I want to write my thoughts on President Bush's speech before going up to the Poconos today, so a quick blog from work during lunch (which I'm forgoing so I can eat on the road later).
The President gave a good speech, but it left me a little disappointed. It sounded pretty much like a State of the Union speech. I like his vision of an ownership society with people owning their own retirement, their own medical savings plans. I wish he would have spoken up louder for the benefits of free enterprise on a global scale as he has done earlier in his presidency. When he spoke of a health center in every community, my immediate reaction was "How are you going to pay for that?"
The major issue for me though is the Global War on Terrorism. President Bush nailed it when he said, "I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch." Indeed, it is not just the most solemn duty of the American President, it is also the most solemn duty of the government. Zell Miller spoke at length on Wednesday on a certain Senator's handling of that duty.
Senator Kerry complains that speeches like Senator Miller's are questioning his patriotism. What a crock of soup. No one at the convention is questioning Kerry's patriotism; they're questioning the soundness of his voting record. Here's some things I heard: Kerry called the Reagan years eight years of "moral darkness" (from Bush's speech), opposed Reagan's support for the Nicaraguan Contras, made broad sweeping (and unproven) accusations of war crimes in Vietnam, wrote a book called "The New American Soldier", where he said, "We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day, waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the greater glory of the United States. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars." So he contemns our veterans in a post-Vietnam book, refuses to retract any of his remarks, and deals with the controversy by seeking to remove that book from circulation, and the book published by his critics, "Unfit for Command" (the irony! He does all this while complaining about John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act).
UPDATE: Bill Hobbs says it's all about liberty (Hat tip to Donald Sensing, One Hand Clapping)
In 2001, Zell described Kerry as a great leader, one who worked to strengthen the military, an authentic hero and a good friend. Now Miller says that Kerry is none of those and that they really weren't friends after all.
Miller lied in describing Jimmy Carter as a pacifist, that is unless one makes up an entirely new definition of pacifism.
Miller failed to note that many of the weapons systems that Kerry opposed when he first ran for office he actually voted for once in office. Miller also said Kerry wanted to require UN permission for U.S. military actions, but he failed to note that that was a position Kerry took when he was 26 and had long since repudiated. He also failed to note that of the weapons that Kerry did oppose, many were also opposed by Dick Cheney when he was defense secretary under Geroge H. Bush. If the standard is the mistakes of youth, we should still be talking about Bush's drunken escapades.
In the end, I don't think either of the conventions will do much. On to the debates.
Posted by: Joel Thomas at September 5, 2004 04:09 PM