Serious Question Bush Supporters

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Serious Question Bush Supporters
30
Wed, 09-01-2004 - 4:58pm
Hello all you Bushonites:

One thing that seems to be abundantly clear to everyone, is without exception, all those who are planning to vote for Bush in the upcoming election believe without a doubt that he is the best man to lead us in this time of war, he is the one man that can keep us safe, and the borders of our country secure.

Now, living here in New York, I probably am keeping tabs on this Republican Convention more so than others and catching things as they unfold. This is George Bush's convention, his PEOPLE planned it, orchestrated, planned out and implemented security for the event. George Bush the man who has a plan to win the war on terror, the man who you all believe will keep us safe is the one who will in fact take all the credit (rightfully so) for this convention if all things go well.

So, here is my question...Bush is the man who will keep us safe, and protect our borders. If as you believe, this is so true, then can you explain to me how it is that he and his people cannot even properly secure and keep safe the Republican Convention Hall here in NYC? First a protestor successfully went through the Secret Service screenings, got approved to be a greeter, then worked his way through various check points approved by Bush and his staff, walked right past various Secret Service Agents and got within TEN FEET of Vice President Cheney to deliver personally and upclose his message of protest. Now today, not one, but a small army of protestors again managed to walk right through the security net approved by Bush, made their way through a host of Secret Service and other Security Personel, managed to get not just onto the floor of the Republican Convention, but clear up to the front of said Convention where they successfully managed to hold their protest up front and center stage as they successfully managed to interupt and halt President Bush's Whitehouse Chief of Staff in the middle of his speech!

Now seriously, is this the kind of situation one would expect from the man that you all seem so readily willing to entrust the safety of our nation to?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Thu, 09-02-2004 - 12:19am
Welcome to the board gatorboo2!

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Thu, 09-02-2004 - 2:27am
I do see the point your trying to make. I saw a video clip on Fox news site that said some of them had dangerous stuff (I forgot what now) inside polls that were holding up their signs and stuff. How does one get into a convention? Are you invited and on a list of people to get in or what? Sorry, I'm new to politics and don't know all that. :\ XOXO.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Thu, 09-02-2004 - 3:29am
This is absolutely amazing. And I heard about it here because I just can't seem to stand to watch and listen to the rabid Reps extolling the virtues of their guy, let alone see the signs that say "W" is for Woman. Give me a serious break. BUT brilliant. Kerry needs a serious serious change in direction to win this election. He needs a new campaign manager who can get tough and speak what needs to be said. The nicey nice stuff is not going to carry them through, not when the other side is inflicting some serious wounds with their attacks and portraying a moderate all inclusve image to the "swing voters" who make their decisions on who to vote for through media events and TV. Time is short. I hope they can get it together in time. This is such an important election.

Donna

Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 09-02-2004 - 6:15am
Not particularly a Bush fan, but your question does far more to illustrate the great lengths you'll go to to disparage Bush & Co. than to raise legitimate questions about his or their abilities where security is concerned.

That he (or rather, they, the officials organizing the convention) made security arrangements for it does not in any way mean that there won't be individual failures in the security details around the convention. Nor does it not mean that various individuals opposing Bush won't go to great lengths themselves to protest him and his policies... if that means lying or engaging in otherwise overtly deceptive tactics to get in, that's just *their* lack of honesty and integrity showing.

If Bush was *personally* conducting security sweeps and background checks, you might have a point. But he isn't, and you don't, not if your point is to blame him personally for the failures of others, specifically the security officers and officials detailed to prevent incidents like the ones you noted.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 09-02-2004 - 6:25am
Kerry has possibly (but not definately) sunk his own boat with his contradictory stands on various issues. That's not the fault of his staff of advisors, but simply his own apparent inability to take a single, clear stand on an issue and defend it. Changing his campaign manager won't change Kerry, though it might help protect Kerry from himself.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 09-02-2004 - 6:33am
Are you now saying you want to see the same type of security arrangements and tactics used within the country against potential internal threats that are necessary and are used to protect against external threats? Doing so would only result in you and others screaming about more abuse of authority and violations of civil liberties by Bush & Co.

The USSS screwed up here, as did at least a few others, no argument at all. And yes, officials with the convention did assist in setting up security procedures. But to blame Bush personally for those individual failures, or relate the security measures in place there with those in place to defend the country as a whole, is a fatuous argument.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2004
Thu, 09-02-2004 - 6:46am
Excellent post, gatorboo. He is trying to compare apples and oranges. If Bush had approved more stringent security measures in New York then he would be yelling about how Bush is violating our Bill of Rights. As for why were there less protestors in Boston............the Republicans are winning the protest battle via the Internet and with the help of the SwiftBoat Vet ads. The Democrats are the ones with their backs against the wall who think that chanting and screaming will override Kerry's anti-war activities in 1971 and his abysmal voting record for the past 20 years.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2004
Thu, 09-02-2004 - 6:49am
No. These protestors are looking for their 15 minutes of fame. Nothing more.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2004
Thu, 09-02-2004 - 6:51am
Shouting obsenities. Ala Whoopi Goldberg. Way to go, Democrats.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2004
Thu, 09-02-2004 - 6:54am
if Kerry is so great why does he need a change of direction? All of the charges and complaints levelled against him are TRUE. He cannot get away from that.