I realize that the gods of political correctness would counsel otherwise, but I wish that President Bush would campaign more on the social issues. Nowhere is the contrast greater between him and Senator Kerry -- or more important.
Lest you jump to the wrong conclusion, I am not suggesting that the Bush team place any less emphasis on economic or national security issues. President Bush, despite the naysayers, has a respectable record on both.
The economy seems to have rebounded with a vengeance, and the stubborn jobs component has finally responded. It's fairly apparent that there is a direct causal relationship between Bush's tax cuts and the economic growth we are now witnessing. That growth, in turn, may well put a significant dent in the deficit.
While we are still facing difficulties in Iraq, we are also making remarkable progress -- arguably at a much more rapid pace than we helped rebuild war-torn Europe, and there we didn't have local and international terrorists trying to sabotage our efforts.
Truth be told, our remarkable initial military success in Iraq is why Democrats originally changed the subject to spurious allegations that "Bush lied" and "unilateralism."
And our success -- though slower going -- in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq is why they continue to focus on those manufactured issues. I know even many conservatives fret over our problems in Iraq, and I'm not trying to diminish them. But under any reasonable yardstick we are marching forward admirably -- and that's without even considering the boatloads of positive news from Iraq that the media is either completely disinterested in or outright suppressing.
Of course, there's a more fundamental reason Democrats still talk about extraneous issues; they don't have a meaningfully different policy for Iraq themselves. Think about it. They're between a rock and a hard place.
They can't very well say we shouldn't be there. They voted for the war resolution (despite their actual misrepresentations about President Bush's nonexistent misrepresentations), and we removed one of the most brutal dictators in history.
And they can't afford to say that we should now exit Iraq, leaving the job half done and sure to fail upon our withdrawal. So they mumble and complain about our failure to persuade the unpersuadable European nations and U.N. to join us; they try to impute the Abu Ghraib abuse to the president's interrogation policies (see the absurdly outrageous June 10 editorial in the New York Times); and they slander Secretary Rumsfeld.
But even more bizarre, they -- the party of no ground troops -- call for more ground troops. Are these guys without an anchor or what?