I listened to MSNBC today for 8 hours while driving to South Carolina to pick up my son's car, and I have a few comments:
The talking heads thought this was a mistake because it gave Michael Moore some free publicity, and put F9/11 back on the map. What they didn't consider is that by doing so, McCain tied Moore to the neck of John Kerry, and I'm willing to bet that swing voters will find Moore's schlockumentary off-putting to say the least.
Unbelievably, the talking heads claimed that this attack was surprising since the Kerry convention followed a policy of no Bush bashing. My jaw nearly bounced off the floor as I recalled the text of Carter, Gore, and Clinton's speeches, all of which were attacks on the President. It was also odd to here them fawning all over Guiliani, nearly coronating him as the heir to Bush. Although, that wouldn't be a bad thing. I like Rudy. When he made that tackle at the end of the Tech game, I was in tears. Wait, wrong Rudy. Oh well, I still like him.
Last time I checked, the protestors in Boston didn't attack any policemen. None were sent to the hospital, and none required 37 stitches after being hit with a beer bottle. It makes me wonder, was the excessive security at the Democratic National Convention caused by concerns on the part of the Democrats that conservative protestors would act like liberals?
Chris Matthews attempted to interview Ben Stein while a group of liberals tried to drown them out with some chanting. Nothing lile a little leftist demonstration of free speech to win over the undecided voters. By all means, do keep it up.
The talking heads made a big deal of the Republicans using 9/11 as a large part of the convention, and asked if it was fair to make it a one party issue. After all, after 9/11, we all came together, right? Why can't we still be together?The answer here is simple. 9/11 is a valid issue because it is the defining moment of the Bush Presidency. On 9/10, he was a mediocre president, floundering in office, attempting to deal with bitterly angry democrats while trying to define an agenda. On 9/12, his agenda was defined, and the course of his presidency was set. So not only can we discuss 9/11, we must do so. The only reason it has become a single party issue is that, for reasons of their own, the left has run away from it. Democrats want to put it behind us, as Andrea ???(MSNBC floor reporter) said today, why bring it back up when we were starting to forget it.
For me, and millions of other people, that's precisely the reason to bring it back up. We cannot forget the feelings of that day, ever. If we do, we invite a repeat attack. Unlike the easy rhetoric, the world didn't change on 9/11, but we better have. UNless we want to fight terrorists here, on their terms, we have to be willing to fight them on their turf, but on our terms. President Bush has demonstrated that he understands that cold hard fact; John Kerry has not. He still lives in a 9/10 world, confident that reaction is better than action; that the best defense is a good defense. I don't give a damn about his adventures in Viet Nam or his medals or wounds. Hell, I don't even cxare about his Senate record, voting against nearly every modern weapon system in our arsenal. The fact that he has failed to grasp the necessity for a fundamental change in our defensive policy is reason enough to keep him from being Commander in Chief.
And that's why 9/11 is a legitimate issue.
BY the way, this is liable to become the standard posting pattern around here. A long, researched and linked piece on Mondays, then hit or miss bits during the week as I find the time.