DB,
I think this assault (getting into the mud over Vietnam) is potentially very dangerous to the country (as I view an election of Kerry to be, if not outright dangerous, then "anti-beneficial" to this place), inasmuch as it lowers the dialogue to the mud. What the Republicans (isn't there anybody left in the party who knows how to run a campaign?) need to do is show a very centrist and somewhat conservative America what it might be like to have, as President, one of the most liberal legislators we have.
Of course, that could be ameliorated, as a senator from Massachusetts, representing his constituency, might be defacto a lot more liberal than the same guy as president. Clinton wasn't really all that liberal in terms of the results he got (economy, fiscal policy), whereas he was very liberal in terms of the results he didn't get (social policy, universal health). Where Clinton was most dangerous and did the most damage, imo, was the way he wrecked the military in numbers, equipment and morale, and completely let us down in terms of national security and intelligence work.
In those two areas (and we see it in 9/11, the intelligence mess, the lack of discipline in a lot of non front line soldiers--Abu Greib, from the national guards from Maryland right up to that "commanding" 3 star general in charge of the prisons) we have really been hurt and it's going to take all of 2 terms to restore what we need. In this last regard, a Kerry presidency, with its contempt for the military and its "Democrat" approach to intelligence (think Frank Church, Jimmy Carter, Slick Willie) could be incredibly dangerous. Physically, to our citizens at home and overseas.
The real question of this election should be: are we going to be tough enough to be Americans about this new enemy (think WWII) or are we just going to be Spaniards about this whole mess?
Kb |
