Molly Tumanic

As Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., Dr. Howard Dean, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and other Democratic candidates jostled for political recognition early in the primaries, much news was made of the ominous dollar amount the President Bush campaign had already acquired for its re-election run.

Within the political arena chatter resonated that regardless of the candidate chosen from the field, Bush would have a substantial edge due to the monetary advantage.

However, in an election year, Bush’s finances have had a quiet voice. The reason for this silence is the issues that paint the national picture have undergone much change.

At the time, Bush’s money looked powerful alongside his competent approval rating. When the primaries began, the occupation of Iraq, despite inevitable losses, seemed under control.

The takeover of Baghdad was swift and Saddam Hussein was captured in a hole. The economy performed well even with the unemployment rate above 5 percent, supporting the administration’s fiscal policies. Furthermore, other national policies, such as “No Child Left Behind” and Bush’s Social Security investment plans, arguably exemplified some political success. It looked as if the Bush administration was making itself right at home in Washington.

However, the Bush administration received criticism throughout. As the anti-Bush melodies pervaded through all society, Kerry came to the forefront.

Now the Democratic Party has a face on its soapbox and a name for its cause, the cynicism towards the Bush administration strikes with much more conviction. Insurgency continues to hinder any prosperous movements towards a democratic Iraq, as the days of involvement are counted by the growing body count. The erratic and unpredictable attacks, usually by Islamic terrorists around the world, have created considerable concern.

The unemployment rate has not shown signs of improvement and many say it is unacceptable. The budget deficit has reached new depths. And regardless of the recent allegations by Aristide that the U.S. kidnapped him from Haiti, the unstable nation and our questionable involvement has created another sticky situation.

All these reasons provide a means of leverage for Kerry to contest Bush’s credibility. Kerry has enough punches to throw at Bush like a prizefighter. Instead, the two political pugilists have done a song and dance, exchanged personal blows and retreated to their corners.

Obviously, staunch Bush supporters believe in Texas and are going to vote for Bush. Kerry followers will endorse their candidate, whether he is wearing his medals or not. But in between lay the swing votes.

This election will be similar to the 2000 one in how close it will be. And not surprisingly, the swing votes will decide the election. It is crucial for each candidate to appeal to the undecided.

Kerry, who gained a significant amount of support in a relatively short time, should look to strike quickly, questioning Bush’s grip on the current situations, domestic and abroad.

In 2000, Bush ran on meaty issues, such as domestic policy, tax cuts and Social Security investment plans. These are the issues that Kerry should use against Bush, criticizing his policies and offering new ideas. Kerry notes there may be some positive trends occurring, but the current state of the nation is in trouble and, as all politicians do, he vows to fix the problems. By doing this Kerry can attract those voters in limbo by claiming a leery future is ahead under Bush.

Bush has, so far, done the unthinkable and adopted some Clintonesque behaviors. By “thinking small,” the Bush campaign has and should continue to press upon less imperative issues.

Recently Bush spoke about the exploration of technological possibilities in the medical field, hydrogen-fueled cars and broadband Internet access in rural areas as well as the suburbs and cities.

Bush does not currently have clear strategies on issues such as homeland security, job loss and health care; but then, neither does Kerry. Therefore, Bush has the luxury of creating a new persona, one in which he can be seen as compassionate, environmentally conscious and innovative.

If this tactic diverts attention away from Kerry’s momentum it would buy time for a more comprehensive policy from the Bush camp.

We must also remember that Bush assembled a cabinet of those who specialize in selling existing policies. Bush will also remind the voters of enacted tax cuts and prescriptions available through Medicare.

The analysis may serve to be premature and superfluous. In 2000 the issues discussed along the path to Election Day were well contended by both Bush and Al Gore.

Ironically, among all the issues and policy preferences the race hosted, never once was foreign policy a serious point of inquiry. In the media, debates and informal discussions, foreign policy was on the back burner, an afterthought.

Now foreign policy is the issue of greatest concern. This is not to say another issue of great significance will arrive on the scene. But it illustrates the unpredictability of the political scene.

In the beginning, Dean was viewed as the front-runner. He received predictable acceptance out east, but then lost Iowa.

Within a month, Dean lost all his credibility, fell from the lead and never recovered.

The path politicians lay on their way to public office is viewed under the utmost critical scope.

The margin of error is slim and it seems neither is willingly to jeopardize his public image.

As with most elections, inevitably things will begin to heat up and the combativeness will intensify.

Employing different techniques of public image and political propaganda the candidate who is the most impressionable upon the swing voters will win the election.