My one political thread for the week...

[Sandman]

Cut and paste...

BUSH IS RUNNING ON 9/11; KERRY SHOULD RUN ON 9/12

By Arianna Huffington

It's a puzzling paradox: Recent polls show that voters are more worried that we are losing the war
on terror, more convinced that we're about to be attacked, and more certain that the invasion of
Iraq has put America at greater risk from terrorists. And yet, these same voters overwhelmingly
believe that President Bush will do a better job of protecting them from terrorists than John Kerry.

Isn't that like believing that the embezzler who just ran off with your life's savings is the
perfect guy to manage your finances?

Indeed, national security is one of the precious few issues on which voters think Bush is up to
snuff — the same voters who turn thumbs down on his handling of the deficit, jobs, health insurance,
the environment, Social Security and Iraq. Which is why the Bush campaign is starting to resemble
one of those single-issue cable networks: the 24-hour Terror War Channel — All Anxiety, All the
Time.

Whether it's Bush's flag-draped campaign ads, his newly aggressive defense of the Patriot Act, or
Karen Hughes' mind-boggling linking of abortion rights and al-Qaida, our war president's message
is clear: "Vote for me or your days may be numbered."

In response, Kerry has entered into a hissing contest with Bush over whose national security plank
is more impressive: "My first responder is bigger than yours!"

But trying to out-macho the counterfeit Cowboy from Crawford is the wrong strategy.

I say let Bush run on 9/11; Kerry needs to run on 9/12.

Remember Sept. 12, 2001? On that day blood banks overflowed, money poured into charities, and so
many people turned up to help at Ground Zero that most had to be turned away. It was the best of
times amidst the worst of times. In the wake of that horrific attack, Americans were eager to work
for the common good — to be called to a large, collective purpose.

But George Bush squandered his chance to tap into that national impulse.

Granted, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the president paid a lot of lip service to the
concept of shared sacrifice. "We have much to do, and much to ask of the American people," he said in a
speech four days after the attacks. And at a press conference a month later, he echoed the theme,
saying simply: "America is sacrifice."

But there is a world of difference between spouting Churchillian rhetoric and championing a cause
that will transform our society. Far from using his post-9/11 political capital to rally us as a
nation to a vision that is bigger than the things that divide us, all the president called on us to
do was to go shopping and "get down to Disney World in Florida."

John F. Kennedy asked us to "ask not" what our country can do for us. George Bush asked us to open
our wallets.

But spending a wad of cash should not be all that our leaders ask of us. The truest expression of
American character has always been not our will to amuse ourselves but our choice to give of
ourselves.

Nevertheless, nearly three years down the war-on-terror road, the only sacrifices being made are
by those risking, and all too frequently giving, their lives on the battlefields of Afghanistan and
Iraq — and by their families back home.

And I don't think the newly approved bill allowing members of the National Guard and Army Reserve
to tap into their IRAs without penalty will make up for the repeated extended deployments they're
having to endure.

Despite the passage of time, the values and spirit that emerged on 9/12 are still very much a part
of who we are as a country — and they can still be harnessed if we have a president who will
appeal to more than voters' narrow self-interest and unspoken prejudices. A president with the
fortitude to ask more of each and every one of us.

That's why Kerry needs to take a page from FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps, JFK's Peace Corps
and LBJ's Vista, and usher in a new era of national service and shared sacrifice.

George Bush seems convinced that the way to win is by playing on our fears. John Kerry can prove
that the answer lies in appealing to our better instincts.

The choice awaiting the American people in November couldn't be more clear-cut: Vote your fears or
vote your hopes. If we do the former, Bush wins. But if we are inspired to do the latter, we could
reach the 50 percent of eligible voters who've given up on our democracy — and it could be Kerry
in a landslide.

© 2004 ARIANNA HUFFINGTON.
DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

[storch]

pure demagoguery

[Gunslinger]

this is the same woman that ran for govoner of calif. against Arnold by bashing bush.  She did it through the entire debate.  Gov. Arnold simply told her "if you want to debate pres. bush go to washington...if you want to debate me do it here and now in california."

This woman is a total tool....her response to Gov. Arnold was basically "we know how you treat woman"

[Nilsen]

Kerry will win.

what is it Eagler says again??

LANDSLIDE BUSH!!

(very hard to go up a landslide so i guess Eagler means that he is going down with it)

[1wingnutone]

Its that cowboy way of thinking that has made this the most powerful nation on earth.

Screw the terrorists,every time we make a decision based on what the gutless wonders of the world might do to us in return puts another notch in  their gun.

Bullys understand one thing,and thats a good butt whooping, you might notice that guys like Osama always get someone else to do the dirty work for them.If he was so sure that allah was protecting him then he wouldn`t be hiding in a hole somewhere like a slimy worm.He isn`t willing to die for his cause he just finds some poor sap to do it for him.Hell if I was him I would be sending a tape to the media every week talking tough,but he is so scared we are gonna get his sorry butt he can`t speak I guess.

If that New England Chowder Head Kerry gets in we will be right back where we were when Jimmy Carter was in office.No respect and the bad guys won`t have a worry at all.

The reason they haven`t tried any thing else here since 9/11 I think is because no gov`t dares to let them work from their country.They know if we find out that they helped in any way to support a terrorist act against us that they will be hearing (they won`t ever see it tho) the sound of an F-117 overhead.Followed by the roar of death and destruction.

Its gonna be a long time before you will see a soft on defense turn the other cheek New England Chowder Head in the White House,unless of course its the janitor coming to scrub the "John"

See ...we can`t have a Pres whos first name is a place where you take a wizz.

[GtoRA2]

Ariana flufinting.... lol yeah she has credibility, she blamed every problem in California on Bush...

What a dumb old hag.

[lazs2]

I believe that sane people will aknowledge that huffington editorials are  proof that ending womens sufferage is the only salvation.

lazs

[MrLars]

Originally posted by lazs2
I believe that sane people will aknowledge that huffington editorials are  proof that ending womens sufferage is the only salvation.

lazs

Looks like the right is doing exactly that. Deleting USGov info on the net regarding womens health, economic status and information aimed at protecting women and girls and helping them advance.

I'm sure Dubyas minions here will justify this somehow.

http://news.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4977467