Political Shills For Truth

In the ongoing battle of which candidate best served their country back in the day, a pro-Kerry organization has stolen a page from the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth and are running ads questioning Bush's National Guard service. Texans For Truth are rehashing the 2000 "Where was George?" attempt to discredit W. Is this a valid attempt to discredit Bush? Does it help Kerry? Is it relevant?

George Bush has been the President since January 2001. As he was taking the oath for office, the stock market was deflating from the monster tech bubble of the 90's and a recession was getting underway. Terrorists were planning and plotting the 9/11 attack on New York. So, how has George done?

He cut taxes twice, putting more money in consumers' pockets as he promised during the 2000 campaign. He did say that we all know how to spend money better than the government. Turns out, he was able to right the ship and get the economy growing again. We should rightfully give an assist to Alan Greenspan for keeping interest rates low, and creating a booming housing market and letting folks refinance to improve their monthly cash flow situations.

After 9/11, he promised that those who attacked the Twin Towers would hear from us soon, and they sure did. He led the US into defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan. He led the US into Iraq, with maybe some faulty intelligence but worthy objectives in the war on terror.

Where was George in 1972? I don't know either; but, I know where he was in 2001 through 2004. He's been right here with us, leading America during some troubled times.

John Kerry is an unknown to most Americans, and he is running his campaign not on his Senate record, but on his heroic record in the Vietnam War. Kerry's record as a soldier and his war protesting that followed, have rightfully been examined by Americans trying to figure out who this John Kerry fellow is. All people can seem to agree on, is that his Vietnam era is controversial. But it doesn't stop there, as folks are also quite perplexed as to where he stands on many of today's issues.

Kerry's past is much more of an issue than that of George Bush's. We've acknowledged the bad choices of Bush's youth, and still elected him in 2000. Rehashing it serves no purpose, as we have a first term to help us decide whether or not to punch the chad for Bush in 2004. We're all still just getting to know John Kerry and trying to determine what kind of leader he would be.