Tuesday, November 09, 2004
How the...
Siva Vaidhyanathan, contributing over at Altercation, makes a great point:
The Daily Mirror agrees.
|
Looking back over the past six months, one thing continues to amaze me: Bush ran as if he were the challenger and Kerry were the incumbent. It was Kerry's Vietnam record that got twisted so tight that my doctor could not tell what was true and what was not. It was Kerry's "liberal" Senate record that became questionable, troublesome. It was Kerry's statements about the war that generated angst on the talk shows, not Bush's (even though he clearly said he could not win the War on Terror, the statement quickly lost its currency as attacks on Kerry mounted). No one seemed too interested in the fact that Bush had a horrible record in every area of policy. No one seemed to care that Bush failed to live up to the promises that got him appointed in the first place. Bush's acceptance speech at the convention did not seem to acknowledge that he had in fact been president for four years and had not really moved on major (i.e. "compassionate") elements of his agenda in all that time. Kerry tried but failed to turn the focus around to Bush's record. Bush's failures were old news. So they were no news.
The Daily Mirror agrees.
