A Disgraceful Campaign Speech
A Disgraceful Campaign Speech
Published: September 9, 2004
There are some things a presidential campaign should steer clear of, through innate good taste, prudence or just a sensible fear of a voter backlash. We'd have thought that both the Kerry and Bush camps would instinctively know that it would be appalling to suggest that terrorists were rooting for one side or another in this race. But Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to breach that unspoken barrier this week in Des Moines. If John Kerry was elected president, Mr. Cheney warned the crowd, "the danger is that we'll get hit again." In a long, rather rambling statement, he said the United States might then fall back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that "these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts."
At the very best, Mr. Cheney was speaking loosely and carelessly about the area in this campaign that deserves the most careful and serious discussion. It sounds to us more likely that he stepped across a line that the Bush campaign team had flirted with throughout its convention, telling his audience that re-electing the president would be the only way to stay safe from another attack.
There is a danger that we'll be hit again no matter who is elected president this November, as President Bush himself has said on many occasions. The danger might be a bit less if the current administration had chosen to spend less on tax cuts for the wealthy and more on protecting our ports, securing nuclear materials in Russia and establishing an enforceable immigration policy that would keep better track of people who enter the country from abroad.
Immigration and homeland security strategies are policy fights, fair game for a political campaign. What's totally unacceptable is to tell the American people that the mere act of voting for your opponent opens the door to a terrorist attack. For Mr. Cheney to suggest that is flat wrong. There was a time in this country when elected officials knew how to separate the position from the person. The American people, we're sure, would like to return to it.
Published: September 9, 2004
There are some things a presidential campaign should steer clear of, through innate good taste, prudence or just a sensible fear of a voter backlash. We'd have thought that both the Kerry and Bush camps would instinctively know that it would be appalling to suggest that terrorists were rooting for one side or another in this race. But Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to breach that unspoken barrier this week in Des Moines. If John Kerry was elected president, Mr. Cheney warned the crowd, "the danger is that we'll get hit again." In a long, rather rambling statement, he said the United States might then fall back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that "these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts."
At the very best, Mr. Cheney was speaking loosely and carelessly about the area in this campaign that deserves the most careful and serious discussion. It sounds to us more likely that he stepped across a line that the Bush campaign team had flirted with throughout its convention, telling his audience that re-electing the president would be the only way to stay safe from another attack.
There is a danger that we'll be hit again no matter who is elected president this November, as President Bush himself has said on many occasions. The danger might be a bit less if the current administration had chosen to spend less on tax cuts for the wealthy and more on protecting our ports, securing nuclear materials in Russia and establishing an enforceable immigration policy that would keep better track of people who enter the country from abroad.
Immigration and homeland security strategies are policy fights, fair game for a political campaign. What's totally unacceptable is to tell the American people that the mere act of voting for your opponent opens the door to a terrorist attack. For Mr. Cheney to suggest that is flat wrong. There was a time in this country when elected officials knew how to separate the position from the person. The American people, we're sure, would like to return to it.
posted by Pamela J. Leavey at 11:16 PM
5 Comments:
Why would any terrorists want Kerry? Kerry was talking about the terrorist threat for years before 9/11, while Bush failed to take it seriously until too late. Subsequently Bush did exactly what al Qaeda hoped in wrecklessly attacking Iraq and increasing hostility to the United States. If only he had the brains to listen to his father in building a true international coalition so it would not be perceived as an American occupation.
Another reason al Qaeda preferes Bush is that they can also hope that if there is another attack, Bush freezes for another 48 hours like he did after the first attack, leaving the country without effective leadership.
We need sensitivity to the concerns of the Arab people as well as strength in fighting the true terrorist threat. Kerry has advocated both, while Bush has done neither.
I predict a complete landslide in November
By carl hydorn, at 9:24 AM
<<
Na...Kerry has probably blown a chance for a landslide in Nov. I thought it was going to a Kerry landslide to...but right now I am predicting about 2-4 points. This is absent some major problem in Iraq or a Kerry miracle...like he starts campaigning like a Swift boat commander
Robert G. Oler morrisonin22@hotmail.com
See how disgusting you liberals are, you are hoping for something bad to happen in Iraq so that you can further your political agenda...
By carl hydorn, at 4:02 AM
Your a good member of the GOP you make things up. It is a pretty low and disgusting claim that I was hoping things would get worse in Iraq see I have friends and family who are fighting there and I have been to the hospital to visit folks who fought there and cemtaries to bury them.
The chickenhawk we have as a President is willing to fight to the last drop of someone elses blood.
BRING IT ON right?
Robert G. Oler morrisonin22@hotmail.com
Kerry has taken a strong position against terrorism for years, in contrast to George Bush who ignored the issue, and then botched the response to 9/11.
Kerry has been firm and consistent. The Bush campaign has attempted to counter this by repeatedly misquoteing Kerry and lying about his voting record. They have to runa dirty campaign like this as Bush cannot run on his record of repeated failures.
I can't help but wonder whether the people who repeat these lies spread by the Bush campagin are supporting Bush for other reasons and are willing to resort to repeating their lies, or if they are just gullible people who believe what they hear from the right wing media.
As a very well-informed Washington DC denizen, of longstanding, very little disgusts me more than the spectacle of Dick 'Preventive Nuclear War' Cheney calling some one else a threat to the security of this country!
That distinction belongs to Mr. Cheney and his neo-con cohorts, alone.
Cheney is a menace and he, far more than mental midget Bush functions as President.
Challenge Cheney to a debate, and tell Bush to go finish whatever it is he was doing while Kerry was in the Mekong Delta, and Cheney was filing for his 5 draft deferments.
Bush's psychological profile is such (my friends in 'the intelligence community' assure me,) that he will lose it. Just remind him of his actual 'junior partner' status.
As a spoiled, but severely traumatized 'rich kid' W. cannot handle anything even vaguely resembling reality.
More importantly, we Democrats must emphasize the reality of the collapsing economy.
Child of privilege Bush knows less than nothing about that. So confront him with it and watch him babble more incoherently than usual.
A potentially powerful formulation;
It is time for a change when:
It takes at least 2 jobs, for most American families, just to be poor.
The only difference between 'middle class' and poor is a credit card or two.
Most 'middle class' Americans are living off their DEBT, (credit cards) not their INCOME.
It takes 40-60% of most Americans' income, just to pay the mortgage. And the other 40-60% goes to health insurance costs...
If 'forgotten men and women' vote, in significant numbers, Bush doesn't stand a chance. (Lyndon LaRouche is absolutely right about that one.)
Give those 'forgotten men and women' a reason to vote.
It worked for Franklin Roosevelt 4 times.
Post a Comment
<< Home