Wednesday, September 08, 2004
DISGRACEFUL!
It's finally happened. The so called Liberal Media has finally objected in strong language about Dick Cheney's behavior. I am still waiting for them to call him a liar, which he quite clearly is, but I'll take whatever I can get at this point. This criticism is way overdue. I swear I think Cheney's job is too scare the daylights out of people. He reminds me of the creepy old man who scared my little brother to death when he was 4 by telling him that firemen didn't put fires out, they set them! It took my brother 3 years to get over his dread of firefighters after that. No matter what the rest of the family told him he could not believe that dignified looking, white haired gentlemen would lie like that to children.
I am including the whole editorial from the NY Times here. Here is the url:
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.
It's finally happened. The so called Liberal Media has finally objected in strong language about Dick Cheney's behavior. I am still waiting for them to call him a liar, which he quite clearly is, but I'll take whatever I can get at this point. This criticism is way overdue. I swear I think Cheney's job is too scare the daylights out of people. He reminds me of the creepy old man who scared my little brother to death when he was 4 by telling him that firemen didn't put fires out, they set them! It took my brother 3 years to get over his dread of firefighters after that. No matter what the rest of the family told him he could not believe that dignified looking, white haired gentlemen would lie like that to children.
I am including the whole editorial from the NY Times here. Here is the url:
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.
Comments:
Post a Comment
