Who is the Incumbent George Bush is Running Against?
The latest Harris Poll in the Wall Street Journal shows Bush vs. Kerry dead even, with 51% opining that Bush should not be re-elected. Now is the time when the voters begin to think seriously, even the undecided ones.
George W. Bush has a record. He's signed tax cuts, proclaimed a foreign policy "doctrine", started wars with the doctrine, attempted to abridge certain individuals' civil liberties, acted covertly against Islamic terrorism, tried to remake two foreign nations, refrained from serious intervention in the U.S. economy, and borrowed a record amount of money to do all of it.
He has also chosen, by and large, not to run on that record, but, rather, to promise to do a large number of things in the next four years which he didn't get around to doing in the last four years. He has further chosen to appeal essentially to one issue only, his "steadfastness" as a leader protecting us from harm, and he has chosen to assert, either directly or by proxy, that his opponent is incapable of such steadfastness. That's it. That's all there is to George W. Bush. So go ahead and vote for him.
Stated this way, and stripped of the Convention rhetoric, this is good reason for anyone to be skeptical of Bush. I certainly am, of course, but I'm highly partisan. Still, when you run away from your record, as Bush is doing, you are all but soliciting buyer's remorse. He, and his people, as far as I can see, are doing little or nothing to sell Bush as a President, but only as a candidate with big talk and unfulfilled future promises. John Kerry, of course, is doing the same thing. But, then, John Kerry is not the incumbent. He has, by definition, no presidential record to run on.
So did we really have a President of the United States for the past four years whose record these two challengers are running against? If so, who was he? Al Gore? Bill Clinton? Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfeld? Condoleeza Rice? Colin Powell? Tony Blair?
If so, could we possibly speak to him so he can defend his record and truly campaign?
George W. Bush has a record. He's signed tax cuts, proclaimed a foreign policy "doctrine", started wars with the doctrine, attempted to abridge certain individuals' civil liberties, acted covertly against Islamic terrorism, tried to remake two foreign nations, refrained from serious intervention in the U.S. economy, and borrowed a record amount of money to do all of it.
He has also chosen, by and large, not to run on that record, but, rather, to promise to do a large number of things in the next four years which he didn't get around to doing in the last four years. He has further chosen to appeal essentially to one issue only, his "steadfastness" as a leader protecting us from harm, and he has chosen to assert, either directly or by proxy, that his opponent is incapable of such steadfastness. That's it. That's all there is to George W. Bush. So go ahead and vote for him.
Stated this way, and stripped of the Convention rhetoric, this is good reason for anyone to be skeptical of Bush. I certainly am, of course, but I'm highly partisan. Still, when you run away from your record, as Bush is doing, you are all but soliciting buyer's remorse. He, and his people, as far as I can see, are doing little or nothing to sell Bush as a President, but only as a candidate with big talk and unfulfilled future promises. John Kerry, of course, is doing the same thing. But, then, John Kerry is not the incumbent. He has, by definition, no presidential record to run on.
So did we really have a President of the United States for the past four years whose record these two challengers are running against? If so, who was he? Al Gore? Bill Clinton? Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfeld? Condoleeza Rice? Colin Powell? Tony Blair?
If so, could we possibly speak to him so he can defend his record and truly campaign?
posted by Joseph Marshall | 10:48 AM
1 Comments:
Your card is just beautiful -- and what a lovely gift. Any woman would be thrilled to receive this.
Post a Comment
<< Home