I’m still trying to formulate my thoughts on this… But as the AP notes, Kerry may have opened a can of worms with his comment regarding world-leader support (sorry, I’m too lazy to look for a non-Salon link). Already, the conservatives are circling the waters, claiming (in a manner calculated to be slightly less offensive than Rep. Cole’s remarks) that al Qaida wants a Shrub defeat, thereby implying that if Shrub loses, al Qaida “wins.” To me, this sets a dangerous tone. But how to make the argument that these statements go beyond a mere exhortation not to change horses mid-stream?
Categories: Election 2004
3:26 pm | 5 comments
March 22nd, 2004 at 4:26 pm
I’ll write more later, but you might take some solace in this: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/21/mccain.lieberman/index.html .
Keep in mind that it aired on Fox News Sunday.
March 22nd, 2004 at 9:01 pm
Bush and his camp have taken a very strong “Us vs Them” stance since 11 Nov 2001. Anything that does not agree with them, supports terror, in their myopic view. I expect to see far more of this type of argument as the campaign progresses.
Besides, Bush needs to find a way to draw the attention of fiscally conservative but socially “liberal” people like myself away from the fact that he is spending more than old school democrats while eroding civil liberities and hiding everything under the heading of secrecy and security.
March 23rd, 2004 at 12:24 am
Beyond the whole us vs. them is Karl Rove’s habit of playing to the basest sort of nationalism and nationalistic pride possible. It sells in Peoria, as Kim is fond of saying. The good thing for those of us tired of Bush is that it’s unlikely any amount of “foreign leaders love Kerry” will actually move focus away from Bush’s lies as President.
It’s also important to make sure people don’t forget any of these things. Remind folks when you can, and tell them when you can. A lot of people voted for Bush out of disgust for Clinton’s lies. Well, Clinton lied about getting a blowjob… last I checked, no one died (and before you spout off about Vince Foster or whatever, please keep in mind that trained attack dog Ken Starr found nothing after spending $30+ million to investigate everything… all he found out was that the Pres had a curved penis and had an affair). Bush, on the other hand, lied about why people are sacrificing their lives and why they should be willing to die… This is reprehensible.
I’m curious to see how the Clarke stuff will play out, on the other hand. I remember reading (or listening to, I guess) Franken describe “Operation Ignore,” as he called it in Lies, with a bit of skepticism, thinking that they were exaggerating or being a bit over-dramatic. Well, with the latest set of memos coming out, other administration officials coming out, and Condi and Hadley and Cheney only able to defend themselves with pretty bare lies… I dunno how much Time got the original story wrong (Franken relies heavily on a Time article in his book).
March 23rd, 2004 at 12:26 am
Here is the original Time article that broke Clarke’s involvement. The story is date August 04, 2002. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html
March 23rd, 2004 at 10:26 am
Interesting follow-up to Novak’s column here.