Bush 1972 vs. Bush 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.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2004
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Bithead says:

    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.

  2. Kevin says:

    I’d rather party with the 1972 Bush. One suspects he was a ‘free spirit’.

  3. Kate says:

    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.

  4. Chris says:

    But by the same logic, Kerry 1970 is not the same as Kerry 2004. We all grow and change, right?

  5. James Joyner says:

    Chris: Absolutely. Although he’s trying very hard to run as Lieutenant Kerry, War Hero rather than on his senatoril record.