“‘Kerry is weak on defense, and Bush is a string and decisive leader.’ This essentially echo’s the sentiment of many current Bush supporters.  As both candidates try to make the most out of this last campaign day, it is this viewpoint that expresses many voter’s insensibly naive perceptions.

The majority of Bush supporters constitute two categories: 1) the sound bite artists and 2) the already described insensibly naive.

Yes, a sound bite artist, much like a sandwich artist. At the highest level, this group consists of the political elite in the Republican party. They are the ones who dreamed up the twists and turns of the “”Kerry is a Flip-Flopper“” and the “”Kerry is weak on defense”” attack campaigns. Relying on the public’s fear from 9/11, the elite of the sound bite artists have effectively scared people into  surrendering their civil liberties, permitting corporate welfare, accepting poor health care, and accepting the eventual loss of social security. All of this in the name of fighting terror.

The insensibly naive are the subscribers of the daily sound bites.  They will buy into anything the administration dictates. Bush’s word has become the word of God for these individuals.  Further, anything the campaign has put forward is echoed by these individuals, without question and without remorse.

Any President would have reacted aggressively in response to 9/11. Anyone could have been President, and we would be safer now than we were 3 years ago. It is, however, to a matter of degree.  Are we as far along as we should be?  Look at the conflicting terror watch lists that still have not been consolidated. Look at the Mayfield case in Oregon (and the many others like it). Why did Bush oppose the creation of the 9/11 commission? The prisoner abuse scandal? All on Bush’s watch.

To say John Kerry is weak on defense is simply a political stunt, a sound bite.  To buy into it, and use it as your sole reason for voting for Bush is insensibly naive. No one in the right mind would be weak and give in to terrorism. Simply not the case.  Kerry has expressed a genuine interest in the public’s well-being, and has dedicated the better part of his life to public service. The question his dedication and desire to protect the United States is simply a political stunt.

The President has demonstrated that he acted in haste with Iraq. Unfortunately, discussions of the past do not identify the true difference between the candidates.  It becomes an argument of platitudes with the President insisting he was decisive and strong with is decision… even though it was the wrong one.

Going forward, what really matters is the approach to the war on terror and the situation in Iraq. Both candidates say they are committed to fighting terror, and winning the war in Iraq. The clear difference is that Kerry will proceed with a secondary goal of minimizing the human and economic impact of the conflict.  Bush had not suggested anything of the sort. He effectively denounced the world when he said the summits don’t work during the debates. Kerry wants to reestablish the relationships that were lost.

It has also come to light that part of the 87 billion dollars (7 billion) that the President just loves to talk about was dedicated to a no-bid contract for Halliburton. Is it not conceivable that people had objections to how the funds were to be appropriated, and wanted a few more days to review the bill? 

Overall, don’t rely on sound bites, dig deeper. Find out what is behind the mask.