Another great article
Courtesy of d55411acs from bush2004
From Today's WSJ OpinionJournal... cut for your viewing pleasure:
( A Man of Conviction )
From Today's WSJ OpinionJournal... cut for your viewing pleasure:
( A Man of Conviction )
I'm a little lost on your arguement of why it's seemingly okay for P Diddy to be trafficking drugs, but you ream President Bush for his drug use as a young man. Yeah, I get it. I get that P Diddy isn't running for the office of the President, but he IS a role model for many young Americans, and, like it or not, he is campaigning just like anyone else in this election. THAT, to me, levies quite a responsibility on his head. I don't really care that he's not running for President -- he is involved in the process, and that, to me, makes him accountable.
Like I said, I believe that President Bush has put that part of his life behind him and has taken steps to rectify that part of his past... to go on to live his life better. For those around him, and for what he wants to do, I believe that he has made a change in his life. For you to continue to chastise him for past behavior is as ridiculous as people chastising Kerry for his war record and injuries.
Also, your assessment of Bush's life up until his election is a gross assumption. I happen to know firsthand what he has done, and it wasn't all "partying" or "corrupt business deals." He was known widely in this state, and in the nation at the time, as a politician who did not fear crossing party lines to get things done. He did many a great thing for this state.
If Kerry spent his life trying to make a difference, as you say, can you tell me what that difference is? Can you explain to me why someone who spent the greater part of 20 years as a United States Senator has such a shaky voting record and such a sparse list of accomplishments? (Only five bills that he had anything to do with were passed? Come on.) I'd really like to know just what that difference was. And please don't even mention the BBA. Thanks to that, we are still feeling the effects in our healthcare system.
Per your comment of "Bush is just doing it because he can." in regards to running for the presidency... wow. I'm at a loss. I could remind you of another man who likes to do things "becuase he can." or "because he could."
Reply
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on P. Diddy bearing a responsibility for his actions. But when it comes to voting, Bush's past actions will influence my opinion far more than P. Diddy's actions will influence my opinions of Kerry. That's the connection I was making. Personally, I see Bush's past as a reflection of who he still is. I've read many essays, accounts, and viewed lots of interviews and films, as many unbiased as biased, and come away with an overwhelming sense of corruption and greed surrounding the Bush family, Cheney, and Karl Rove. And no, this is not at all limited to Farenheit 9/11. And unfortunately, I have seen very little that discredits what has been said about Bush, and it's hard for me to believe he is where he is for any other reason than because he can be there.
He doesn't at all seem passionate about being president, especially considering his past; giving speeches and exemplifying a certain persona are both easy things to do, which may be why many people have formed the positives conclusions that they have about him. But his past strongly indicates that he's always been a misguided man jumping from one thing to the next while taking full advantage of his status. Rove made the presidency of the United States possible for him just as Rove did the governorship of Texas, so Bush took it. And why not? He didn't have much else to do, and he his family had plenty to gain from it. But I could go on and on about all of this just as many people do, and, chances are, your own perception of the combined events wouldn't change, just as mine won't.
First noting that I'm not actually a Kerry supporter, I do think that he has proven himself since he was a young man, case-in-point his actions after returning from Vietnam. And unless you yourself have the statistics of his voting record, and also an inside knowledge of how the Senate actually works, I'm going to interpret the numbers you cited as useless, commonly reiterated spin facts. Example: Kerry proposed many, many more bills, but it's extremely difficult to get one passed. Five isn't exactly an underachievement when you're the main author. Besides those five, he was a co-author or undersigner of many more, which is conveniently left out when these statistics are cited. As for the shaky voting record? When bills are combined or reworded or voted on multiple times, it's easy to misconstrue the reality regarding a voting record.
Anyway, thanks for the comment in my journal. Nope, I don't mind - feel free to peruse. It's nice that someone can separate politics from their perception of someone; random comments are better than hate comments. ;)
Reply
Leave a comment