No Bush Bashing—Why?


Just watched Dem convention chairman Bill Richardson lie through his teeth to Fox News. At least I think so, or else Richardson is a crypto-'publican, gone deep undercover to re-elect George Bush.

Richardson cannot be serious that Democrats intend to build up John Kerry and not tear down Bush. They cannot possibly plan to spend entire days talking about John Kerry's war record. Kerry has already spent $150 million talking about his war record. I'm pretty sure zygotes and salamanders know about the "swift boat" and the Purple Hearts by now, although there is some confusion about the Bronze and Silver Stars among protozoa.

The Kerry brain-trust cannot truly think their task is to convince "swing voters" that Kerry can be commander-in-chief. He has been in the frickin' Senate for decades. What do these "swing voters" need, a recommendation letter from Yankee Doodle, co-signed by Jesus Christ?

Besides, there are precious few swing votes out there; fully 80 percent of electorate says they've made up their minds. Where are all the voters who are going to watch a Kerry love-fest and say, "Oh, he is nice. I'll vote for him!"

The Democrats just cannot expect, as Richardson claimed, a mild Kerry bump coming out of the convention, not with the GOP on deck with a NYC panegyric for 9/11 culminating in the A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for Terror extravaganza. And then Bush can cut loose with his TV ads from Labor Day to election eve. Insert epic Kerry flop comparison here.

No, I gotta believe the Democrats are going to be selective and precise in their anti-Bush rhetoric, but still vicious. More like an ice pick than an axe handle. The Dem goal is to leave the Bush campaign wounded and in a ditch, all denials be damned.

NEXT: "Hey, terrorist! Terrorize this!"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah. When a DNC figure tells you what they’re going to do, it should be read as a description of the impression they hope to create.

    Sort of like, “We’re not going to call Bill Clinton a dirty, corrupt pervert. We’re just going to talk about restoring honor and dignity to the White House.”

  2. Joe,

    Why don’t we just be honest, there is one super star in the Democratic Party, Micheal Moore. Love him or hate him he made $100 million and nearly every major Democratic figure from the DNC chairman on down has talked about how true and what a great movie F9-11 is. He ought to have a prime time speaking slot. Why should he be in the closet when he speaks to the rank and file so well and the majority of the base seems to believe everything he says? He ought to be speaking in prime time and his claims, which have been praised and endorsed by the Democratic establishment ought to be put forth completely and unvarnished. Perhaps the Democrats could have Haliburton night, or dead soldier night, or show clips of the film explaining how Bush invaded Afghanistan to please the House of Saud and to build a unical pipeline. That is the fat face of the Democratic Party in 2004. The country deserves to see it.

  3. Well John, I guess the DNC just doesn’t have the honesty and guts of the GOP, the party of Frist and Cheney, whose convention speakers feature pro-choice/pro-gay Ahnuld, Michael Bloomberg, and Rudolph Guiliani.

  4. “No Bush Bashing – Why?”

    As pointed out in a number of other threads today, there isn’t lot of difference between Bush and the Democrats’ candidate. Before the Democrats can bash Bush, they have to make sure that their own candidate isn’t living in a glass house.

  5. They are coming to the obvious conclusion that Kerry’s “not being Bush” isn’t going to carry them through the election. They will have to focus on Kerry in order to make him seem like a real alternative. So far most of America doesn’t really know that much about the man other than the critical things he’s said about Bush. Being known by a negetive is a sure loser.

  6. Me too presidential candidates almost always lose. Once again, why vote for the imitation when you can vote for the real thing?

  7. the dems know they’ve got the media (including this outlet nowadays, stunningly) to wield the ice pick, so now they’re just ‘introducing his bio’ into the unbiased echo chamber

    even the few libertarians remaining here should wake up and realize that, even better than the divided (and thus paralyzed) government they seem to crave from a kerry victory, a bush mandate might actually empower him to reform social security, taxes, welfare & energy, as well as fighting terror

  8. Joe,

    I agree. Why not everyone be honest. Let Tom Delay and whatever other arch conservative speak at the Republican National Convention and let the voters decide. My guess is that Micheal “the Iraqi insurgents are modern day minute men” will be a hell of a lot more embarassing and disgusting.

  9. “… there isn’t lot of difference between Bush and the Democrats’ candidate…”

    Sure there is. The Democrat guy is the one I’m not going to vote for.

  10. The causes of the “no Bush bashing” policy is obvious: the Dems need to show the voters who may have been paying limited attention to the campaigns so far, who Kerry is, and when the Dems indulge their far left’s rhetorical passions, their party tends to look to those voters as insane and unfit to govern (see Wellstone Memorial).

  11. “Why not everyone be honest. Let Tom Delay and whatever other arch conservative speak at the Republican National Convention and let the voters decide. My guess is that Micheal “the Iraqi insurgents are modern day minute men” will be a hell of a lot more embarassing and disgusting.”

    Uh, John? Tom Delay has repeatedly been elected to Congress as a Republican, and was further repeatedly elected by his fellow Republicans to leadership positions in the House. Michael Moore is a guy with a camera who didn’t even support the Democratic nominee last time.

    Tell you what: Delay introduces Shrub, and Nancy Pelosi introduces Kerry. Deal?

  12. Micheal Moore is more than a guy with a camera. If that were true, Leni Rehfenstahl was just a babe with nice legs hanging out with Hitler. He is the zeitgeist of the Democratic Party. A majority of party activist think he is a genius and believe his crackpot theories. They ought to be honest about it, or if that is not true, come out say what a crank he is and run him out of polite society, but don’t pump him as a genius and then claim, “oh he is just a guy with a camera.” Yeah right.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.