Borg166 Wrote:
It has to be marketing because there is no other reasonable explanation.
Or maybe they have a different idea of the better of two worthless candidates, whether it be Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry.
When you look at it though, Bush hasn't really beaten anyone of formidable strength. He ran unopposed in the 2004 primaries. John Kerry, war medals and all, is about as inspiring as a fern.
In 2000, who was going to get the party's backing?
Alan Keyes? What the hell does he do for a living? He's some sort of bizarro Jesse Jackson.
Gary Bauer? He plays Felix Unger to Dennis Kucinich's Oscar Madison.
Orrin Hatch? Another Senator apparently bored with unlimited debate in need of some excitement--until Iowa at least.
Steve Forbes? Abe Lincoln weren't no underwear model, but Forbes looked like the Toxic Avenger trying to yank away your mortgage interest deduction.
And didn't
Bob Smith, the Brobdingnagian Senator from New Hampshire pull a Bob Graham by announcing a bid then dropping out before the first primary ballots had dropped?
We all know who is remaining.
John Sidney McCain, III. But McCain had two things against him. Number one, his own mouth. Read
The Nightingale's Song by Robert Timberg. Even at USNA, McCain was a brash, arrogant hotshot who could walk the walk and definitely talk the talk. Thing is, as successful as he has been as a Senator, he makes some of the more powerhungry partywhores more than a bit nervous.
Also add in the 8 years of fermenting bile in the GOP after Clinton defeated GHW Bush after record high approval numbers. What better story than to have the Governor son of the vanquished father defeat Clinton's Vice-President? And it would not only to derail the hopes of a sustained Clinton legacy, but it would also set the cornerstone for a political dynasty that would rival or even surpass the Kennedys?
I don't think clever marketing has a whole lot to do with it. It is more likely that an overwhelming percentage of the American electorate only sees a choice between two candidates from two parties. Bush or Gore. Bush or Kerry. For a number of years now, it seems the only candidates really stepping up to the plate are rather lackluster and not particularly appealing. I think this is also evidenced by a combination of lack of decent voter turnout and lack of substantial victories in Presidential elections. Even Clinton was pulling under 50% with low voter turnout.
I don't think it's any real reason for concern either. It will correct itself. We are just in a rut. How about this stretch: Hayes - Garfield - Arthur - Cleveland - Harrison - Cleveland - McKinley? To be fair, Garfield and McKinley were shot. The same could be said of Presidents Van Buren through Buchanan. Just by statistical impossibility, not every President can be great or even above average. Let's just hope we get the Lincolns when we need them and everything should work out just fine.