In The End, It's All About Hating Bush

March 31, 2004

It's almost comical to see Al Gore continue to insert himself into the political dialogue as if he's relevant. His endorsement of Howard Dean garnered the mad doctor a whopping 4 percent of the vote in Tennessee. Now Albatross Gore is heading up unity dinners in hopes of pulling together the party. I'm sure John Kerry is wishing he would just go away.

 

Kerry has trouble enough of his own. This massive smear campaign launched by the left, attempting to blame President Bush for 9/11, is backfiring big time. An online survey conducted by U.S. News & World Report shows that 60 percent of respondents believe either Bill Clinton or Richard Clarke or both were responsible. Only 29 percent fingered President Bush, despite the onslaught by the media.

 

You see, here's Kerry's problem in a nutshell. He offers no compelling reason to vote for him. Why did the Democrats choose him? Because they thought he was the least likely of all the candidates to have baggage. The others either lacked charisma or were nuts. Kerry seemed to possess enough polish and charm. He had a full head of hair. He had the same initials as JFK. He had everything they needed except substance but they don't need that anyway. The Democrats don't necessarily want Kerry in. They want Bush out.

 

It's all about hating Bush. It goes back to the contested 2000 election where they think they were robbed by the Supreme Court. Most of us understand that the Supreme Court merely told Florida that they couldn't keep counting and recounting until they got the desired result. Still, the folks running the Democratic Party can't get over it.

 

And it's not a matter of wanting to correct the injustice. If that were the case, they would have insisted Al Gore run again. No, they don't give a hoot about Spotted Al. They hate Bush. It's that simple. That's why we have this massive feeding frenzy around the 9/11 Commission. They smell blood. They think they can take Bush's biggest strength – his handling of the terrorists – and turn it against him. It ain't workin' and it ain't gonna work.

 

Here's why:

 

The facts are overwhelmingly at odds with their accusations. Richard Clarke has accused National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice of not being aware of who Osama bin Laden was. Now, audio tape of an interview made eleven months before 9/11 demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that she knew, not only who bin Laden was, but all about al Qaeda and the importance of stopping them before they hit on our soil. This was even before President Bush took office.

 

People are not as naïve as the Democrats are hoping. They understand that problems like this don't happen overnight. They know that the terrorists had been plotting for years. They know Clinton had multiple chances to do something about it but chose to treat it like a legal case rather than the threat to national security that it was and is. The people also understand that you can't possibly take the reigns of government and within a few short months know everything that's going on.

 

I'm amused by these people who think a president in office for 7 months is to blame but the guy who sat in the same chair for 8 years could not possibly be culpable. Could President Bush be partly responsible for not doing enough? It's possible. I suspect there's plenty of blame to go around. I don't believe there was any malice involved, not even in the Clinton administration. It was more a problem of incompetence. When you think of incompetence, which administration comes to mind?