|
Initial World View | Discussion Threads -- Read and/or Post | News Items | |
| Membership | What Is A Moral Group? | Direct Politics Thread | Politics News |
Karl: I find Peggy Newman one of the most interesting columnists in print. Here is an example of the good stuff she writes.
Near the end of this article Peggy invites readers to write a particular paragraph and send it to her. She will select one or more of those she likes and publish them. It's an exciting challenge.
My paragraph follows her article, HERE.
PEGGY NOONAN
The Paragraph
When you are a
conservative and tend to support conservatives, it will come as a surprise, and
an unwelcome one, when you ding one, as I
dinged
President Bush the other day about his "Meet the Press" performance. Of
those who responded, about 60% disagreed with me, and the rest were more or less
in agreement. Many of those who disagreed with me said they thought the
president had done well with Tim Russert, that the interview made clear his
decency and sincerity. Others said I was kicking the president when he's down
and that's the problem with conservative pundits, they can't be trusted. My
answer is the obvious one: It is the job of a writer to write the truth as he
sees it, and if it's an uncomfortable truth, then so be it.
But here's what was most interesting to me. The letters in disagreement were often passionate and insisted that Mr. Bush will be re-elected. They were so insistent that I realized: They're nervous out there, the Bush people. If they weren't so nervous, they wouldn't have cared about bad reviews. They wouldn't have been so insistent.
So today, in an attempt to harness and refocus the passion of Bush supporters, a contest. Let's go all Deanian and unleash the power of the internet.
It is February 2004. In nine months, the big election. The White House, even as I type, is in the process of preparing a huge and high-stakes campaign. They have a foe to fight, money with which to fight the foe, and loyal troops who will march.
When the president's men gather to come up with the themes and rhetorical approaches of 2004, there's a big question that more often goes unarticulated, and unnoticed. It is: How to make it new.
Mr. Bush has been president three years. He has presided over a time of dense history. Most of the voters in the country have been paying more attention than usual. We know what's happened.
The Bush people have to roll it all into, say, one speech, which can be distilled to one paragraph, which people will distill to a sentence or two to explain to themselves and others why they support the president for re-election.
Just about now they'd be coming up with the paragraph.
But as they do it they have to make it new. To make you look and notice they have to make it fresh, and succinct, something you believe and remember. And it's got to be true. When the paragraph a president's men come up with is not true, they lose. Jimmy Carter's paragraph in 1980 was: We're not so bad, and at least you know us, and Jimmy is a nice man, and by the way that Reagan guy is just too extreme and radical and right-wingy and nutty. People didn't find Ronald Reagan too extreme. And he wasn't too extreme. He seemed like a possible antidote to failure--Jimmy Carter's failure in the world. The paragraph wasn't true. Mr. Carter lost in a landslide.
Is it easy for a White House to come up with paragraph? No. It's hard. There's so much to say, you don't know what to say.
After a while, presidential staffers become so immersed in the sheer grinding dailyness of the White House that it's hard to step out of the thought stream and characterize it in a new way. Years from now they'll do that in their memoirs, capture the big meanings. But it's hard to do it now, when they're immersed.
Another thing. By the end of a first term, White House staffers have been exhausted by history. Every White House is high stress and high stakes 24/7, 365. You get so tired that your ability to judge your fatigue becomes dull, and you don't even know how tired you are. This White House has dealt with more history and drama than many. When I worked in the White House I used to imagine that when I left I'd do what the Broadway producer Leland Hayward used to do after an opening night. He was so sleep-deprived by the time a show was mounted that he'd go to bed and wake up only to drink milk. He'd sleep 10 hours, get up, drink milk, and go back to bed for another 10 hours. He'd do that for days.
In the past, in the White Houses of Kennedy and LBJ and Nixon, it was tense and grueling, and staffers in those days often dealt with the dailyness of the tension by doing the kinds of things people used to do. They smoked and drank and stayed up late and had intense discussions about the tragedy of governance, and then they'd write it all down in drunken sprawls in their diaries. They partied hearty and thought hard. That stopped in the 1980s. The last sort of rocking White House was that of the abstemious Baptist Mr. Carter, whose young aides flocked to the bars of Georgetown. That's how Hamilton Jordan got in trouble for spitting Amaretto at the Egyptian ambassador's wife. Those were the days.
Now things are so clean that the other night I bumped into an aide to the president and asked with concern if the grueling routine was getting to him, and was he trying to get away from the office enough and go for a hike and get time away from things, room to daydream. He thought for a moment and then told me that on those days that he did not begin with prayer, he became tired. But otherwise, no. He told me the president was in the office at 6:45 a.m. and usually leaves at 6 p.m., so everyone got to go home. I found this remarkable. Not that I hadn't heard it before, I had, we all have, but I thought it was spin. I didn't know it was really true. When I worked for Mr. Reagan I was there till 11 p.m. Anyway, what the aide said seemed so sane and moderate I didn't know whether I wanted to compliment him or smack him. He was rather priggish, but it sounded like he was doing everything right.
A final note on a challenge for this particular administration in putting together the re-election paragraph and making it new. Normally White Houses have a built-in fear of their own political base. It's the base that holds a president's feet to the fire. The anxiety a base causes can be inspirational; it keeps you on your toes. George Bush the elder forgot to fear his base; they reminded him why he should have. George Bush the younger has, since 9/11, been very close with his base. But now, for the first time, that base is a little restless--over immigration, high spending, etc. And the vast American middle has yet to be nailed down. Which means the Bush White House is in a challenging time. They are not used to this kind of challenge. They've been through, every day, a bad time from the world, from terror and diplomatic stress. But they have been on a pretty unbroken winning streak in terms of popularity.
They don't know how to be scared. They probably can't wrap their brains around the idea they should be. Or rather in the abstract they know they should be--they read the papers--but in the particular, in their minds and souls, I doubt they have fully wrapped their brains around it. Which is too bad, because fear makes you sharp.
Now for our challenge. What should the Bush paragraph consist of? How to make it new? How to make it memorable, and true? Readers, you are invited to wrap up in one paragraph what the Bush campaign should say as it unveils itself anew. The White House reads this site. They'll see it. Take the floor and tell them how to do it.
Responses now published are here.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Karl
Loren's Paragraph:
The President, in a major shift of emphasis, laid out his 2004 election-year theme, as follows:
Some mighty battles have been won, behind the scenes, and it is NOW time to shift the attack on terrorism to more accurately identified targets. Up until now I have felt it necessary to be "polite" to some bad guys. We are in position enough now to call a spade a spade!
There were eight years of attacks on the US by those who wanted to weaken the military, and our intelligence agencies. These were the people who would not confront evil, but wanted the so-called "international community" to use diplomacy with the enemy. These appeasers may still be useful, but the truth is that only a strong and united America can lead the way to peace for the planet. During those eight years our foreign enemies gathered their resources. After these eight years we had 9/11, and are awake. There are still people and groups who are hostile to world peace and who have not been named, both foreign and domestic. In the upcoming months I will be naming names and holding people and nations to account! This is a new phase of the battle against evil.
Karl's Paragraph was submitted at 11:30 AM, Wednesday, February 18, 2004. Below are the responses to Peggy Noonan which had been published by her by this time and date.
The Paragraph
BY PEGGY NOONAN
The
Country Is Better Off
John Thornton - Tampa, Fla.
In 1980 candidate Reagan asked, "Are you better of now than you were four years ago?" That is the wrong question. The correct question is, "Is your country better off now that it was four years ago?" In 2000, the dot-com bubble was bursting, the economy was slipping into recession, and we had a huge security gap that would take the lives of 3,000 citizens. Today, tax cuts and the Internet are helping a thriving economy, and our airlines and entry points to the country are far more secure. Our country is better off when citizens can keep more of the money they earn, take responsibility for their actions, and pursue happiness in a secure, safe and stable environment. Yes, our country is better off now than it was four years ago. The Bush administration has helped make it so.
Safety Is Our Most Important Commodity
Anne Lonergan - Sagamore Beach, Mass.
I think President Bush should start with 9/11. He unified this country with the most compelling speech I have ever heard. We lost over 3,000 people at the WTC, and I think many people have forgotten just why we are in this position. He very clearly stated that this war on terror would take a long, long time. Maybe in our lifetimes we would never see the end. He has taken charge of the country and kept us all safe. He knows what he must do to win this war, and cannot be deterred by all the Hollywoodites, and Democratic senators and nominees for president. He has taken a lot of hits, but first of all he inherited this CIA and FBI from William Clinton. I for one, do not believe we went into Iraq to get WMD's, but to protect our own lives from a savage, inhuman dictator who would not stop at anything to destroy us all. We are at war, the economy is getting better, and he is doing everything he can to make us safe. For me safety is our most important commodity right now.
Security
Catherine Alfieri - Pittsford, N.Y.
One theme that should be foremost is security--security from international and domestic terrorists (those being our own homegrown criminals that make it dicey for women and children to walk down a street or be in their yards without being attacked by a felon that was given a pass by the system). This would include job security for Americans, not those in or from other places. Even if the president cannot create jobs personally, he can use the bully pulpit to encourage business leaders to this end. He should reaffirm our values--that this is where true security lies. This theme can also carry over to health care and education where students are educated in secure, crime free places and in our health care systems where the patients well being is the first priority.
Smart Poker
Tom Kinsey - Fort Worth, Texas
Some of the best political speeches and interview sound bites I've heard
in the last 25 or more years came from President Bush and his writers. We also
know that President Bush is remarkably disciplined with his interview responses.
So, perhaps a more rational response to the Russert "performance" than Ms.
Noonan's is that since we know that President Bush and his staff can write,
maybe they put out exactly what they intended to say on Russert, understanding
exactly what the response would be. Using a poker analogy, if you know you have
a winning hand and you have any skill at the game, the last thing you want to do
is show it off early in the betting cycle.
Bush Won't Let Us Down
Cecilia Grisham - Red Oak, Texas
As I sit here tonight, I think of my children and my homeland. I want my country safe. I want my children safe. With President Bush I have that comfort. I don't worry about him not keeping the interest of this country first. He understands his job. He knows his duty. As I teach my children integrity, he uses integrity. I have a country being defended by my son and a president I trust with his life come what may. That is enough for now until the world is safer for all mankind. Now is not the time to abandon the president, but to stand by him and remember 9/11. I want the country to stand up and tell the world, "when you insult our president, you insult all of us." And that, I will not forget! God Bless you, Mr. President.
Bush Needs Defenders
Marjorie Lindee - Los Altos, Calif.
Thanks for your suggestions as I too was most disappointed with you last week. For many months now the Democrats, joined eagerly by lefties and the media, have made a career of bashing the President. And who has been coming to his defense? No one. When Bill Clinton was going through the impeachment process, there were loyal Democrats on TV every night in ardent defense. Your article was like kicking him when he was down. We shouldn't have our papers and airwaves filled with a war that ended 30 years ago when our president is courageously and with great leadership commander-in-chief of a far more dangerous war.
Taking Threats Seriously
Charles Lipsig - Gainesville, Fla.
My paragraph for the Bush administration--and why I'll be voting for
President Bush in November:
The Bush administration takes threats to the nation seriously. We may not be
liked by the world for it, we may not always do the right thing--at least at
first--but we're going to see to it that the nation is protected. The Democratic
nominee does not take these threats seriously and is willing to leave the nation
vulnerable for political gain and to be friends with the world.
Still Running Down the Bad Men
Steven Attenweiler - London
Four years ago I said the Clinton administration had chosen not to lead and that we would. We have. Our record of accomplishments speaks for itself. But we are not finished yet. The world is still an uncertain and dangerous place. But we are making progress. The world's tyrants and rogues are on the run and rethinking their failed policies. We need the American people to show that their will is strong to continue the fight.
We Love You Bush
D. Monta - Monroeville, Pa.
Christoher Hitchins, of all people, said it well: "the single issue in case you are wondering is the tenacious and unapologetic defense of civilised society against the intensifying menace of clerical barbarism." Key words are unapologetic and tenacious. No apologies. No looking weak. And tell President Bush we just love him.
Kerry Isn't Up to the Task
Jay Cost - Chicago
This election represents America's acceptance of her next great calling: the defeat of Islamo-fascism. No longer can we remain, as we have for a decade, sated and self-satisfied in our defeat of Marxism-Leninism. Destiny again calls us to make the world better, and she again asks much of us. We must be confident of the goodness of our purpose, rather than pensive and self-doubting. We must be vigorous and bold in all we do, rather than decadent and timid. We must be uncompromising in our dealings with the evil and the indifferent, rather than conciliating for the sake of comity, which is once again a luxury we can no longer afford. Above all, we must be willing to sacrifice much of ourselves for the sake of the world. George W. Bush is the only candidate in this election who embodies these qualities. He is the only candidate who can lead us in the fulfillment of this sacred duty. John F. Kerry is an eminently decent and honorable man, but he is simply not up to the burden that this nation must now bear. American must re-elect the president.
Join the Fight
Pierre Legrand - Baton Rouge, La.
We stand on a precipice together because we truly are together in this the third world war. As president I have no special dispensation that says my family and I won't suffer defeat and humiliation should we lose this battle with those who would see us destroyed. Some may consul that we should shrink from the battle in hopes that it may pass us by but this is not our destiny. Those who dream of flying planes into buildings do not seek to destroy a particular person, or a even a particular place, they seek to destroy an idea. The idea that a group of people from disparate backgrounds and disparate religions can after a fashion find a way to live peacefully together is an anathema to everything the barbarians stand for. And we that beautiful city on the hill represent the most pure vision of that idea. We also stand as its stoutest defender. The barbarians must defeat us to pass into their nightmare vision of a world driven by their madness. They know that even if we do not choose to fight they must defeat us because to leave us standing on their flanks will mean that we may one day threaten them. We cannot leave this battle to our children; we morally cannot leave this battle to our children. It is our battle. If not us then who, if not now then when?
Why Try Something New? We're Winning Now.
Ron Norman - San Francisco
You don't change the leadership in a war when you're winning. You don't go from strength to weakness. The Democrats of this day and age are not Harry S. Truman's. Rather than take the fight to the enemies of our nation using proven leadership they want to give our sovereignty to a failed organization like the United Nations; to ask permission from the U.N. to protect ourselves when we are attacked and our citizens murdered. They are so wishy washy they can't remember how they voted or why from one day to another and they want to not fund our troops in the field. The president has put together a winning combination, what do the Democrats really offer, trying something new in time of war when you're winning? That would be like Lincoln getting rid of Grant or Roosevelt firing Eisenhower; some of their ideas really seem suicidal.
The Right Man for America
David Moore - Jacksonville, N.C.
With compassion, action and proven leadership, he has restored character to the presidency. Guided by his faith in the tough times, he has made the tough decisions to keep America safe and secure. He has kept his promises and most of all, he cares. George W. Bush is right for America in 2004.
Governing Is the Best Campaign Strategy
Bill Breuer - Garden City, N.Y.
Ms. Noonan should take a deep breath and go on vacation until August. She
should recognize that Dubya and his people are going about the nation's
business. The more that they postpone directly engaging in the presidential
campaign, the more frustrated Terry McAuliffe and his dwarfs will become and the
greater the likelihood that the Democrats will further prove themselves not
ready for prime time.
We still have March Madness, the opening of the baseball season, hunting season
in Afghanistan and Iraq, the current congressional session, the Massachusetts
legislative session, the last episodes of "Friends" and "Frasier," the Democrat
convention in Boston and the Olympics before Dubya is even nominated in New York
in August.
So, get back to us in August. Maybe we'll do lunch.
Who Would Osama Prefer?
Charles Tapio - Eugene, Ore.
What the Bush campaign needs to emphasize: Who would terrorists prefer to win the 2004 presidential election: George Bush or John Kerry? Case closed.
A Struggle as Old as Civilization Itself
Alice Felt - Walla Walla, Wash.
How to make the president's message new and fresh? Sorry but I can't offer
much help in that regards because for me the message is a very old one, ancient
in fact, going back to the beginning of human history, back to Adam and Eve and
the ongoing struggle between good and evil, freedom versus slavery and
civilization versus chaos.
In recent history Winston Churchill spoke of "victory at all costs, victory in
spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without
victory there is no survival." One can imagine how the world would now appear
had Churchill and others in their day not stood strong and resolute against a
gathering threat. President Bush represents that ongoing struggle while many of
his opponents represent surrender, the Neville Chamberlains of this world. But
while the president's message is rooted in history, many of his opponents are
stuck in the past, advocating failed policies that have diminished U.S. strength
and would further erode that strength while giving in to international interests
that are at odds with our own.
It hasn't worked, perhaps deserving some blame for the current situation. The
choice is clear. Either vote for survival or vote for surrender, and surrender
in more ways than one. Surrendering to increased governmental control would,
like balancing a scale, naturally result in decreased individual rights,
freedoms and liberty and if left unchecked could eventually snuff out human
initiative and our ability to progress, perhaps even snuff out civilization
itself, again, an age old struggle.
So sorry, nothing new here. Just the same old story. I'm glad though that our
president is on the right side of history, on the side of good, freedom and
civilization and like Churchill is not afraid to make that stand.
The Dangers of Teetotalism
Harold Finton - Charlotte, N.C.
So they, the White house staffers, are priggish are they? My daddy warned me against the dangers of teetotalism, which cannot be overemphasized, and I took the advice to heart. Maybe all they need is a little shine. They should not emulate all the peculiar traits of the boss.
Our Work Is Not Yet Finished
C. Dale German - Orange, Calif.
Those who want to kill us are either dead, in jail, or on the run. The
economy has rebounded. Integrity to the White House is restored. But, our work
is not done. Never forgetting 9/11 in our second term we will continue our
resolve to win the war on terrorism, and decrease the war deficit.
We Have to Win
James Armstrong - Beaver Dam, Wis.
Everything's changed. We are at war. We didn't start this fight but we have to finish it, and the only way out is to win. All of those other petty issues we used to bicker about don't matter anymore. Choosing a president this time isn't about picking the more charismatic candidate, it's about keeping our children safe. God gave us President Bush, and he's shown that he can see us through this. We are war, nothing else matters until it's over.
We Will Not Falter
Alexandra Woods - Santa Fe, N.M.
This administration has embodied the spirit of America, welcoming those who want to build a better life for themselves, boldly confronting evil where it exists, and offering a helping hand to those in need, encouraging them to participate in strengthening our great country. Our nation is stronger today than it was four years ago and we invite everyone of all nations, colors, and creeds to join with us and continue the fight for freedom and fairness everywhere on earth. As we look forward to the next four years, we continue our commitment to unite the spirit of humanity under the common umbrella of life, liberty and happiness. In pursuing these basic freedoms, we say to the people of the United States and the people of the world: We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.
My Paragraph
Thomas Page - Redlands, Calif.
With your support and prayers for the job you elected me to do four years ago, I am humbled and honored to have served you. We have shared sorrow and triumph while changing the world for the better. Coalition forces under my leadership have liberated over 30 million people from tyranny. The world is still a dangerous place, but it is safer because we reacted to preserve our union and our way of life. We have the enemy on the run and we need to finish the job we started right after 9/11/2001 for future generations. This election is about leadership and the man who leads with strength not consensus.
A Strong Man With Compassion
Jane Johnson - Anchorage, Alaska
Thank you for your well written article regarding the need for a fresh approach that appeals to President Bush's base. It reminded me of a poignant scene I witnessed at the White House several years ago. A group of visitors to the Oval Office included a severely disabled former policemen paralyzed in the line of duty. President Bush greeted him, touched his hand and then leaned over and kissed the man on the forehead. That one small moment demonstrated what President Bush represents; a man of great compassion who honors and appreciates our citizens in uniform protecting Americans, both here and around the world.
Don't Have the Luxury to Coast
Michael Justice - Bellevue, Wash.
President Bush has led this nation during a time when serious decisions have been necessary. The United States doesn't have the luxury of coasting blithely along as we did during the 1990s. He has proven willing to make hard choices and to live with the consequences. Leadership like this will be necessary for many years to come, long after just a second term--but in the current election cycle, George W. Bush is the only candidate who has a history of providing it.
Bush, for Reasons of National Security
Manju Subbiah - Aliso Viejo, Calif.
I really appreciate your columns generally. But you really did a number on our President Bush. I could have written to you but I didn't because it's no use. You have been trolling for loud mouth Chris Matthews for a while now. Anyway, to get to your point. I will sum up my "paragraph" in one sentence. The only man in this country who can and will take care of this country's national security is George W. Bush. Nuf said!
A Lot Riding on November's Election
Albert L. Simpson - Destin, Fla.
Although President Bush has deviated from a strict Republican conservative stance with his excessive spending and now his proposed immigration policy, he should be re-elected when you consider the alternative. Anyone of the Democratic contenders, and I would include Hillary Clinton in that group, would bring certain disaster to our nation. Just as a second term for Jimmy Carter would have brought on an economic collapse due to hyper inflation, the election of anyone from this group would bring on excessive taxation, a socialist government and most likely a devastating attack on one or more of our large cities. The effect of this attack would most likely create the atmosphere for martial rule and the end of our republican democracy.
A Fighter
Manny Wong - Phoenix, Ariz.
George W. Bush is a president for all Americans doing what is best for us and the country. There is security and safety in America again. The economy is on the rise and jobs are being created to solve the unemployment challenges but most of all the tax cut is elevating our quality of life and new businesses are flourishing. He will make America stronger, richer and more powerful and greater again. Let's roll!
I Must Come From Bush
Jack Brodbeck - Otto, N.C.
Ms. Noonan, I would hope the White house is listening to you and the
readers.
If they are, they need to remain in close touch (not media touch) with their
base. Closer than they have ever been. Their core norms need to return to the
"steady moral ground" it is from these norms that the "paragraph" should
emanate. The words need to flow from the desk of the President into a
well-formed foundation of belief in American goodness and strength. The words
need to reassure the base that he hasn't deserted them--hasn't forgotten their
concerns. The nation needs assurance that American power is being used globally
to support and foster those "steady moral ground" virtues necessary to grow
democracies and defend liberties and freedoms. Freedoms we so casually accept
here on this hallowed ground. A precious gift that is the most wonderful place
on earth. Any negative thoughts must be dealt with as distractions from the
primary message. The fully positive needs accentuating and the words must flow
easily from the president's own lips.
True Leadership
Matt Bradley - Santa Rosa, Calif.
Leadership. No one can deny the trauma this country has undergone over the last three years. In such a case, leaders are not optional, they are required. Leaders do not use hindsight to condemn their political opponents, they use foresight to eliminate their nation's enemies. Leaders do not endlessly whine about the economy, they do what they believe will bring about prosperity. Leaders have conviction, not criminal convictions. The United States needs a leader who believes in the fundamental greatness of this union, not someone who would abdicate our rights to the United Nations. George Bush (and I) believe that the United States' greatest days lie ahead!
Hey Kerry, What Turned You Around on Vietnam
Merv Benson - Washington, Texas
In three years the Bush administration has won two wars, recovered from a
recession to lead the fastest growing economy in the world. Why would anyone
want to trade that record for someone who thought the communist takeover of
Southeast Asia was not a bad thing? Why would you want to turn the security of
the country to someone who would make the gift of time to those who are plotting
to kill our people? What percentage of income taxes should be paid by the top
two percent? etc.
I also have a question for Sen. Kerry. I served in Vietnam too. Just when did
you discover that you were proud of your service in that war? You have done a
pretty good imitation of someone who was ashamed of your service, what changed
your mind? I recall, as a veteran of that war, that you slandered your fellow
"band of brothers" with feigned tales of atrocities. Have you ever apologized to
your "band of brothers" for this? Will you do so now?
Divide the Government
Dennis P. Crawford - Lincoln, Neb.
The Republicans are not worthy of being re-elected. They had our chance and now they blew it. The country would be better off with divided government similar to that between 1995-2001. Since 2001, the GOP has basically controlled the entire federal establishment. On our watch, we have managed to embark on the greatest spending spree since LBJ and as a result, we have racked up record budget deficits, with no end in sight. Our most ambitious foreign adventure, the invasion of Iraq, has turned out to be a fiasco. Republicans promised the American people they would find a vast arsenal of WMD and would be greeted as liberators. Unfortunately, the predictions couldn't have turned out to be more wrong. No WMD have been found and hardly a day goes by where an American isn't killed. As a result of the continuing resistance in Iraq, two-thirds of our army is tied down in Iraq, and we are in no position to deter or win a war in another part of the globe, such as Korea. The Founding Fathers set up the separation of powers for a reason--no one political party can be trusted with all of the levers of power. America would be better off with a Democratic president to go along with the GOP Congress.
I'm Voting for the Fighter
Robert Baxter - Cherry Hill, N.J.
George Bush deserves to be re-elected because he loves America and has
defended our people and our interests at home and abroad. After Sept. 11,
President Bush took the offensive. He defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan and
disrupted al Qaeda not in the U.S. but on their home turf. And then he invaded
Iraq, deposed Saddam Hussein and is bringing democracy to an oppressed country.
Our president has a grand plan for the world--defeat terrorism, promote
democracy and fight, fight, fight for the ideals this country stands for.
George Bush deserves re-election because he has a vision for our country. He is
creating a new world order that will guarantee the triumph of democracy in a
troubled world. At home, he has confronted problems that are as big as 9/11--a
recession worsened by terrorism, the collapse of the stock market and corporate
greed and he has worked to improve the economy and provide hope for many
Americans.
The Democrats have offered nothing but criticism and cynical, baseless personal
attacks on our president. George Bush, in contrast, took charge and stood up to
terrorism and also took decisive action to solve our economic problems. I vote
with pride for a second term for a humble, able man who has a vision for our
country.
What Would Kerry Do?
David Finkelstein - Salinas, Calif.
Once again you have hit a home run. What a wonderful idea. It's time the
people spoke again and told the rest of the world that President Bush is our
choice and we want the kind of security we lost on 9/11.
Sept. 11 defined the times, defined the world and defined the presidency.
President Bush has lived up to the times and responded to the threat we faced.
And the question should be, how would you have done this differently? What would
John Kerry do? Remember the bullhorn speech. President Bush inspires.
Worth a Pay Cut
John Piescik - Reston, Va.
Dennis Miller has already said it well: roughly "I'd like to keep half of what I earn and kill the bad guys before they kill us. If that makes me a right wing radical, so be it!" Messrs. Bush and Rove shouldn't apologize for being right!
Man for Our Times
Chester Cotton - Caddo Mills, Texas
Reelect George W. Bush, a tough man for tough times.
Source
| Home Page | Table Of Contents | Discussion Threads | Membership | Copyright Notice |