Tuesday, November 02, 2004
War on terror: I said Kerry was the candidate for those who wish we hadn’t gone to war in Iraq and who don’t see the war on terror as something more than simply getting Osama bin Laden. I see I was correct. I hear nothing as an alternative to George Bush’s approach, just criticism that he is “diluting our power” in such a way that it’s harder to implement homeland security. In the first place, that exactly illustrates the defensive vs. offensive approach to terror that defines this election. In the second place, I notice we have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11. In the aftermath of that atrocity, there was widespread agreement that we would be.
Domestic agenda: I don’t know how anybody who pushed through No Child Left Behind and the prescription-drug plan, which enraged Bush’s conservative base, could be accused of “just pushing a far right agenda.” And I’m sorry, I just don’t see the evil that liberals paint on Bush’s domestic plans. Is there anyone who doesn’t think this nation is serious about a safety net? Perhaps you mean you would like to turn back President Clinton’s welfare reform that has started breaking the cycle of welfare dependency? Environment? Look at the facts on clean air, water, etc. I agree that if you want a federal government that tries to do absolutely everything, vote for Kerry.
The economy: Even Bush-haters admit 9/11 changed America’s position in the world, though they disagree with his response. But it also changed things domestically – a million jobs were lost as a direct result, for God’s sake. If you want to look at the economy – in a recession when Bush took over, by the way – look at what happened after he took action with his tax cuts. Robust growth, more jobs, more money coming into federal coffers.
The Supreme Court: All it did was stop the endless Florida recount, which study after study (including by the media) have shown would have resulted in a Bush win, even without the Republican voters who went home after the media called the state too early. We are to despise the five who voted one way but allow the other four credit for being noble? Boy, that’s not too partisan. Bush won by virtue of the electoral college; you don’t like it, change it.
The Cabinet: What’s to say here? Presidents appoint people to implement their programs. They talk to them and listen to them, no matter what two disgruntled former members of the administration say. It doesn’t matter to me, but it seems to to the other side, so I’ll mention that Bush has one of the most diverse Cabinets in history. All the speculation I’ve seen on a Kerry Cabinet focuses on old, white men. And I’ll take Condy Rice over any 10 people Kerry can come up with.
The men: I have despised John Kerry since 1971, when he betrayed the men he served with. He was against the war, then fought in it – very briefly, coming home after getting three very questionable Purple Hearts – then was against it again. This was the first time – though God knows not the last – when Kerry has tried to have it both ways on an issue. Bush says what he means and means what he says. You might not like what he stands for, but at least you don’t have to wade through layer after layer of nuance to figure it out.
posted by Leo Morris at # 8:33 AM
Network | About Knight
Ridder | Terms
of Use & Privacy Statement|
Copyright 2004 Knight Ridder. All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of any
of the contents of this service without the express written consent of Knight Ridder is expressly prohibited.