3. Right, let's run on Bush's bad character to win the election in November
First of all, Bush evaded service in Vietnam, as did Cheney, while still supporting the war. As with the Iraq war, Bush sends other young men and women to die in his place. This is the number one thing to remember in providing context to the National Guard issue. In fact, here is a list of the young men from Bush's and Cheney's hometowns who died in their place in Vietnam because Bush and Cheney were too cowardly to fight in a war that they supported . Bush only got into the "champagne National Guard unit" to avoid serving in Vietnam because his father was a big shot Republican, despite scoring the lowest possible score on a test that would make him eligible to become a pilot. George W. Bush leapfrogged over hundreds of other applicants to the "escape service in Vietnam Unit" for no other reason than he was a Bush. That's cowardly elitism at its most despicable. Don't let the White House frame it any other way.
The republicans are spinning Bush's National Guard service as irrelevant because it was 30 years ago. They keep saying Clinton didn't serve and nobody cared. We have to remind people that Clinton, at least, protested what he saw as an unjust war. He did not support the war, yet let someone else go in his place.
Remember how the republicans used to say character counts al the time? And we would answer, that it counts, of course, but we just aren't that interested in the man's private sex life. Remember how they would say (and are still saying) I see a pattern of bad behavior here about Clinton (and whichever democrat they are attempting to smear that day.) And we would say, about Clinton, that any pattern of bad character involves his sex life, so what? That's his problem, not ours!
Now, we should go a step further and take a page out of their playbook and start saying we are seeing "a pattern" that indicates very bad character in the unelected fraud. And that this pattern indicating bad character is very serious indeed. It is very serious, because it involves, literally, life and death issues.
Why is it so hard for us to hit back, especially since we have truth on our side? The mainstream consensus has always been Clinton=bad character; Bush=good character. I am not going to debate Clinton's character here, but I will say that Clinton was able to come away with victories, and to maintain support with the American people, at least partly because, he was an engaged, mostly competent president. And, of course, because the people were able to know a 9 year partisan witchhunt when they saw one. And many other things, economy, charm, blah, blah, blah.
If the myth of George Bush's character can be shattered by us, then the cowardly frat-boy in the white house is left to stand naked. With a record like he has, he's finished without the honor and dignity thing going for him. If we shatter the honor, dignity and integrity myth, and show that this man is siimply a war profiteer, and not much of anything else, we can, to quote a general I like, "beat the shit of them." I don't even think diebold could deliver Ohio, if we just would have the courage, like Mike Malloy showed on Faux last night. That is, if we keep working to expose that man for who he really is.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
