Fraters Libertas

Earth To Boring Guy

Over at Power Line, that nattering naybobs of negativity have once again gotten to Hindrocket, and he's now back to predicting that Bush will lose the election. The three reasons he cites for his prognostication are quite valid, although I don't believe that the "no WMDs" issue will matter as much as he does.

Meanwhile, his compatriot, The Big Trunk, has more faith in the American people's abilities to see Kerry for what he he really is: a New England liberal.

Trying to predict the outcome of an election nine months in advance is a bit of a fool's game. Unforeseen events can easily and dramatically change the outlook. Remember that Howard Dean seemed like a sure thing as little as three weeks ago.

But even given the uncertainty of future circumstances, I still can't imagine how John Kerry will be elected President. And it has nothing to do with his liberal voting record, his wishy-washiness on the war with Iraq, or with activities with the Vietnam Veterans Against The War. Plain and simple the guy is just too damn boring to win.

Think about the modern (post WWII) presidents. How many would you call boring?

Truman? He was a fighter with a feisty side.

Ike? He liked people to think he was laid back and a little bland, but he was not boring. People liked Ike.

JFK? No need to explain this one.

LBJ? A bastard sure, but not a boring bastard.

Nixon? Not a great speaker, nor a great personality but definitely not boring.

Ford? He's probably pretty close. But he wasn't elected either.

Carter? He's borderline but he had that big toothy grin, Southern charm, and earnestness that negated his boringness.

Reagan? Again, no need to go there.

Elder Bush? Very close to being described as boring. A competent speaker who people believed meant well but was out of touch. He was fortunate enough to run against an even more boring guy, Michael Dukakis, in 1988. But his boringness no doubt was a factor in his '92 loss to Clinton.

Clinton? No matter what you think of the man you have to admit that he oozes charm and personality. Fantastic speaker as well.

Younger Bush? In the 2000 campaign he didn't exactly set the world on fire, but again had the benefit of going up against Al Gore, one of the boringest men on the planet. But since 9/11 Bush has been anything but boring and even the most die hard Bush-hating lefty would concede that.

(Lest you question my bona fides for judging candidates propensities to induce stuporous boredom, keep in mind that I'm from Minnesota, the state that spawned Walter Mondale, probably the most boring man to ever seek the presidency.)

So that leads us to John Kerry. I've tried to listen to a few of Kerry's speeches so far but they are so tortured, so drawn out, so poorly paced that it's impossible to pay attention. And I think that's one of his strategies. I was listening to an interview that Tom Brokaw had with him last week and, after Brokaw asked him to explain his conflicting votes on the war with Iraq, Kerry launched into a four minute exercise in droning and talking in circles that never even came close to answering the question. By the time he finally finished, I was begging for him to stop and had actually forgotten what the original question even was. Even Brokaw sounded like he had nodded off and needed to slap himself in the face to regain his senses. He didn't ask a follow up for fear that Kerry would open his mouth again, and instead moved on to another question, probably checking his watch and wondering how he could get the interview wrapped up as quickly as possible.

His success so far has not been based on who and what he is, rather who and what he isn't. Namely not Howard Dean and not insane. People aren't excited about John Kerry. They're settling for him because they're tried the alternatives and found them sorely wanting. Which is fine when you're talking about winning primaries but will be a tougher sell in the general election.

But what of this burgeoning hatred of Bush that will so inspire the Democratic base that they will work tirelessly for anyone? Mitch Berg nailed it today when he said:

Unfortunately for Kerry, it's a truism of politics - you rarely win running against something -

As Mitch also pointed out, this is exactly what the Republicans were trying to do in 1996. Run against Clinton. The problem was they nominated Bob Dole, a nice but boring guy who ran a nice but boring campaign. Republicans did not like Clinton but they couldn't get excited about Dole. Kerry will have the same problem.

Howard Dean might be way too over the top to ever become president, but he has a couple of attributes that Kerry lacks. He's passionate and he's real. And people pick up on those traits and admire them. They want to work for Howard Dean. They want to see him become president and are willing to sacrifice to see it happen.

No one is going to sacrifice for a boring guy. And you can't fake passion and integrity. Kerry's trying to right now but he just comes off sounding like a putz. The crowds of Democratic faithful respond when he trots out the "Bring it on" line, but you get the sense that they do so because they feel they have to, not that they're actually inspired by him or it. His clunky delivery of such catch phrases will not play well when the real campaign gets underway.

Not only is Kerry boring but, from some of the reports from the campaign trail, he's not a very well liked guy either. And even many Americans who disagree with Bush's policies seem to like him as a person. He is passionate. He is real. And he's not mind numbingly dull. Advantage Bush.

It's not the war. It's not the economy. It's not health care or the deficit. The deciding factor in the 2004 Presidential Election?

It's the personalities stupid.