Quick politics thought

[grysar]

I'm really starting to think that Kerry's main problem is that he's essentially mediocre, bright, but still mediocre. So he's had a hard time really making a good showing in such troubling times. Wheras Bush has big ideas, they're often stupid, and more important the parts he's not concerned with are typically implemented with breathtaking incompetance. But if you're willing to be in denial about the massive failures of implementation it looks like he has bigger ideas.

As a result, I'm starting to think Dean was perhaps the better candidate to run, as he's stronger in the ideas department. Might be less competant than Kerry, but still order of magnitude more so than Bush. But then, while on the same order of magnitude, I think Wiley E. Cayote has shown more competance than Bush and am willing to defend that precept as not hyperbole.

Comments

[unreason.livejournal.com]

Ehh, I think that Dean didn't really have the mainstream appeal. Edwards might've worked. It seems lately that the party has a talent for picking candidates with mediocre careers. Problem is, that pretty much prevents the Democrats from running any campaign other than "Vote for us. We couldn't possibly be as terrible as Bush."