Weekend Republican Wrap

I'll be out of town for the weekend, so I thought I'd make one last post, in case I don't have time to make any more. OpEdNews.com's Anthony Wade posted an excellent recap of the final day of the RNC. The article is basically a full-on introduction to everything the Shrub has promised to do (and failed to deliver on) and all the things they've accused John Kerry of doing (without telling the whole story).

The right is very good about exploiting this nonsense. You have to be more vigilant and actually look at what they specifically are talking about. When they are talking about Kerry’s switch on No Child Left Behind, it is because Bush did not fund it. When they are talking about the Patriot Act it was because of the way John Ashcroft has abused it. When they are talking about the 87 billion dollar vote, it is because Bush threatened to veto the version Kerry supported which would have made Halliburton more accountable. Aren’t these noble changes of opinion? I do not want a leader that when realizing he made a mistake about the premise for war is so obstinate that he snaps “what’s the difference!” I don’t want a leader who is so inflexible that when asked a fair question about his relationship with Ken Lay feels compelled to storm out of the press conference. I do not want a leader that is so rigid that when faced with proof that his economic policies are not working he decides to change the way the statistics are collected instead of the policies themselves. That is what is dangerous in this country. Pigheaded leadership has been celebrated at this convention as a good thing and I think they are wrong. We need a leader who can assess a situation and decide what the best course of action is, not the best way to defend his own positions.

On the first point, if we are not safe, then why does Bush deserve my vote? If he has not been able to get the terror alert down from elevated ONCE during his entire presidency, how can that be claimed as a successful record? How are we safer for removing a man who had no WMD, while bin Laden was getting away? Maybe the answers are tied up in the fact that we really are safer. Of course if we were then Bush has nothing left to run on. Beat the war drums loud enough, wave the flag strong enough, and say snappy lines like “we are going to terminate the terrorists” and maybe enough people will feel unsafe and need to vote for Bush. Raise the alert every now and again, just enough to remind everyone that they are not safe. Never mind if there is no intelligence to back it up, or if the intelligence is four years old. We need those folks scared.

Excellent read, albeit a VERY long one. Take some time and check it out, since it's the weekend. While your at it, call your closest friend who's not planning on voting and try and convince them to make the call for John K. The polls suggest that he's a bit behind now (even if you factor out the RNC 'bounce') and I can't imagine why people would rather vote for a man who's lied to us than for a man who has a history of fighting for "little guys" like you and me. One of my friends put it best: "I have like 90% confidence in Kerry fixing our problems, like the economy and the Federal budget; I have -20% confidence in Bush even attempting to do so, much less succeeding." Bush has had his four years in office. Other than a $200 tax cut, what has he done for you? That's what I thought.
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?