A change is needed in 2004
by Johnny Donaldson
March 10, 2004
Election day is approaching. We have narrowed down the pig pile of Democratic candidates to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who looks more like a melted candle than any other previous presidential hopeful. We are facing the moment of truth: the moment where we decide to either A) take a look at the state of the country and decide to fix it or B) let the fat-cat incumbent have office for another four long years.
Yep, 2004 is the year when we'll know whether America is sick of George W. Bush's inept, dangerous idea of presidential duty, or whether we are gullible enough to buy even more of his creative lies and allow him to rule for another term.
Me? You may not have guessed yet, but I'm willing to do without Bush and his cronies for the rest of my life. Who needs to be led down - yet again - the weedy path to war, to economic instability, to environmental destruction and to Bush's special brand of fundamentalist Christian, narrow-minded moralizing?
We all know by now that the war in Iraq was a sham, that Bush wasted the lives of countless American servicemen and women and even more innocent Iraqi's to cement his own bullheaded, short-sighted machismo. His now-known-to-be-false declarations of WMDs in Iraq were just the work of an angry, overgrown frat boy seeking to correct an insult on him and his property. Since that "insult" was as catastrophic as Sept. 11 that required the man with the itchy trigger finger to send over military action to a desert country, while hostile, had nothing to do with the attacks. But boy did Bush's war-mongering briefly make him - and, by extension, America - look strong and tough. (No, it just made us look more stupid and egotistical than we already are perceived to be.)
So we know all that now. Now Bush wants to move away from the controversy of the war to some new controversies that will - in his mind at least - make him look like the ideal candidate for the 2004 presidency. He wants to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11 for his own gaining, using horrifying images of death and destruction from that day to further his own end. He's using the grief and pain of the families of victims to help promote himself as some sort of modern American hero, bravely leading the country after the worst man-made tragedy since Pearl Harbor. All hail, the self-made deity George W. Bush and his use of emotional manipulation to fraud a public still hurting - almost three years later - from one of the biggest mass murders in American history! Forget that he has, is, and probably will continue to use the terrorist attacks as his own personal "heroic" photo opportunity.
When he's not busy riding on the coattails of suffering to score himself a political victory, Bush is busy surfing the waves of ignorance and discrimination - all in the name of preserving the "sanctity" of marriage. Bush has been vigorously pushing for an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Bush wants to take the living will of the people, the document that has, for over 200 years, protected our rights as citizens in this country of ours, and use it to forbid a percentage of those citizens from having equal rights. And this is the man that represents the American people? If he represents us, than all the strides we, as a people, have made in favor of equality the years will be rendered moot. With Bush at the helm, we are basically saying that we are nation of people who are separate but equal, where only certain folks receive freedoms. Another person has no right to tell another person what to do, unless the person's activities negatively affect others. Loving a person, regardless of his or her gender, should not come under any legal jurisdiction. No one has the right to put limits on who anyone can love, even if they don't personally find it "moral."
Bush's nefarious recent activities also extend to include outsourcing jobs to foreign countries despite the fact that our economy has been ailing since Bush's 2001 inauguration. According to the AFL-CIO website, the economy has lost 2.9 million private sector and 2.8 million manufacturing jobs, leading to a unemployment rate that's been at it's highest since 1983. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors has said it would have established 3.9 million new jobs (upwards of almost 325,000 a month), but is currently 1.8 million shy of its goal. Bush ignores the workers he courts with his tasteless, but manipulative ad campaign designed to prey on their patriotic, full-blooded-American beliefs. He sends needed jobs overseas to, as he says, boost our economy and forgets the millions of struggling Americans lost with sources of income. How does this help? Yes, outsourcing costs less in taxpayer money than hiring within, but without jobs those Americans can't even pay their taxes. Bush serves his own special interests, not the people. Hopefully, we won't lose sight of that as November draws near.
Johnny Donaldson is a Collegian columnist.
***************************************
My retort (buried in the online version of the paper):
Oh, where to start!
Bush is a "fat cat incumbent" and Kerry is not? Kerry, the man that has taken more special interest money than any other Senator?
"inept, dangerous idea of presidential duty." Partisanship aside, why don't you define that and compare and contrast to Clinton's reign? Oh, and don't forget to list the "creative lies." Similarly, compare to Clinton and Kerry's records.
"Economic instability." Let's see, the stock market is nearly at the 11,000 level, right were it as at its peak during the 90's, and most indicators of the economy all show things to be steadily and sometimes spectacularly, improving. The dirty little secret is that jobs are usually the last thing to improve, which is why you and the Democrats are pouncing on the topic, in hopes that it won't improve before the election. Of course, I am sure that you believe that the constant tearing down of the market by the Dems has no effect on consumer confidence. No, of course not.
"We all know by now that the war in Iraq was a sham, that Bush wasted the lives of countless American servicemen and women and even more innocent Iraqi's to cement his own bullheaded, short-sighted machismo." A sham? Tell it to an Iraqi. The only Iraqis upset by Saddam's fall are the Hussein family and its supporters. And let's not forget the foreign terrorists, justifiably concerned that a free Iraq will be a model for a modern, civilized Islamic world, extinguishing their reason for being (they would have to get real jobs!). Countless American servicemen? While even one is a tragedy, the numbers have been remarkably low, compared to say, Vietnam. Ask your pal, Kerry.
The rest of your fanciful screed can be answered simply by indicating to you that every single country (yes, Germany, France and Russia too!), the UN, even Saddam himself, believed that Hussein had WMDs. None of that changed until we had unrestricted access to the ground in Iraq. So now your "now-known-to-be-false declarations of WMDs in Iraq" statement should read "now-known-to-be-false, but previously believed to be true (by everyone, including Kerry, by the way) declarations of WMDs in Iraq....." The rest of the sentence is just partisan bloviating, so I will let it die on its own.
Next: "He wants to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11 for his own gaining, using horrifying images of death and destruction from that day to further his own end." Just as Kerry uses (in every breath) the considerable horror of Vietnam? "He's using the grief and pain of the (two at last count, both getting money from Teresa Heinz's political foundations. The head of the firefighter's union, speaking only for himself, is a self proclaimed shill for Kerry. Now who's lying?) families of victims to help promote himself as some sort of modern American hero, bravely leading the country after the worst man-made tragedy since Pearl Harbor." So the President can't use the most defining moment of his presidency for his own re-election? Since you bring it up, are you aware that Roosevelt freely used Pearl Harbor in his reelection campaign, by the way? Will he be allowed to mention that he is currently the President, or will that be using the office of the President to "further his own ends?"
On the issue of gay marriage, while I don't have a horse in this race, the real argument is about the definition of marriage, not gay rights. Homosexuals could get all the rights they demand, every single one, through civil unions, without opening the legal precedence can of worms that will do nothing but make work for lawyers. Kerry is against gay marriage and for civil unions too. So is he equally attempting to preserve the sanctity of marriage and forbidding certain citizens from having equal rights? Is Kerry "busy surfing the waves of ignorance and discrimination?" You don't seem to address this in your column. Double standards are not a good thing; they lead to rampant hypocrisy.
Outsourcing didn't start with Bush, although this column makes it sound so. Kerry signed onto NAFTA too, if you will recall. Your quotes of job loss etc. all neglect the single biggest reason for job loss and the perpetuation of the aftereffects of the Clinton recession: the tragedy of 9/11. But, unfortunately, we can't bring that up because it is somehow "politically incorrect." I guess we can't mention the economists that believe that the President's tax cuts blunted the negative effects of the recession. No, the Democrats wouldn't admit that even though they know it.
One last question: if "the millions of struggling Americans" can't pay their taxes now, how will they if a President Kerry raises them? Oh, it will only be on the rich, right? Well, with tax loopholes and the ability of the rich to outsource their income and investments overseas, the Kerry "plan" might be just so much whole cloth.
Now that you have some more facts, should you take back your accusations, or should we just brand you a "creative liar?" I will give you the benefit of the doubt, more than you see fit to give the President.