Open Letter to Jimmy Johnson on the Election

Jimmy,

I think this election was about the relative strength of the Republican Party in picking the right candidates, hammering the right poll-tested themes, and fighting with gloves off against every Democrat that stands in the way. It wasn't really about the popularity of their ideas. Here in Florida, all we saw about Betty Castor on TV was her face Photoshop-ed to wrap around the red letters “TAX” and some less than subtle suggestions that she supports Palestinian Islamic Jihad by not firing a professor at the first rumor that his favorite charity might be funneling some money to Palestinian militants (she instead waited for the FBI to confirm that the charity was a cover). Republicans made low punches from the get-go on favorable issues using a Cuban candidate.

I think the exit polls reflect that Americans didn't vote on policy. 20% of those dissatisfied with Bush’s job performance voted for him, as did 20% of those whose financial lots worsened over the past four years. 17% of those who've lost their jobs and over 10% of those who thought the tax cuts were a bad idea voted for Bush. A third of those who want government to help solve their problems voted for Bush, as did almost 70% of those who think that abortion should be fully or mostly legal. 19% of people who are angry and dissatisfied with bush voted for Bush. Even a quarter of gays voted for Bush.

I wouldn't take Bush's election as a mandate by any stretch. Had the newly-registered and largely Democratic youth shown up to vote like many were expecting (perhaps just hoping) we would have won. Had the GOP not gone on a voter suppression/intimidation offensive against minorities and had the same blacks not been convinced there votes would be thrown out again, I think we'd be looking at a different election result. The senate seats that were taken were largely anachronistically held anyway. Just as a Republican like Arlen Specter still holds Pennsylvania (55%+ Kerry), moderates like Daschle were still holding on to places like South Dakota (like 60%+ Bush).

Democrats needed someone with Dean’s spine and energy but with Kerry's intellect and tact. Instead we just got Kerry's intellect and tact. Kerry would have been the perfect candidate 40 years ago when eloquent yet verbose speeches were expected, but his style deeply contrasted with Bush's public good 'ole boy/straight shooter style that most people respond positively too. The simple fact is that Kerry does have deep values - he just shamefully and unsuccessfully dodged them to appeal to what his advisors told him were the moderates. People saw right through it. That 56% of the electorate thought that Kerry was only telling them what they wanted to hear speaks volumes as to why Bush won.

We lost the game, but our team still made an exceptionally strong showing considering Bush’s approval ratings just three years ago. It’s time to fire some coaches, let in some new blood, and put some leaders in the spotlight. Democrats need a few stars like Giuliani and McCain to put a public face on policy, combined with a political powerhouse like Trent Lott to push legislation internally, and a Karl Rove to manage elections. This election was won and lost because of the people involved, not the policy.

I hope you're enjoying Germany,
- James “Trey” Menefee

PS - I took some time writing this, so I'm turning it into an open letter and putting it on Treyopia.com. Thanks for asking me such a broad question :-)

>From: "James R. Johnson"
>To:
>Subject: Yo
>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:43:43 +0100
>
>So Trey,
>
> What do you think? Thoughts on the race?
>
>
>
>Have fun in the US,
>
>
>
>Jimmy
>