Monday, August 23, 2004
And on the day "studiously avoiding the question" was redefined, we stood in quiet awe
Kerry, McCain, and others have asked Bush to condemn the anti-Kerry "swift boat" ads. (An interesting strategy, asking your opponent to define the limits of his views in this way; sometimes the condemnation is cheap talk, but not this time.) But Bush avoids the question in stunning fashion, even for him. Rather than say what he thinks of the content of the ads, he says no third party political ads should run at all. Quite a non-sequitur, because Bush-backing Republicans are behind the ads in question, and because "third party" smears are the calling card of the Bush dynasty, as Dukakis and McCain learned well.
But the ironies keep coming. Bush wants to change the subject to 527 organizations, and he thinks McCain-Feingold was supposed to stop them (Que?). Of course, Bush didn't support McCain-Feingold until after he opposed it. For a man who calls his opponent a "flip-flopper", Bush has taken credit for a number of things he fought but failed to stop (remember the Texas Patients' Bill of Rights? And federal airline screeners?).
The biggest irony? The man who wants to save "our freedom" also wants to restrict the airwaves to speech by the candidates only. Campaign finance is a difficult area to design effective policies, so I won't venture whether this is right or wrong: just that Bush's instincts when facing opposition seem always to run towards restricting his opponents' liberties.
But the ironies keep coming. Bush wants to change the subject to 527 organizations, and he thinks McCain-Feingold was supposed to stop them (Que?). Of course, Bush didn't support McCain-Feingold until after he opposed it. For a man who calls his opponent a "flip-flopper", Bush has taken credit for a number of things he fought but failed to stop (remember the Texas Patients' Bill of Rights? And federal airline screeners?).
The biggest irony? The man who wants to save "our freedom" also wants to restrict the airwaves to speech by the candidates only. Campaign finance is a difficult area to design effective policies, so I won't venture whether this is right or wrong: just that Bush's instincts when facing opposition seem always to run towards restricting his opponents' liberties.
