OLD STURBRIDGE, MASS. – After a day in the car (we’re on the way to Boston for a few days) listening to talk radio deal with the flap over President Bush’s use of images from 9/11 in one of his first ads, I finally think I’ve got it.
It appears that Kerry really is consistent after all. He thinks that his national security record is off limits, that it is beyond the pale for the president to make an election issue of it. But now it is clear that Kerry also believes that it is also illegitimate, beyond the pale, for the president to call attention in an ad to the most important national security event in his own record.
I find this exceedingly odd. One of the clearest differences between Kerry and Bush is that the president thinks we’ve been at war since 9/11 and that Kerry does not. If it is illegitimate to use images of the event that started that war for political purposes, why is it not equally illegitimate to suppress those images for political purposes? Call me naive, but it seems to me that important issues should be debated in presidential campaigns. Instead, Kerry is busy trying to police what it is proper to discuss.
This new standard would have surprised Lincoln and FDR, both of whom campaigned for re-election overtly and without apology as war presidents.
I have no problem with the commercials or with a discussion about national security, but this doesn’t really feel like a war. Unless I missed the national mobilization somehow. Roosevelt and Lincoln had wars that affected virtually every member of the populace. Bush doesn’t have a war like that.
Bush’s war is more akin to LBJ’s war (the one Kerry and I went to): relatively few Americans affected. Guns and butter and all that.
It’s also hard to take Bush seriously as a war president when he’s merrily running up record deficits for everything but the war.
But, it’s for *the children* and the unemployed because we have the worst economy since Herbert Hoover. And the 60s boomers need their viagra so they can relive Woodstock and all that free love.
How can you be so heartless to say “NO” to the 60s boomers? They don’t take kindly to that word.
I have no problem with the commercials or with a discussion about national security, but this doesn’t really feel like a war. Unless I missed the national mobilization somehow. Roosevelt and Lincoln had wars that affected virtually every member of the populace. Bush doesn’t have a war like that.
Bush’s war is more akin to LBJ’s war (the one Kerry and I went to): relatively few Americans affected. Guns and butter and all that.
This is the way that wars involving this country are likely to be for the foreseeable future. The days of wars like World War II during FDR’s presidency are a thing of the past (and I sure hope that a civil war like Lincoln experienced is past…).
It’s also hard to take Bush seriously as a war president when he’s merrily running up record deficits for everything but the war.
On the contrary – Bush to his credit has recognized the basic truth I mentioned above; Kerry to his discredit has not, and he has no serious answer to the issues of today. That’s why the Democrats are trying to delegitimize the Republican ads, because those ads highlight how insubstantial the Democrats’ response to the issue of terrorism is and Kerry’s lack of seriousness on the issue.
Talk about Kerry trying to police what it’s proper to discuss — yesterday (or was it Thursday), Kerry harangued a crowd in New Orleans about the economy/jobs issue, and then criticized Pres. Bush for referring to 9/11 in his ads, charging that Bush was “trying to change the subject.” In Kerry’s view, therefore, only he may determine the subject to be discussed, and any effort to talk about anything other than what he wants to talk about is changing the subject. What arrogance!!
As it happens, I think we Democrats shouldn’t be complaining about the ads (tasteless as they might be); we should be making our own, better, ones. The 9/11 widows asking why Bush has time to make ads but not to meet with the bipartisan commission looks like a good start. Some real firefighters (Bush used actors) pointing out that promised federal money never came would make a nice follow-up. But I agree, stop with the whiny stuff.
I don’t remember Roosevelt and Lincoln calling for tax cuts during their wars. This “war” is just a charade, with its Yellow and Orange Alerts. The Administration doesn’t even want to increase the size of the Army, which would have been OK if we were still pursuing Osama with small highly-trained forces (Why is it that only now are we intensifying the search? So the photo op wouldn’t come prematurely?), but not after our decision to immure ourselves in a classical occupation.
The “basic truth” is that Bush’s tactics in the war on terrorism are extremely questionable.
Lazarus–where have you been? Just a quick comment to yours:
You have a keen memory. Lincoln never cut taxes during his war( I presume you mean income taxes if this was an allusion to Bush). Although this may have resulted from the fact that there were no income taxes to cut before his war. Congress sold income taxes to their constituents in 1862 as a TEMPORARY measure to finance the Civil-War. As I’m certain you know, the highest marginal rate at the time was 3%, and the “progressives” of the period swore that this figure would never go higher. Somewhat like Humbert Humphrey swearing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act would never result in racial discrimination against whites–or he would eat the law page by page. Soy sauce or Teriyaki with that legislation, Senator?
Finally, of course Bush’s prosecution of the war is questionable–to you. Every syllable of effluvia emitted from John Kerry’s mouth is questionable–to me. Though I don’t know that either case can be accurately termed a “basic truth.”
This just in. As a public service, the Democrats will now be reviewing all Republican political ads ahead of time to make sure that there is nothing in them that is offensive to the American people.
The Democrats give new meaning to the word chutzpah. They will run any add they please, but they will decide what ads the Republicans can run. And of course the “unbiased” press just goes along with any criticism that the Democrats make.
By the way, Andrew, if you are concerned about tasteless ads you would have commented on the ones run by the NAACP during the last presidential election that accused Bush of favoring lynchings. However, I do agree with you that the Democrats should shut-up about the Republican ads and run their own ads and let the public decide.
Actually, it’s very clear why the Democrats are trying so hard to discredit Bush over the references to 9/11 in his campaign ads. Bush has a lot of support from the center and independents, and that primary support is due to Bush’s handling of 9/11 and the war on terror. The Democrats are determined to remove the one thing that they see that can get Bush reelected, and they’re going to do everything they can, even to baseless, tasteless accusations, hunting up the handful of 9/11 victims’ families who are willing to publicly slam Bush, etc.
The left is getting desperate, so look for even more extreme behavior from the left as November looms closer.
The only way Bush could seriously lose the election is if he allows too much influence from right-wing ultra-conservatives. I’m an independent, leaning toward libertarian views, formerly a life-long Democrat. I proudly voted for Bush, and I will again– so long as he keeps his hands away from personal rights and morals. If he lets the far-right try to force their Puritanical version of morality down the country’s throat, he’ll lose my support. And I suspect a lot of others’ as well.