This page was last updated on August 26, 2004.

Apparently Mr. Farr doesn’t follow history or chooses to ignore it.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“In watching the Democratic National Convention and the unfolding presidential campaign, it is becoming quite apparent that the election will be very, very close, with a handful of states deciding the election.

“In most cases, incumbents have a decided advantage based on name recognition, their policies and their track records.  This doesn’t seem to be the case in 2004.

“I guess this means one of two things.  Either the challenger is very good, or the incumbent is very bad.  I guess in President Bush’s case, the latter holds true.

“It’s time to vote the bad out.”

[RWC] If Mr. Farr paid attention to history, he would know that both Presidents Reagan and Clinton were down by double-digits to the challenger in their re-election bids.  As we know, Reagan won re-election in a landslide (49 states) and Clinton won in 31 states.  At his worst, President Bush has never been more than a few points down to John Kerry.  I would expect President Bush to be ahead after the Republican convention, but I also expect the election to be close.

In choosing “the latter” from his either/or proposition, Mr. Farr admitted John Kerry isn’t very good.  Was that intentional, given that most people polled who say they will vote for Kerry indicate they are actually voting against President Bush?

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.