On the Offense About Defense
I understand the desire of the Democrats to fight back on charges of being soft on defense. But would the way to do it really be to bring up an issue that is 30-years-old? We all know Bush's military record. Whatever we may think of it, that was a long time ago. More to the point would be his actions as President.
Besides, does Kerry (assuming he gets the nomination), of all people, really want to bring up military records? Sure, he's a veteran with multiple decorations. But if he starts throwing that around during the election proper, all the Bush campaign has to do is counter with footage of Kerry's marching in Vietnam War protests after he got home and throwing away his ribbons and medals. Oh actually, not even his medals. He committed a lie of omission there. He threw away his own ribbons, but the medals of others who asked him to. He just didn't say they were the medals of others, leaving the obvious interpretation that they were his own. That just can't work out well for Kerry, regardless of Bush's own history.
The only Democratic candidate who could successfully work the military angle against Bush is Wesley Clark. He is a four-star general who was Supreme Commander of NATO Forces. In recent history.
Realistically, though, the best way for any candidate to counter the "soft on defense" argument is to point out that it's not being "soft on defense" to not go to war against a country that doesn't have WMD in the first place. With all the recent reports of intelligence failures, no WMD in Iraq, and suggestions that the American public is becoming disillusioned by those facts, the Democrat's offense about defense is sitting right there, waiting for them to run with it. No need to turn the clock back.
Comments
Wes Clark is plenty vulnerable on the defense issue. You can find virtually no one in the top brass of the Pentagon who won't go out of his way to convince you he's a battlehungry kookburger.
He came close to starting WWIII in Kosovo, and eventually might have if he hadn't been uncerimoniously yanked out of there. Pretty pathetic when Bill Clinton of all people has use his prerogative as Commander and Chief to make sure sensibility prevails in a hot zone.
If Clark is the nomineee, I will vote for Bush, however unpalatable I find the choice.
I haven't made up my mind on Kerry, it will either be a stay-home or Bush vote.
Edwards would more than likely be a stay-home.
Gephardt is really the only Democrat I would seriously have considered voting for, even though he flipped on abortion (from pro-life to choice) which always makes me suspicious of character.
Bush is going to have a difficult time whoever the nominee is, his approval numbers are dwindling markedly.
This all perfectly illustrates how stupid Americans are.
For the first two and a half years all we heard was how invulnerable Dubya was, how whoever the D's put up would be doing little more than playing the role of sacrificial lamb.
Learn your history people! This race has disturbing paralells with 92 that go way beyond the father/son dynamic. This has been evident from the very beginning.
The paralell that stands out is appeal to base of the incumbent. It was tenuous for the President's father, and it's tenuous for the President. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this developing as soon as the education and farm bills were passed in the first months of Dubya's tenure.
Bush the elder said "read my lips".
Bush the lesser said "I won't be nation building or spending like a housewife in the Hamptons."
Bushes are only good for two things.
Posted by: jim | February 3, 2004 03:06 PM
incindentally, I wasn't referring to people on here, rather speaking rhetorically about the stupidity of Americans...especially Americans with degrees in broadcast journalism... if there is such a thing.
Posted by: jim | February 3, 2004 03:11 PM