By Timothy Brunner
On Wednesday Nov. 3, the University, along with the Long Island Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives, sponsored a round-table discussion to analyze the 2004 election results.
The event took place in the Leo A. Guthart Cultural Center Theater and included two University professors, David M. Green and Carolyn Eisenberg. Linda A. Longmire was also slated to take part, but was absent due to illness.
Green, an assistant political science professor began the discussion with a critique on how people who support either President George W. Bush or Sen. John Kerry have different perceptions of reality. He said people who support Bush strongly believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terrorist group were linked and the world overwhelmingly favored the war on Iraq, all of which were proven untrue.
The discussion shifted when Green offered four different factors that were apparent in the 2004 election. His first factor was the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Green remarked that after the attacks, Bush’s approval rating shot up from around 50 percent to somewhere around 90 percent and continued to fluctuate from there after.
“I think that if it weren’t for 9/11…this president and his policies would be seen as truly disastrous,” Green said.
He highlighted the skillful campaign Bush ran in 2004. From the start of the campaign, Bush was able to successfully paint a picture of John Kerry as a “flip-flopper” and as a candidate who was weak on defense.
Green’s third point was Kerry’s campaign was absolutely abysmal. For example, Kerry should have responded immediately to the Swift Boat campaign attacks, rather than have waited 10 days to defend himself.
In Green’s fourth point, he noted the conditions of the time which helped Bush win. He said some media systems forgot what fair and balanced journalism is.
When referring to news organizations, such as Fox news and The New York Post, Green said, “major sectors have become mouthpieces for the conservatives.”
Kerry, Green said, was not the man the Democratic party should have nominated as their candidate. He believed Howard Dean was the candidate who truly ran on his convictions.
“This is why President Bush has been so successful in his campaign,” Green said, “Because he legislates with conviction and people respect that in a candidate.”
Eisenberg, a professor of history said she believed Kerry’s experience in Vietnam was a positive aspect. This led him to testify on Capitol Hill in 1971 against the war. He believed they went to war for the wrong reasons. In 2004, Kerry felt the United States went to war with Iraq for the wrong reasons as well, Eisenberg said.
“John Kerry was very well situated to understand when a hoax was underway,” Eisenberg said.
However, she did not believe Kerry ran a particularly successful campaign either, saying he did not criticize the Bush White House to the best of his ability.
“I think Kerry did a terrible job…critiquing this White House and the war in Iraq,” Eisenberg said.
Afterwards, a question and answer period was held where the audience voiced their opinions and concerns to the panelists. One student expressed his discontent with the forum, saying the critique was one-sided and the panelists seemed to only attack the Republican party and its leader, rather than encourage a balanced discussion of the election results.