Is Bush Moving Toward Kerry?
Recently, about May 27, 2004, the L. A. Times had an article by Ronald Brownstein starting with the premise: "Sen. John F. Kerry faces a stark new challenge in the campaign skirmishing over Iraq. As President Bush has moved toward his position, the Democratic Party is moving away from it."
To read the entire article follow this link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimests/20040527/
ts_latimes/kerryfeelssqueezeoniraqpolicy
Let's examine the premise of the article. The premise is, basically:
First, the Democratic party is fickle. They do not have any core beliefs on which to have a foundation to keep the party in one place. The only thing important to the party is getting elected, even if it means abandoning what it believes in.
Second, John Kerry is a decisive leader. He has a core set of beliefs, which founds him and guides him though tough decisions keeping him in one place. He makes good decisions and sticks with them. He does not change his mind on important issues.
Third, President Bush is fickle. He does not have any core beliefs on which to have a foundation to keep him in one place. He changes his mind on issues based on what he thinks will get him elected. He makes decisions, but does not follow through.
Now let us determine if this holds water. The article is short on facts. The only two issues spelled out in the L. A. Times' article are the Democrats' desire to pull out of Iraq, and President Bush's asking for international help in Iraq.
First, is the Democratic party fickle? Can the party not decide on key issues? My understanding is that the Democratic party has been against the war in Iraq since day one. Am I wrong? Was the Democratic party at one time whole heartedly for the war in Iraq, only to now change their minds and be against it? If so, will someone please send me press releases from 2 years ago when the Democratic party supported the war? The party line, I thought, was that we should never have been there, kind of like pulling out before going in. So, you tell me, has the Democratic party changed its view on one of the most important issues of this election?
Second, is John Kerry a decisive leader? Can Senator Kerry vote for the $87 billion before voting against it? Can he vote for war in Iraq and be opposed to it? Did he throw ribbons or metals? As the senator stated, is there no distinction between the two? If not, why does he draw the distinction? Does Senator Kerry stand for any issue long enough for anyone to move toward, or away from him?
Third, is President Bush fickle? Can the President not decide on key issues? I thought that one of the problems that democrats have with him is the fact that he has deeply held convictions, which are diametrically opposed to theirs, and he acts upon them. Was President Bush at one time opposed to the war and now supporting it? Did President Bush ignore the UN? I seem to recall months spent going to the UN, asking for the international body to have the courage to enforce its own resolutions. Months that allowed Sadaam time to hide, sell, trade, give away, or destroy the WMD that seem to always headline the news when we cannot find them. That is until some serin gas is found, then it seems to be buried deep in the bowels of the paper. So, given months of begging the UN to act, even before the war, and having almost continuously asked for assistance since the war began, has the president recently changed his position on international assistance, to get closer to Senator Kerry’s position, as the Mr. Brownstein suggests?
Did Mr. Brownstein get the facts right? Did he come to the correct conclusions? If either were wrong, why? Was Mr. Brownstein ignorant? Did he have an agenda? Can you think of another reason for the inaccuracies?
Did I incorrectly summarize what Mr. Brownstein wrote? Read the whole article and…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
To read the entire article follow this link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimests/20040527/
ts_latimes/kerryfeelssqueezeoniraqpolicy
Let's examine the premise of the article. The premise is, basically:
First, the Democratic party is fickle. They do not have any core beliefs on which to have a foundation to keep the party in one place. The only thing important to the party is getting elected, even if it means abandoning what it believes in.
Second, John Kerry is a decisive leader. He has a core set of beliefs, which founds him and guides him though tough decisions keeping him in one place. He makes good decisions and sticks with them. He does not change his mind on important issues.
Third, President Bush is fickle. He does not have any core beliefs on which to have a foundation to keep him in one place. He changes his mind on issues based on what he thinks will get him elected. He makes decisions, but does not follow through.
Now let us determine if this holds water. The article is short on facts. The only two issues spelled out in the L. A. Times' article are the Democrats' desire to pull out of Iraq, and President Bush's asking for international help in Iraq.
First, is the Democratic party fickle? Can the party not decide on key issues? My understanding is that the Democratic party has been against the war in Iraq since day one. Am I wrong? Was the Democratic party at one time whole heartedly for the war in Iraq, only to now change their minds and be against it? If so, will someone please send me press releases from 2 years ago when the Democratic party supported the war? The party line, I thought, was that we should never have been there, kind of like pulling out before going in. So, you tell me, has the Democratic party changed its view on one of the most important issues of this election?
Second, is John Kerry a decisive leader? Can Senator Kerry vote for the $87 billion before voting against it? Can he vote for war in Iraq and be opposed to it? Did he throw ribbons or metals? As the senator stated, is there no distinction between the two? If not, why does he draw the distinction? Does Senator Kerry stand for any issue long enough for anyone to move toward, or away from him?
Third, is President Bush fickle? Can the President not decide on key issues? I thought that one of the problems that democrats have with him is the fact that he has deeply held convictions, which are diametrically opposed to theirs, and he acts upon them. Was President Bush at one time opposed to the war and now supporting it? Did President Bush ignore the UN? I seem to recall months spent going to the UN, asking for the international body to have the courage to enforce its own resolutions. Months that allowed Sadaam time to hide, sell, trade, give away, or destroy the WMD that seem to always headline the news when we cannot find them. That is until some serin gas is found, then it seems to be buried deep in the bowels of the paper. So, given months of begging the UN to act, even before the war, and having almost continuously asked for assistance since the war began, has the president recently changed his position on international assistance, to get closer to Senator Kerry’s position, as the Mr. Brownstein suggests?
Did Mr. Brownstein get the facts right? Did he come to the correct conclusions? If either were wrong, why? Was Mr. Brownstein ignorant? Did he have an agenda? Can you think of another reason for the inaccuracies?
Did I incorrectly summarize what Mr. Brownstein wrote? Read the whole article and…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home