It doesn’t matter in this case what Bush actually is, but instead on ly what he appears to be. Or would you like to make an argument for me that lauds Howard Dean as the next, best hope for nation security (in the eyes of the average, rank-and-file American)?Ah yes, the myth of Bush's toughness on national defense. Like the fact that Bush promised to fund security measures like first responders and port inspections, then failed to follow through. Or the fact that he cut - slashed to the bone, actually - US aid to Afghanistan a year after pledging to help them rebuild their country. Or the fact that he's paying for a multitude of shiny new weapons programs - some of them of very dubious utility - at a time when soldier pay and retention are at historic lows.
When it comes to defense, as they say in Texas, this president is all hat and no cattle. Given a choice between a president who talks tough and one who speaks softly while carrying a big stick, I'll take the real deal, thanks. It's also becoming extremely evident that while President Bush is big on using the military, he has very little knowledge of strategy or logistics, and a disturbing tendency to override the expertise of officers with decades in the service.
First of all, we’re not debating candidates. Or rather, my argument isn’t in favor of anybody. I’m merely pointing out that George W. Bush has already won the next four years in the White House.Or to re-write that post from a Democrat POV:
Bush has already lost by virtue of (A) the troubles the nation faced and has abjectly failed to resolve during his presidency, (B) the spend now, pay later philosophies that any child could see through, and know that they'll be taking it up the ass for him in 30 years, and (C) the erosion of fundamental liberties during the reimagining of The War on Drugs for the 00's.
The bottom line? People like Bush don't make us safe. Period. Even at his best - posing in air force gear to which he has no right for publicity shots, doggedly pursuing dictatorial regimes months or years after they've done their damage, or signing hundred billion dollar taxcuts with one hand while penning requests for a hundred billion dollar reconstruction effort with the other, Bush walks away looking as able to run a country as a dyslexic poodle. He's managed to reinstate Reaganistic irresponsibility without the refuge of senility: a Republican administration blind to world opinion, blind to responsible fiscal policy, and blind to the consiquences stupid actions will have a decade down the line.
Thus concludes this evening's parody.
The Democratic campaign is fragmented. Much worse however, it’s organized almost exclusively around criticisms rather than innovation. People like Dean and Kerry consistently slam George Bush – and then fail to follow up with any truly realistic goals of their own. It’s already been pointed out that bureaucratic issues would strangle the national healthcare proposal before it crawled out of infancy. And don’t even get me started on the logistical and financial issues of port security or adequate first-responders, neither of which are a prospect for somebody just coming into fiscally red-lined government.
Bush’s spending plan is under attack, but Dean’s is even worse. He’s attempting to go the route of European Socialists.
“The erosion of fundamental liberties” appeals only to certain students and academic persons – i.e. the intelligentsia more concerned with theory than reality. The average American cares very little about the Patriot Acts as a limiting factor.
You might not believe that Bush makes us safe. It’s not a true reflection of the country at large however. Most Americans – not politically savvy in the first place – see Bush as being a better “security deal” than Dean. That’s that.
Get off the “Bush went AWOL” theory. As has been pointed out here before, he was never dragged before a court. We don’t need to catch Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden to win more than morale victories either. It would be nice to have them under our thumb and in our prisons – but it’s really not necessarily, in the end, from the point of view of securing either Iraq or Afghanistan.
What “consequences” will our stupid political actions have a decade down the line?
Oh, and to close out: THE REST OF AMERICA DOESN'T CARE. The average American will vote Republican for security and Bush for continuity. Dean is too obscure or radical, alternatively, and Kerry too impotent a candidate.