Candidates from a Mold
Adam Krause
Contributing columnist
Presidential campaigns are going strong, with Bush and Kerry bounding around the country to gain support for their efforts to be elected. Many are anxious for November so that they can see whether or not their beloved candidate makes it into office. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has made some folks so angry that they are willing to blindly vote for anyone except the good ol’ boy from Texas.
Before making rash decisions, however, one should be made aware of the uncanny similarity between the two candidates. Knocking one puppet out of office to be replaced by another is not a good idea, and that is something that may happen whether Bush is re-elected or not. Bush and Kerry may not be ideological twins, but they aren’t so different.
Certainly, the conflict in Iraq is still a big issue for many Americans, even with all the sensationalism about gay marriage and Martha Stewart. Bush and Kerry represent opposite political parties, and thus, are forced to prove how different they are in their campaigns. But John Kerry now ". . .believes that capturing Saddam Hussein provides a new opportunity for the United States to build a broader coalition and win the peace in Iraq(http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/)." Kerry was indeed critical of Bush after his public approval ratings dropped, but does he have grounds to be?
Kerry’s campaign Web site is quick to point out how Kerry’s contradicting views on the war are admissible, while ". . . the president showed himself not just willing to wage war but eager for it (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/ clips/news_2003_0902d.html)." But Bush wasn’t alone in his Iraq invasion fever.
It is strange that Kerry, who is so critical of Bush’s decisions for Iraq, was spouting off about Saddam Hussein even before George W. Bush began his 2000 campaign. An article from the National Review Online puts into words a speech made by John Kerry on November 9, 1997. In this bold and powerfully composed speech, Kerry shows his own eagerness to invade Iraq:
"I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent — and that the United States should support and participate in those steps. . . Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior (http://nationalreview.com/document/kerry200401261431.asp)."
Now, if that wasn’t enough, then consider their college allegiance to the secretive Skull and Bones Society at Yale. As an even greater slap in the face to the American public, Skull and Bones members were interviewed by author Alexandra Robbins to see which candidate they preferred. Her results? "The sincere answer to me was 'We don't care — it's a win-win situation,' " she said(http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/election/0304nation/07skull.html)."
Choose Bush or Kerry; the results may not be all that different. I definitely do not want to experience another four years of Bush and his cronies, but will Kerry be much more receptive to public opinion? Or will he, like George W. Bush, be largely influenced by special interests? All that is in our power to do is simply wait and see.
One thing is sure, though; if contradiction and deceit mean securing a place in the Oval Office, then almost all American presidents are guilty of it. Campaign promises are just that; promises meant for the campaign. The monumental proposals which are made are usually empty, and it is our job as citizens to sift through the rubbish and find the truth.