When I say I don't care what John Kerry did 35 years ago, I mean it. The Bush National Guard nonsense doesn't matter to me either. I wasn't born then. Neither of them were holding elective office then. And politicians are notorious for fudging a date or too, or being less than 100% on their recollections. Big deal. I never had scoliosis when I was a kid, either. I just made it up in 8th grade because I was slow and hated to run. Sue me.
I don't care, and my hunch is that even if all of the arguments against Kerry were refuted, conservatives would still stick by Bush, no matter what. Fine. Meanwhile, I'll be showing those undecided voters a few reasons why Bush has been not just a bad President, but a lousy Republican.
7 comments:
Funny you mention that, Indigo. The chair of the Bush campaign said this the other night:
DOWD: I think it's just outrageous that Tom Harkin, a surrogate for the Kerry campaign, that would do it. Bill Clinton served the presidency with distinction without having served in Vietnam or in a war. Ronald Reagan served a presidency with distinction without having served a war or in a world war. And I think this name-calling is very unfortunate that has to happen in this environment.Hear that? When Republicans are using both Clinton and Reagan as the gold standard, you know something's not going well...
Simplified: Kerry's Position on the Iraq War
"I voted to give President Bush the authority.
Then President Bush f*cked it up."
Ah yes, thank you S-CAM. The new Kerry bumper sticker!
With all due respect, Scott, it's hard to call someone else's position inconsistent when you don't know what it was before. Here's my two cents: If you found out Bush was really lying about his National Guard Service, would that cause you to vote for Kerry? If I found out Kerry was lying about his service, would it cause me to vote for Bush? Do I think the people who are pushing either argument are motivated by "truth" rather than smearing their opponent? No on all counts, which makes it a moot point to me. Lying about, say, weapons of mass destruction strikes me as more serious anyway. And I do think it's a bit of an oversimplification to say Kerry is running solely on his time in Vietnam, but I suppose that's a whole other argument.
Cindy
Aw, shucks, Indigo. Since you were one of only three of Matt's college buds who would actually speak to me, you've always been on my A-list. But now you get a gold star, too.
:-)
Cindy
Whoa, there. Probably I shouldn't have thrown that bit in--guess my argument was better without it. Let's not assume that because I have liberal tendencies, I'm going to parrot whatever's on the protest signs, which of course are oversimplified. Actually, I think it's pretty easy and much less naive to imagine that the reason Bush went to war involved some combination of all the things you mention--money, vengeance, fear, impatience, some (I believe) misguided idea that this would help the war on terror. But I don't know the man's mind, nor why Tony Blair would choose to accept Bush's arguments and flawed intelligence with little questioning. It would take me all day to back up my argument here, and many other people have already done it quite well (and I'm not referring to Michael Moore, OK?), but I certainly believe the public was misled at the very least. Which is understandable--the true reasons for war were were probably much more complex and less compelling than that Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the U.S., and maybe Bush believed the only way to do what he thought was right was to get public support immediately--but not, in my opinion, forgiveable.
Not that I think I'm going to convince anyone who is inclined to disagree to change their mind. You'd have to come up with that on your own. I just want to make it clear that I've thought this through--I know you'd expect no less, Nolen.
Now, can someone please say something funny before I ruin this whole blog?
Cindy
Soupy Sales!
Post a Comment