Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Sorry...
to be negative, but Kerry's Presidential campaign is the most ineptly run organization I have ever witnessed. Who are these people? How is it possible that we are losing to this man?
WHY THE HELL IS THE DNC RUNNING ADS ABOUT BUSH'S GUARD SERVICE? Who in the hell gives a flying fuck? The damage from the Swift Vote ads is done - you can't wait three weeks to respond, and even then the response should have been only to point out that those ads were based on total and complete fabrications. But here's the point about the Swift Vote ads: Bush and the RNC can deny they had anything to with them! They can have the benefit of the negative attacks, and claim they are against negative attacks. WHY IN THE FLYING FUCK DON'T THE DEMOCRATS UNDERSTAND THIS? The only thing that has frustrated me this much in the last few years is Mike Brown's failure to hire a General Manager.
How cowardly is the DNC? If you're going to launch unfair attacks, why not make them effective? Why not make fun of his total inability to speak? Why not run a split-screen ad showing what was happening at the World Trade Center and what Bush was doing in Florida? Why not accuse Bush of using terrorist attacks as a political tool? Why not accuse him of stealing elections?
Ultimately, the problem with this election is simple. The only important issue is national security. I don't think you can make that strong of a case that Bush's pre-9/11 and his actions right after 9/11 were any different than any Democrat's would have been. (Yes, there is a strong, strong case to be made that the Bush administration put a much lower priority on terrorism than the Clinton administration, but the Democrats simply can't communicate messages like that and, frankly, it's probably too complicated for most Americans to understand.) The case you CAN make against Bush is simple: he hurt our cause in the war on terror by launching a poorly planned, costly and unnecessary war in Iraq. This war not only cost lives and diverted resources, it strengthened Islamic terrorism by destroying any hope of forming an effective international coalition against it.
BUT DEMOCRATS CANNOT EFFECTIVELY MAKE THIS CASE BECAUSE JOHN KERRY SUPPORTED THE WAR IN IRAQ. There, I said it. Also, and I will deny ever having said this between now and the election, his vote against the $87 billion was a cowardly and politically stupid thing to do. Yes, I know the arguments about why he supposedly voted against it; but I also remember when it actually happened, and anyone with half a brain realized that he was voting against it because he was losing to Howard Dean, a candidate with a clear anti-war position.
How can we be having this debate when both candidates essentially agree on the most important issues? John Kerry vaguely stands for competence and reason; George Bush vaguely stands for strength and pride. Yet, they both concretely stand for invading Iraq. When it came time to decide how to best use our armed forces, they both made the wrong decision. (As did I; but I sort of hold the President to a higher standard.)
John Kerry needs to win this election. We cannot let George Bush take over the Supreme Court. We cannot allow him to destroy our standing in the world. We cannot allow him to continue to slowly elevate to the status of law the hate and ignorance of the radical, religious right. We cannot allow him to cripple our government for years as he continues to enact preposterous tax cuts with one hand as he fights a war with the other hand.
But almost more importantly, after this election, no matter who wins, we very much need to fix the broken Democratic party.
|
WHY THE HELL IS THE DNC RUNNING ADS ABOUT BUSH'S GUARD SERVICE? Who in the hell gives a flying fuck? The damage from the Swift Vote ads is done - you can't wait three weeks to respond, and even then the response should have been only to point out that those ads were based on total and complete fabrications. But here's the point about the Swift Vote ads: Bush and the RNC can deny they had anything to with them! They can have the benefit of the negative attacks, and claim they are against negative attacks. WHY IN THE FLYING FUCK DON'T THE DEMOCRATS UNDERSTAND THIS? The only thing that has frustrated me this much in the last few years is Mike Brown's failure to hire a General Manager.
How cowardly is the DNC? If you're going to launch unfair attacks, why not make them effective? Why not make fun of his total inability to speak? Why not run a split-screen ad showing what was happening at the World Trade Center and what Bush was doing in Florida? Why not accuse Bush of using terrorist attacks as a political tool? Why not accuse him of stealing elections?
Ultimately, the problem with this election is simple. The only important issue is national security. I don't think you can make that strong of a case that Bush's pre-9/11 and his actions right after 9/11 were any different than any Democrat's would have been. (Yes, there is a strong, strong case to be made that the Bush administration put a much lower priority on terrorism than the Clinton administration, but the Democrats simply can't communicate messages like that and, frankly, it's probably too complicated for most Americans to understand.) The case you CAN make against Bush is simple: he hurt our cause in the war on terror by launching a poorly planned, costly and unnecessary war in Iraq. This war not only cost lives and diverted resources, it strengthened Islamic terrorism by destroying any hope of forming an effective international coalition against it.
BUT DEMOCRATS CANNOT EFFECTIVELY MAKE THIS CASE BECAUSE JOHN KERRY SUPPORTED THE WAR IN IRAQ. There, I said it. Also, and I will deny ever having said this between now and the election, his vote against the $87 billion was a cowardly and politically stupid thing to do. Yes, I know the arguments about why he supposedly voted against it; but I also remember when it actually happened, and anyone with half a brain realized that he was voting against it because he was losing to Howard Dean, a candidate with a clear anti-war position.
How can we be having this debate when both candidates essentially agree on the most important issues? John Kerry vaguely stands for competence and reason; George Bush vaguely stands for strength and pride. Yet, they both concretely stand for invading Iraq. When it came time to decide how to best use our armed forces, they both made the wrong decision. (As did I; but I sort of hold the President to a higher standard.)
John Kerry needs to win this election. We cannot let George Bush take over the Supreme Court. We cannot allow him to destroy our standing in the world. We cannot allow him to continue to slowly elevate to the status of law the hate and ignorance of the radical, religious right. We cannot allow him to cripple our government for years as he continues to enact preposterous tax cuts with one hand as he fights a war with the other hand.
But almost more importantly, after this election, no matter who wins, we very much need to fix the broken Democratic party.
Comments:
Post a Comment
