The Bush and Kerry Conventions – What do they mean?

George C. Landrith

After the Democratic National Convention, polls indicated that John Kerry received no discernable bounce in the polls. Even Michael Dukakis, another Massachusetts liberal who lost in 1988 by landslide proportions, left his convention with a sizeable 17-point lead. So what happened? Kerry’s spinmiester’s explained that there was no bounce because the nation is closely divided and there simply are not enough undecideds to sway. That explanation quickly became conventional wisdom.

The bounce Bush received from the Republican Convention proves the conventional wisdom was dead wrong. If there were so few undecideds, why did Bush jump out to an 11 point lead in the polls? Why did Kerry fail to win over undecideds where Bush succeeded?

At the Democratic Convention in Boston, Kerry told us he was “reporting for duty.” His message was that he would be a better commander in chief due to his four months in Vietnam. Kerry strictly avoided discussing his 20-year Senate career or his 30 years since Vietnam. It was as if Kerry was born, went to Vietnam for four months and then suddenly was running for President. Undecideds asked themselves, “Why is he reporting for duty only now? Where has he been the last 20 or 30 years?”

It turns out Kerry’s record over the last 20 or 30 years does not support his claim that he would be a more effective and decisive commander in chief. On intelligence gathering, Kerry’s approach has been to cut intelligence spending year after year and to skip 76% percent of Intelligence Committee public hearings over eight years and to skip all of such hearings the year after the 9/11 attacks. Yet, Kerry claims he’s the man to reform intelligence.

On defense, Kerry’s approach has been to oppose virtually every major weapons and defensive system that we now use – even missile defense. Kerry’s position on Iraq changes with every poll. Kerry has repeatedly promised to respond if attacked, but not to prevent attacks. Yet, Kerry says he is the man to lead America against terror.

On diplomacy, Kerry derides our most loyal allies and mocks their sacrifice calling them a coalition of “the coerced and bribed.” Yet, Kerry promises to be more diplomatic and to build stronger relationships with our historically disloyal allies.

The undecideds looked at these facts and evidently were not impressed.

At the Republican National Convention, a life long Democrat, a popular former Governor of Georgia and a sitting U.S. Senator named Zell Miller explained why John Kerry could not be trusted to protect America. Senator Miller has been viciously excoriated by his own party for speaking out. But I am grateful that Senator Miller is an American first, and a Democrat second. That is statesmanship and it makes Senator Miller a profile in courage.

Miller reminded Americans that in the past national security had never been a partisan issue. He said, “Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today. Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.…”

Miller continued, “Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier…. No one should dare to even think about being the commander in chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution…. For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.”

The undecideds listened to Kerry and were unimpressed. They listened to Miller and realized that America needs a decisive, proactive commander in chief. Thus, Bush received a strong convention bounce, where Kerry received none. So much for conventional wisdom.

###

Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.

george@ff.org