shameless, (adj): see bush, george w.
The GOP has pushed back its 2004 New York Presidential convention to coincide -- deliberately -- with the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
President Bush's advisers have drafted a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.
The unmitigated gall of this man to exploit the anniversary of 3,000 deaths that occurred on his watch because he failed to respond to specific warnings of al Qaeda planning hijackings (whether any steps he took would have proved effective is beside the point; he did nothing apparent) for political advantage is thoroughly disgusting.
Oh, by the way...for "fund-raising advantage," read "beholden to corporate interests."
If Rove is planning national security as the overwhelmingly predominant theme of Bush's re-election campaign, as opposed to making it one of several planks (not too many, to keep Bush on message), I think the GOP is in for some big trouble. First of all, no Democrat should be afraid to debate national security with Bush. As in, "If you define 'national security' as misleading the nation into war under false pretenses, shredding an international security structure that took better statesment than you -- including your own father -- 50 years to build, and incurring the distrust, if not outright enmity, of the population of the entire world, you're welcome to a monopoly on it," or in short, "what national security?"
Second of all, it's a tacit concession that Bush will have trouble running on his economic successes (as in, "what economic successes?").
And finally, the Democrats absolutely must point out the litany of Bush's broken promises, and at the same time remind voters of his pledge of integrity (as in, "what integrity?").