Why Kerry Lost

With all the post-mortem analysis going on of the
defeat of John Kerry in this past election, I thought
I'd toss out some thoughts of my own...

Here are a few reasons why I believe Kerry lost:

1. Both parties took BIG money from corporations,
so Kerry couldn't really hit on that; job growth during
the first Bush administration was (and is) a matter
of debate; and ANY President can only do so much
to stimulate the Economy... But this President understands
far better than Kerry that the more the government
gets OUT OF THE WAY, and the more TAX RELIEF
that can be established, the more SMALL BUSINESSES
can start and thrive. The secret to a growing economy
is Small Business, and Kerry failed to emphasize that
fact nearly as much as President Bush did.

2. I'm not too keen on the idea of "Moral Values"
becoming a political issue, and the Press has had a party
with this ever since it became an Exit Poll statistic.
But the fact that Americans -- by the millions! --
voted for President Bush with Moral Values in mind,
shows how deeply concerned Americans STILL are about
issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage, and how much
they STILL think that Character matters. Kerry
was viewed by these voters as a Liar, a Clinton-esque
Slippery Snake, and as having no solid Core of beliefs
which go beyond one's own limited mind and which
rise above MTV, fads and trends, polls, and reality TV shows.
The plain fact of the matter is that EVERYONE has
a World View -- a RELIGION -- that guides their actions
and policies and decisions; apparently American voters
prefer the President's Theistic World View over Kerry's
Humanistic (i.e., Man-centered) World View.
It's that simple.

3. In their gut, nearly 60 million American voters despised
the Intellectual SNOBBERY of Kerry and Edwards, and of
the Upper North East and West Coast regions that think
like they do; 60 million Voters used their ballots to strike back.
Apparently these two "emperors" could not see that they had
no clothes, and the only ones impressed by their pomp
and presumption were themselves and their high-minded
constituents. I read today a comment by a democratic party
analyst that Kerry was "much more intellectual" than
President Bush...

Let's break that down for a minute: How would someone
MEASURE that? What does a silly statement like that even
mean? It's clear that Kerry was a more accomplished
public speaker than the President, and that he wasn't
prone to the same kind of "creativeness" with the English
language that the President is... But most of us know SOMEONE
(a friend, a brother, a father-in-law) who is perhaps a "blue collar worker"
and/or who has never been to college, but who is intelligent,
smart-as-a-whip, and worldly-wise; someone who knows when
to fight (and HOW!) and when to yield, someone who works
hard, who is strong (mentally, emotionally, and physically),
and who is tough, respectful, honest, and consistent...

The only thing that person "lacks" -- in this context -- is the
spit-n-polish, Ivy-league school VENEER that Kerry displays...

This, then, is "Intellect"?? The country would obviously rather have
a candidate more like the former and less like the latter...