Thursday, October 28, 2004

Millionaires for Bush

Jack Welch and Steve Forbes have editorials today in the Wall Street Journal explaining why we should vote for Bush--cause he's not a wimp like Kerry.

Welch has the more reasonable of the two arguments. He frames all of the "Five Questions to Ask" in ways that undeniably favor Bush. A more reasonable man might worry that a unanimous decision would seem suspicious. Not Jack. Welch frames the issue of "learning from mistakes" as "Does He Get Back on the Horse?" He asks voters to ask themselves, is the person you voting for "real"--as in, does he reach people on an emotional level. He says that a great leader should seem dumb because he surrounds himself with people smarter than he is. Finally (but not least), in this time of terrorism, Welch suggests that we ask ourselves "Is He Pro-Business?" Welch pretends he isn't telling us who to vote for. It's a lot like Fox News. He reports--you decide.

Welch keeps saying we need a great leader in these times. I agree. It has been said that no form of government needs great leaders as much as democracy. In these times, we need a great leader. I'm not convinced Kerry is one, but anyone who points to Bush as a great leader must be delusional. The horrific mismanagement of Iraq--where the Wall Street Journal, no liberal mouthpiece, acknowledges, "Iraqi Arms Site Likely Was Looted," the failure to attack the ideology of al-Qaeda, the attacks on criticisms of his record as "aiding the terrorists," the ramming through Congress of a partisan agenda in a time of war--these are not the acts of a great president. They are failures of historic proportions.

Kerry hasn't had a chance to show his stuff, but it would be difficult to imagine Kerry dividing the country so radically or ignoring the advice of his military advisors so freely. I am not sure that Kerry would be a great leader; I am convinced that he would be a competent leader.

Steve Forbes meanwhile makes the case for Bush the "radical" and "revolutionary." He explains that Bush is moving America toward a flat tax while Kerry is trying to "pander to fashionable and apocalyptic fantasies, such as global warming or the ever-recurring notion that we are running out of oil." He uses a page out of Ann Coulter to describe all Democratic presidents as weaklings on foreign policy--Carter on Iran and Clinton in Somalia. He insinuates that Kerry was brain-washed at the "French-Swiss boarding school" he went to as a child. He says that Kerry would fail to protect America from terrorists because at heart he is a weak man who belives that foreign people "possess superior, more sophisticated wisdom."

Is this stupidity really able to be published in the Journal? This venom makes Michael Moore look reasonable, and that's not easy.


Post a Comment

<< Home