Bush 1972 vs. Bush 2004
 |
James Joyner | Tuesday, February 10, 2004 |
Stephen Bainbridge has perhaps the best take on the “Was Bush AWOL?” issue yet:
The question is not whether I want the George Bush of 1972-ish as President; the question is whether I want the George Bush of 2004 as President.
Yep.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
Either way, Bush wins.
When I look at an incredibly rodent-looking Kerry, gazing raptly at Hanoi Jane Fonda, at a 1972 war protest, my choice is already made.
I'd rather party with the 1972 Bush. One suspects he was a 'free spirit'.
If this were really the "character" issue the "Bush was Awol" pack claim it is, why aren't we debating the month long bender Bush went in October 2001?
Oh, that's right. That weak cowardly liar didn't dive back into the comfort of a bottle when all hell broke loose around him.
I forgot that part.
But by the same logic, Kerry 1970 is not the same as Kerry 2004. We all grow and change, right?
Chris: Absolutely. Although he's trying very hard to run as Lieutenant Kerry, War Hero rather than on his senatoril record.
---
Comments are Closed
