BLOGOSPHERIC ENDORSEMENTS FOR THE PRESIDENCY
Dan Drezner, as is the rule with professors at the University of Chicago, an exceptionally bright person. However his recent post, hemming and hawing over his decision to vote for John Kerry was too lame for words – being 60 % there ( or whatever figure) unless his readers can convince him to go one way or the other. Good grief. This is an expert in political science ! If getting paid to think, read , write and teach about politics at one of the finest universities in the world doesn’t provide you with ample time to find for either George W. Bush or John F. Kerry without help from the peanut gallery, you’re not really trying.
(Parenthetical aside, Drezner’s follow-up post to his responses is much better – though even less decisive – than his first. Make up your mind already Professor !)
I much prefer clarity. Here are two bloggers who know their minds without recourse to polling the masses. First, for the incumbent:
Dave Schuyler of The Glittering Eye had a thoughtful, concise post on the crypto-liberal, nominally Republican, Chicago Tribune’s endorsement of George W. Bush.
“The endorsements
Now that the presidential debates are over and there are just two weeks until the election the endorsements are starting to fly fast and thick. Yesterday The New York Times endorsed Kerry which surprised no one. The Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush which surprised me, anyway.
Bloggers are starting to endorse candidates, too. Or at least post strong statements of support for the candidates they’ve supported all along.
Greg Djerejian of Belgravia Dispatch explains why he supports Bush. He doesn’t think that Kerry gets it:
I don’t believe, in his gut, Kerry believes that we face an existential challenge with regard to the war on terror.
Edward_ of the group blog Obsidian Wings is a blogger whose thoughts and work I’ve come to admire greatly. I think that Edward’s heart is definitely in the right place and his head is screwed on pretty well, too. After a litany of the mistakes that Mr. Bush has made in his handling of U. S. security, he concludes a fine post, WWKD (What Would Kerry Do) with:
Really, what are these people worried Kerry would do as Commander-in-Chief that would put us in a worse position than we find ourselves under Bush? He’s assured us he won’t cut and run in Iraq, as some continue to insist. He’s assured us he won’t give any outside body a veto over his decision to take action, as some continue to insist. He’s demonstrated personally, in battle, that he remains cool, collected, and focused…valuing his fellow Americans’ lives above all, even when there’s personal danger to himself.
What do they fear he’d do? Seriously, I just don’t get it.
I’d describe myself as Bush-leaning. I’ve never been an ardent Bush supporter. I didn’t vote for Bush last time around. I’m more in the hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-Bush camp. But I find it hard to bring myself to support Mr. Kerry.
In order to answer Edward’s question I think you have to consider the circumstances under which a President Kerry would come to power and what motivates men who have the ego and ambition to seek the presidency. Foretelling the future is a chancy thing. I frequently have problems in figuring out what went on in the past. But here’s my half-hearted (pick your item of anatomy) prediction. One of the following will happen:
Kerry wins by a narrow margin (40%).
This alternative assumes that Kerry takes the states that Gore took in 2000 plus Florida (or some other good-sized state that Gore didn’t take).
Bush wins by a narrow margin (45%).
This alternative assumes that Bush takes the states he took in 2000 (or the equivalent). Changes in apportionment after the 2000 census would give Bush a more substantial victory than last time around. Hence the 45%.
Bush wins by a lot (15%).
This alternative assumes that Bush takes the states he took in 2000 plus several of the swing states that went for Gore last time around. That plus the apportionment point I mention above would give Bush a major victory.
Page 1 of 4 | Next page