means you've been spared having to deal with Iraq, terrorism, and a sputtering economy.
Seriously, Senator, I'm sure it must hurt to lose to a moron who started an unnecessary war and proposes a massive tax cut every time something goes wrong with his policies. And yes, the fact that Sean Hannity must be pouring salt on your wounds and will continue to do so until Christmas - Christmas 2007 - must really be gnawing at you right now. But I'm going to make a prediction that you might take comfort in.
I predict that you will become the forty-fourth President of the United States. You just won't become the forty-fourth President right now.
That's right - I think you should run again in 2008.
Here's the deal, Senator. The Democratic Party made tremendous gains in 2004. Thanks to Howard Dean and his ability to raise money via the Internet, and activist groups like MoveOn.org and True Majority, you were able to compete almost dollar for dolllar with the Republicans. This is the greatest achievement in political fundraising since Richard Viguerie engineered direct-mail fundraising for the far right. Also, more young people voted, and 54 percent of them voted for you. And this generation of voters will only grow in numbers and importance as time goes by. And, even though the so-called "liberal" media haven't made much of a big deal about it, the Democrats now control 47 chambers of state legislatures, as opposed to 44 before Tuesday's voting. The Democrats may not have gotten as far as they wanted to but, hey, it's a start. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Then there's George W. Bush. Senator, do you really believe Bush has a mandate? Bush has no mandate; he only got 51 percent of the vote, and Ohio was so close just 136,000 votes there would have made you President if they'd gone the other way. And even though you lost, 56 percent of people surveyed think the country is headed in the wrong direction, 51 percent think the Iraq War wasn't worth it, and 52 percent think George W. Bush is doing a lousy job. You did your best trying to convince the real majority that you were a viable alternative to the President, and the extra voters you needed to connect to in order to win were within your grasp. You came awfully close - far closer than a charismatically challenged fellow like yourself was expected to.
And it's all downhill here for Bush. World events, instability in the oil market and the economy, and his own foolish arrogance are going to make the next four years for him and the Republican party hell. The Republicans could in 2008 resemble the Democrats in 1968.
So why do I think you should run in 2008? Simple. You have gravitas. You ran a solid, spirited campaign against Bush, and while you fell short, it wasn't by much. You can go into 2008 knowing what you did wrong and correct your mistakes the second time around. You gained respect from the Democratic National Committee, and you worked well with the party rank and file. You will still be a senator, which will give you a platform to espouse new ideas that will be essential to winning the White House. You were clearly cheated by Karl Rove's dirty tricks, Senator, but your gracious concession makes you look like a real man, rather than the petulant loser Al Gore acted as - even though he really did win the Presidency. In short, you're the anti-Gore. You demeanor and your conduct make you look more like a lovable underdog who should have won than a self-important sore loser - like, say, Nancy Kerrigan, one of your most famous constituents. Bearing all this in mind, Senator, the voters are more likely to want to give you a second chance! Hey, your party gave Adlai E. Stevenson II a second chance. They gave William Jennings Bryan the Democratic presidential nomination three times! And they both lost by far more than you did! You have the chance to do them one better!
There are some men, Senator, who have been nominated to run for President and lost, only to run again and win. William Henry Harrison ran as one of three Whig nominees for President in 1836 against Vice President Martin Van Buren, but lost; he won the White House in a rematch with President Van Buren four years later. Richard Nixon graciously conceded defeat to John F. Kennedy after the close election of 1960, but came back in 1968 to win his party's nomination and the Presidency. Okay, these may be poor examples, seeing as Harrison died a month after taking office and Nixon resigned the Presidency in disgrace, but hey, Senator Kerry, if the American people could give Nixon another shot at the White House, why not you? Want a better example? How about Andrew Jackson? As one of four candidates from regional factions of the Democratic-Republican party - the ancestor of the Democratic party - Jackson finished first in the presidential election of 1824 in both electoral and popular votes, but lacked an electoral majority, and the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams as the New President. So, just like in 2000, a Tennesseean lost the Presidency to the son of a former President despite clear evidence that the Tenneseean won. But Jackson campaigned for the next four years and won the Presidency in 1828 and again in 1832. How about Thomas Jefferson? Nominated by the Democratic-Republican party to run for President in 1796, Jefferson lost to his once and future Federalist friend John Adams, and had to become Vice President under the old constitutional rules, but he, like Jackson, went on to become a two-term President! And you at least don't have to serve as Bush's Vice President for finishing second! You're now free to campaign for four years against the eventual 2008 Republican nominee!
And Senator, who will that nominee be? Jeb Bush? He's ruled himself out. George Pataki? Rudolph Guiliani? They'd both whip you in a general election, but as Northeastern ethnic moderates they don't have a chance of winning the GOP presidential nomination. Who does that leave? Bill Frist? You can't be serious! Senator, you could run the kind of campaign Al Gore ran in 2000 and you'd still beat this clown! Senator, the election of 2008 is yours to lose, and we've just put the 2004 race behind us! You're right on the issues. You have time to formulate new ideas and a new vision for America. You have respect. And you have a Democratic base even more fired up to win next time.
Senator, you're the one.
I hope you do run for President again. Because next time, you'll win. Think it over, Mr. Kerry. Let us all know when you've made a decision.
Congratulations - the election results mean that not only will you remain a U.S. senator, it also means you've been spared having to deal with Iraq, terrorism, and a sputtering economy.
Seriously, Senator, I'm sure it must hurt to lose to a moron who started an unnecessary war and proposes a massive tax cut every time something goes wrong with his policies. And yes, the fact that Sean Hannity must be pouring salt on your wounds and will continue to do so until Christmas - Christmas 2007 - must really be gnawing at you right now. But I'm going to make a prediction that you might take comfort in.
I predict that you will become the forty-fourth President of the United States. You just won't become the forty-fourth President right now.
That's right - I think you should run again in 2008.
Here's the deal, Senator. The Democratic Party made tremendous gains in 2004. Thanks to Howard Dean and his ability to raise money via the Internet, and activist groups like MoveOn.org and True Majority, you were able to compete almost dollar for dolllar with the Republicans. This is the greatest achievement in political fundraising since Richard Viguerie engineered direct-mail fundraising for the far right. Also, more young people voted, and 54 percent of them voted for you. And this generation of voters will only grow in numbers and importance as time goes by. And, even though the so-called "liberal" media haven't made much of a big deal about it, the Democrats now control 47 chambers of state legislatures, as opposed to 44 before Tuesday's voting. The Democrats may not have gotten as far as they wanted to but, hey, it's a start. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Then there's George W. Bush. Senator, do you really believe Bush has a mandate? Bush has no mandate; he only got 51 percent of the vote, and Ohio was so close just 136,000 votes there would have made you President if they'd gone the other way. And even though you lost, 56 percent of people surveyed think the country is headed in the wrong direction, 51 percent think the Iraq War wasn't worth it, and 52 percent think George W. Bush is doing a lousy job. You did your best trying to convince the real majority that you were a viable alternative to the President, and the extra voters you needed to connect to in order to win were within your grasp. You came awfully close - far closer than a charismatically challenged fellow like yourself was expected to.
And it's all downhill here for Bush. World events, instability in the oil market and the economy, and his own foolish arrogance are going to make the next four years for him and the Republican party hell. The Republicans could in 2008 resemble the Democrats in 1968.
So why do I think you should run in 2008? Simple. You have gravitas. You ran a solid, spirited campaign against Bush, and while you fell short, it wasn't by much. You can go into 2008 knowing what you did wrong and correct your mistakes the second time around. You gained respect from the Democratic National Committee, and you worked well with the party rank and file. You will still be a senator, which will give you a platform to espouse new ideas that will be essential to winning the White House. You were clearly cheated by Karl Rove's dirty tricks, Senator, but your gracious concession makes you look like a real man, rather than the petulant loser Al Gore acted as - even though he really did win the Presidency. In short, you're the anti-Gore. You demeanor and your conduct make you look more like a lovable underdog who should have won than a self-important sore loser - like, say, Nancy Kerrigan, one of your most famous constituents. Bearing all this in mind, Senator, the voters are more likely to want to give you a second chance! Hey, your party gave Adlai E. Stevenson II a second chance. They gave William Jennings Bryan the Democratic presidential nomination three times! And they both lost by far more than you did! You have the chance to do them one better!
There are some men, Senator, who have been nominated to run for President and lost, only to run again and win. William Henry Harrison ran as one of three Whig nominees for President in 1836 against Vice President Martin Van Buren, but lost; he won the White House in a rematch with President Van Buren four years later. Richard Nixon graciously conceded defeat to John F. Kennedy after the close election of 1960, but came back in 1968 to win his party's nomination and the Presidency. Okay, these may be poor examples, seeing as Harrison died a month after taking office and Nixon resigned the Presidency in disgrace, but hey, Senator Kerry, if the American people could give Nixon another shot at the White House, why not you? Want a better example? How about Andrew Jackson? As one of four candidates from regional factions of the Democratic-Republican party - the ancestor of the Democratic party - Jackson finished first in the presidential election of 1824 in both electoral and popular votes, but lacked an electoral majority, and the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams as the New President. So, just like in 2000, a Tennesseean lost the Presidency to the son of a former President despite clear evidence that the Tenneseean won. But Jackson campaigned for the next four years and won the Presidency in 1828 and again in 1832. How about Thomas Jefferson? Nominated by the Democratic-Republican party to run for President in 1796, Jefferson lost to his once and future Federalist friend John Adams, and had to become Vice President under the old constitutional rules, but he, like Jackson, went on to become a two-term President! And you at least don't have to serve as Bush's Vice President for finishing second! You're now free to campaign for four years against the eventual 2008 Republican nominee!
And Senator, who will that nominee be? Jeb Bush? He's ruled himself out. George Pataki? Rudolph Guiliani? They'd both whip you in a general election, but as Northeastern ethnic moderates they don't have a chance of winning the GOP presidential nomination. Who does that leave? Bill Frist? You can't be serious! Senator, you could run the kind of campaign Al Gore ran in 2000 and you'd still beat this clown! Senator, the election of 2008 is yours to lose, and we've just put the 2004 race behind us! You're right on the issues. You have time to formulate new ideas and a new vision for America. You have respect. And you have a Democratic base even more fired up to win next time.
Senator, you're the one.
I hope you do run for President again. Because next time, you'll win. Think it over, Mr. Kerry. Let us all know when you've made a decision.
Sincerely,
Steven Maginnis
P.S. If you decide not to run again, maybe we should encourage Wesley Clark to have another go at it. . . . :-)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment