Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Garfield Ridge: As Smart As An Ex-United States Senator.
That would be former uber-Senator, actor extraordinaire, and burning hunk of sweet Republican man-love, Fred Dalton Thompson.
"Democrats don't take a dump without a plan."
Ex-Senator Thompson's words when speaking today to Charlie Gibson on ABC's Good Morning America (Hat tip: NRO's Corner):
GIBSON: What -- How come these questions about Kerry's service coming from the Swiftboat Vets hurt him, but you think this won't hurt George Bush?On September 4th, Garfield Ridge offered these criticisms of Kerry's strategy of running on his Vietnam record-- and against his opponent's (emphasis added):
SEN.THOMPSON: Well, George Bush has been the leader of this country for four years -- the leader of the free world for four years. The real issue here that I think the Kerry campaign is not really coming to terms with is that -- Kerry's leadership. We know what Bush's leadership has been. he inherited a tough economy, he inherited a C.I.A.. that -- that was in bad shape, then 9/11 happened. You can argue over whether or not he always did the right thing or about his judge. But you know what it is as a proven record. Kerry is being newly introduced to the country. People are wondering what he would do -- when he asked what he would do after he criticizes Bush on North Vietnam or Iraq, he says, that's a hypothetical, I can't answer that until i'm President. And while his
mignons [sic] are off, you know, once again, dredging up news stories about
something that happened 30 years ago with regard to President Bush's national security service, that might make some sense. But people are not going to be affected one way or the other about that.
Oh, and I've taken my digs at Kerry's hypothetical hypotheticals, too.
However, in this instance, the Guardian's charges are completely irrelevant, just like Kerry's midnight attack on Dick Cheney's draft record. President Bush and Vice President Cheney are *in* the White House, now, today. Contrary to the moonbat Left's hallucinations, Bush and Cheney actually were elected in 2000. Thus, voters not only have a record of accomplishment-- and failure-- to judge, voters have available for judgment the most relevant record possible.
If you want to ask the question "How will George W. Bush behave as President?" you don't have to go digging up stories from thirty years ago. You've got four years of game film to watch in the training room...
Now, Kerry's record doesn't offer this inherent advantage. He's never been President. So, the standard necessarily has to be a bit different here, and the American people-- who for the most part do no go about in their daily lives obsessed with the voting records of junior senators from Massachusetts-- need to
gather as much data as possible about the candidate in order to come to a proper
judgment. Kerry's character counts for more in this election than Bush's-- just as a judgment of Bush's character mattered more against the known quantity of Al Gore's in 2000. But even then, Kerry's character is not the only input into the calculus, nor necessarily the most useful.
Garfield Ridge: We would have also been right about that phantom Russian submarine.