I just saw Bush’s “100 Days” campaign ad, which is reported on at MSNBC:
$900 billion? That’s a lot of money. Kerry’s people says the figure is “completely made up". Now, I don’t like paying taxes; but I can see such a sum of money spent on programs that Democrats like – and which I, personally, would like to see.
“On the war on terror: Weaken the Patriot Act used to arrest terrorists and protect America." IMHO, the Patriot Act is an infringement on our freedom. I understand that the idea is to make it easier to catch terrorists before they strike; but it seems that it can lead to abuse. I don’t buy the argument that “if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about”. It just sounds a bit totalitarian to me.
“And he wanted to delay defending American until the United Nations approved.” The UN was set up to provide legal remedies to International conflicts. I don’t have a problem with us going into Afghanistan after 9/11. I think it was necessary, and I would have gone gladly if I were in the military. But I think Bush acted too hastily when he took us to war against Iraq. I feel that the war was illegal under International Law. The U.S. is supposed to be a “Nation of Laws”. If we don’t obey the law, why should anyone else?
Kerry has been criticized because he “voted for the war”. In a 60 Minutes segment he said that he voted for a process, the last option of which was to go to war, and that Bush bypassed the process and jumped straight into war. In other words, Kerry voted to go along with the UN process and only go to war as a last resort.
So the “100 Days” ad is attacking Kerry for wanting to obey International Law. I think that, as a member of the International Community, obeying the law is a good thing.
So IMHO Bush’s ad just wants me to vote for Kerry even more.
It’s puzzling. If Mr. Bush did all the right things, and if he’s the obvious choice on election day, why doesn’t he simply tell the truth and run on his record?
If the No Child Left Behind Act is unassailably the right path, why did Mr. Bush have his Secretary of Education come to the White House and tell the nation’s governors that the largest teachers’ union is a “terrorist organization?”
So, wait, Bush is attacking Kerry for massive increased government spending? And is the Patriot Act so popular that weakening it will outrage the electorate? Is there something I’m missing here or does this seem like a dumb idea?
We’ve already established that Bush is a shameless liar extraordinare (cf: “Saddam Hussein’s stockpiles of WMDs”). Why should we believe anything he has to say about John Kerry?
Sounds a bit extreme to me. “We’ve already established”…Does that mean that everyone agrees? “shameless liar extaordinare(sic)?” on the basis of a WMD reference, something that Blair, Chirac, et al. failed to challenge at the time? It ain’t over till it’s over. WMDs could be hidden in Syria. Let’s see.
This kind of vitriolic stuff is what drives me away from the Dems. I’m registered Democratic, but like Ed Koch, I don’t feel too happy with the Democratic campaign. I’d like to hear more about how Kerry’s economic plans would help me and my friends. Also, how’s he going to protect us against another 9/11?
BTW, I don’t think it matters too much if you’ve chosen to disbelieve everything W says. There will be plenty of journalists and politicians discussing Kerry’s pros and cons. Take your pick.
There’s a whole heapin’ mountain of references before, during, and after the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had neither the WMDs, the facilities, nor the equipment that the Bush Administration claimed he did and used as justification for the war. The continued lack of contradictory evidence now that US forces are occupying the country merely reaffirm that earlier skepticism. Ergo, “George W. Bush is a liar extraordinare” is well-established. And I can think of only a few things more disgraceful than lying to start a war, so the “shameless” part fits as well. Where, exactly, is the point in dispute here?
Now, I agree with you that Kerry can’t (and shouldn’t) run his entire campaign on “George W. Bush is a doody-head” – he has to give specific details about his plans and priorities for turning this country around, and I’m sure we’ll get those as the campaign progresses. But as I wrote earlier, given that Bush’s penchance for lying is firmly established, why should anyone give him more credibility when he talks about Kerry?
(And as for protecting the United States against terrorism, I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to do much worse than Bush has, given that the Iraq war has proven to be nothing more than an unnecessary diversion which merely served to distract our forces from the real enemy. But then we’re drifting into Great Debates territory…)