Campaign 2004-The first real day

Day One of the “Real Campaign” and my thoughts.

Have you ever done things you regret? Have you ever been at a place on the road of life you looked up and said “ Dear god how did I get here.” I have, and I have to say I have spent the last 2-5 years of my life correcting for it. I think we all know the President has in his life. I think we all have heard the story about George Bush the drinker, George Bush the rumored drug user, George Bush the party animal.

In the 60s and 70s a lot of people made choices about Vietnam. Some folks sought deferments, John Kerry and Dick Cheney both did. Dick got his, John didn’t. Some people went into the National Guard. In some states it took a lot of people special connections to get into the guard, but according to some historians in other states getting into the guard was easy. You could still have gotten sent to Vietnam if you were in the National Guard like George Bush and Dan Quayle. Some people signed up for the Reserves, especially the Navy reserve which had a higher probability of being stateside or in other service, John Kerry followed that path and ended up serving in Vietnam. It would have been more likely for a Guardsman to serve in Vietnam then a Naval reserve officer, but some went and some didn’t. Some men joined the Coast Guard. Some Coasties took care of our soldiers in the war zone. And some served here at home. Some men ran off to Canada, a lot of those men are still there. Some men were never drafted, but never volunteered. Some choose to volunteer rather then be drafted.

That’s a lot of choices regarding Vietnam, and a lot of people who probably have different thoughts on it. Do all those men think they made the right choice? Do all those men in hindsight wish they made another choice? Are some men haunted by their bad choice, and have made a change in their life? Absolutely, that’s the way a lot of people are about their bad choices. Are some people defined, and tested and refined by their good choices? Most certainly, this has been the case in any age. So, which is better of the two? The man who took the right path, or the man who took the wrong path and learned from his folly? Can no change in you life undo the wrong choices?

John Kerry would say no to that last question. Because he choose to go to Vietnam in 68 he is a leader, and Bush and Cheney are not. To my mind, I would rate the man who made the right choice about an even keel with the man who learned from the wrong choice, maybe it is because in my life I have been in both of those situations. There is a liberating wisdom in failing, and making a self-correction.

You attack the Valor of men who choose not to serve in a society based on choice. But now, evidence from your own website suggests you wore a false decoration of that same valor. These come from a credible news organization, and access to your own records.

Does having served in combat make one a better leader? Does command of a small boat (less then 10 men) relate to a government with finances in the billions? Or does running a strong and successful company, or a smaller government mean more in the field of leadership?

Has he attacked the President for legitimate failures from his perspective, absolutely he has. But the venom of that particular attack from an era long gone erodes the ethos of his case. You can say the President has shown a failure to lead on Health Care, Prescription Drugs, the Environment, Jobs, the Budget, and other socio-economic issues. But you then have to say this is a contrast to my plan. This is what the president did when he laid out his own vision for the next four years.

George Bush and the GOP has defined National Security and Defense as the trump issues of this campaign. They have said in the world of post 9-11 it can’t be about “The Economy stupid” if there is no country to have an economy. You can disagree with that case all you want, but make a case why it shouldn’t be the trump issue. Or make a case why your policies would be better. Voting for the war, even knowing the facts we have today, back then proves that you don’t have a real separate vision. “The French and Germans will respect me more.” Is a great argument until you call those nations who disagree with you bribed or bullied. I hate to say this, bribing and bullying has been a part of diplomacy since the art was first invented. Make your own proposal, or say it shouldn’t be the number one issue. But in either strategy give us a reason why. Saying you won’t be questioned by those who didn’t choose to sign up for the Navy reserve when their deferment was denied does not make the case that you will be more diplomatic and have a more honest form of governance.

In your senate Career you voted against major defense programs, you proposed scaling them back. That is a legitimate case against your ability to defend this country, and is not rebutted by saying “Dick Cheney did it when he was defense secretary.” Some of us were alive then and remember the discussions about a “Peace dividend” about how the cold war was over and we needed to put that money back in our country. That came from your party, and to some degree that came from the American people. With those demands the Pentagon had to cut some money, and as a manager that was Dick Cheney’s call, that was his leadership. He was making the best of the situation he had to deal with. Back then we did not hear John Kerry talking about building an army for future conflicts, we heard a John Kerry talking about funding urban programs. This is a legitimate critique of the choices you made and you have a choice. Defend your choices, say you were right and why you would make or not make those choices again. Or say that in that climate those were the right choices, but not in the climate of today. Saying one thing in the past and one thing now is a harmful thing to a candidate for public office, but ignoring legitimate questions says quite another.

You fought hard to stop Communist Vietnam from being sanctioned for some of the brutal actions of their regime, you went to show solidarity with the sandinista’s, you supported the Nuclear Freeze, and during the cold war as a public official took actions to approach that war not from a position of strength but from a position of passivity. Many people of degrees of intellect agreed with that point of View Senator Kerry, but Ronald Reagan didn’t. Reagan’s tough and muscular policy was as revolutionary as Nixon’s policy of Détente. Since Reagan’s policy worked and brought the soviets to the table most folks agree that was the right choice. Do you? Does that non-intervention philosophy that we see going back to your Anti-War period still remain into the 90s and the new threats we face? The critique has merit; the questions deserve an answer from you Senator Kerry.

Your service on the Senate Intelligence committee was questioned, when records could be released to exonerate you exist you refuse to take them. When a major terrorist incident, and intelligence failure happened you missed out on the public hearings. Even if you made ever classified briefing during that investigation, what does that say to the American people? George Bush spent time in the Florida Class room on 9-11-01 making people feel secure; your absence from hearings to find out why our security failed us does not suggest that. When you refuse to open up these records, you look like some one to hide. When you refuse to answer these charges it damns you a second time.

Using your own logic, I should not trust the man who made the wrong choice, who took the opportunity of a peace dividend instead of redoubling our war machine. But you could argue that no one saw these events coming, I took this machine apart and I will work to fix it. That is a credible argument, but you are not even entering the stage. If you wish to attack bush for refusing to address the economy your refusal to seriously address the national security of this country is fair game.

Other charges are out there. You were given the opportunity to direct an investigation of one of the airports the terrorists used that dark day, and no one knows what you did with the investigation short of possibly giving it to the very agency he warned you was failing. Your saying to a group of Arab-Americans the Palestinian side in the security fence argument was right, then to a Jewish audience saying Israel was right. You’re naming two Anti-Israel politicians to be “peace envoys” but then blaming it on your speechwriters. Saying you told them to cut it out, but they did not. And when you saw it you did not omit it yourself.

All of these and numerous other points call into question your fundamental ability to defend this country as a President. And people who made the wrong choice are unable to make these points? John McCain who served admirably made them, General Tommy Franks made them, and many other men whose toga veralis is stained red in blood have made them as well.

Some one must have the moral clarity to demand an answer from you John, but you refuse to make it. And thus the Ed Koch-Ron Silver argument comes into play. The Democrats aren’t in the game for National Security this cycle and don’t deserve to be elected on that point alone.

Saying you, or President Bush, or any American leader has made the wrong choices for this country is not unpatriotic. In fact, legitimate questioning of our government’s polices is the height of patriotism. While no one said you were unfit for command, they rightly asked questions about your choices because a man’s past tells a lot about his likely future.

Bill Clinton in Arkansas Tom-cated around with women. Bill Clinton as president Tom-Cated with women. Bill Clinton rewarded cronies as Governor and as President. The negative things of his Presidency could be seen in the choices he made as Governor of Arkansas. The positive things in his presidency, his ability to adapt to changes also could be seen in his past as the Governor of Arkansas. Your past in the senate, your past as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts is relevant to how you would act as president.

You are running the same Kind of campaign your party has ran since 1968, and that approach failed you in every election cycle from then till now except two. In 1976 the corruption scandal from the Nixon administration was a dark blight on Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter nearly lost the election. In 1992 Bill Clinton won by saying in addition to all these laundry lists of programs, I will do it in a responsible manner. The American people want their cake, but they want it paid for in a way that will actually happen. That is why Bill Clinton was the first two term Democratic President since FDR. He told the people I can do this and be responsible. And when the will of the people changed, he adapted to that change.

Bush has not ran the nations books well, so why not challenge his numbers on these new programs he came out of his convention with. See if the Ownership society is bought on credit. When I saw this speech, this opener of your first campaign I was shocked to see you ignored the substance of this issue. Clinton won because he showed America could trust him to straighten up the financial mess, you haven’t made anyone believe they can trust you.

You started your campaign in a way that looked familiar to me. I traveled around the state as a Jurisdictional Officer for the Order of DeMolay. I more often then not after an event at two in the morning, or even midnight walked into a waffle house in Flora City Florida or some other urbane metropolis. This is not the way to present yourself to people who need to be sold on you and what your about. You need pressed close, you need to be well rested, and you need to be organized.

When you attack your opponents for a One-Liner fest such one-liners as “all hat and no cattle” don’t showcase your side well. Making a speech after your opponent, you need to know what he said. You can’t talk about being misled, when you say you would act the same even with the fullness of today’s knowledge. Why make the speech afterwards when you don’t know what happened?

Quote Job loss numbers, but realize they were lower then expected gains. Say he will have a negative job figure, but remember two hurricanes sacked the economy in that same month. There are two sides to every number.

In the first day of this campaign President Bush outlined a vision, a vision of larger government that works more conservatively. A Conservative Vision more in the mold of another JFK who was President, and who served with Valor on a navy boat. And on the First day of your campaign, after a very public reshuffling of your command staff what did you do? You attacked the President and Vice President in a way neither of them has directly attacked you. You claimed they conspired with the Saudi’s to hike oil prices, when any economically literate person knows isn’t true. You rambled and ranted, and said your opinion was infallible and above reproach. You attacked them for division and polarization without doing the same thing the president did to start his campaign.

You failed to lay out your orders when you “Reported for duty” but when George Bush went to the mound he knew what he had to do, and he threw his pitch. Without any question he is running to keep his job far better then you are running to take it. And this is the last attack I will lob at you right now. Your campaign has flubbed, lost direction, and languished because of every possible failure but one. The failure of the candidate, and this failure in leadership is seen as a thread in all the charges against you.

And, this is just day one.