| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
23 Dec 2004 05:02:10 PM |
| Object: |
Re: What Do We Do With These Immoral Republicans?!?! |
researchermd@netscape.net wrote:
Ironically enough I agree with you that the
Dems should have chosen Dean. I'm
disappointed they didn't. The campaign
season would certainly have been more
entertaining. But I'm relatively certain he
would have lost by a larger margin.
Like I said, John Kerry voted WITH Bush on a lot of issues, therefore he
was hampered in his ability to criticize Bush. For example, he kept
chiding Bush for not funding No Child Left Behind, when Kerry should
have just asked for the whole program to be cancelled, except that Kerry
voted for the program. Early on, Kerry was conned into supporting Bush,
just as everyone else who voted for Bush was, conned. Howard Dean, on
the other hand, he stood in stark contrast to George Bush. Dean was the
exact opposite of Bush, therefore Dean would have been better able to
hammer away with full force at the disasterous presidency that is George
W Bush's.
During the campaign, John Kerry gave one of the lamest responses I've
ever heard, when the Republicans accused him of being pro-terrorist and
treasonous and anti-American and supposedly not deserving of those
medals in Vietnam and so on, Kerry responded with an angry tone of voice
and with righteous indignation:
"I fought for my country when I was a young man, and so you'd better
believe that I'll fight for my country now."
Now what kind of a response is THAT? Do you see what I'm saying, he was
on the defensive when he didn't need to be. Playing defensive doesn't
work. These guys threw everything in the house on Kerry's head,
including the kitchen sink, and Kerry took it. He should have instead
responded to those viscious attacks against him with viscious attacks
against Bush, and hammered back instead at Bush's Chickenhawk status and
his going AWOL during Vietnam, and Cheney's Chickenhawk status, and
everyone else in the Bush administration, and for that matter that even
Rumsfeld himself is a ChickenHawk who has avoided military combat too.
I mean Bush didn't want to verbally rebuke those right-winged rabid
loons who call themselves the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", so Bush
is fair game, Kerry should have attacked him more vigorously.
Howard Dean was not afraid to verbally criticize Bush, but Kerry was.
Abel Malcolm
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Educate yourself & go to these links:
www.moveon.org & www.buzzflash.com &
http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajority/run/oreo & www.democracynow.org
& http://www.airamericaradio.com/ &
http://oliverwillis.com/branddemocrat/ & http://barbrastreisand.com/ &
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17216&c=206
.
|
|
| User: "Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do We Do With These Immoral Republicans?!?! |
23 Dec 2004 07:27:38 PM |
|
|
<AbelMalcolm@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9301-41CB4E72-1004@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net...
researchermd@netscape.net wrote:
Ironically enough I agree with you that the
Dems should have chosen Dean. I'm
disappointed they didn't. The campaign
season would certainly have been more
entertaining. But I'm relatively certain he
would have lost by a larger margin.
Like I said, John Kerry voted WITH Bush on a lot of issues, therefore
he
was hampered in his ability to criticize Bush. For example, he kept
chiding Bush for not funding No Child Left Behind, when Kerry should
have just asked for the whole program to be cancelled, except that
Kerry
voted for the program. Early on, Kerry was conned into supporting
Bush,
just as everyone else who voted for Bush was, conned. Howard Dean, on
the other hand, he stood in stark contrast to George Bush. Dean was
the
exact opposite of Bush, therefore Dean would have been better able to
hammer away with full force at the disasterous presidency that is
George
W Bush's.
During the campaign, John Kerry gave one of the lamest responses I've
ever heard, when the Republicans accused him of being pro-terrorist
and
treasonous and anti-American and supposedly not deserving of those
medals in Vietnam and so on, Kerry responded with an angry tone of
voice
and with righteous indignation:
"I fought for my country when I was a young man, and so you'd better
believe that I'll fight for my country now."
Now what kind of a response is THAT? Do you see what I'm saying, he
was
on the defensive when he didn't need to be. Playing defensive doesn't
work. These guys threw everything in the house on Kerry's head,
including the kitchen sink, and Kerry took it. He should have instead
responded to those viscious attacks against him with viscious attacks
against Bush, and hammered back instead at Bush's Chickenhawk status
and
his going AWOL during Vietnam, and Cheney's Chickenhawk status, and
everyone else in the Bush administration, and for that matter that
even
Rumsfeld himself is a ChickenHawk who has avoided military combat too.
I mean Bush didn't want to verbally rebuke those right-winged rabid
loons who call themselves the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", so Bush
is fair game, Kerry should have attacked him more vigorously.
Howard Dean was not afraid to verbally criticize Bush, but Kerry was.
I don't think he was afraid to. I don't think it would have helped.
You're right, Dean probably would have. And he would have lost by a
bigger margin IMO. That's largely the reason why.
You guys still don't get it... the reason you lost so big is you did
*too much*. I'm convinced Michael Moore did more to win Bush re-election
than any ad the RNC put on.
Abel Malcolm
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Educate yourself & go to these links:
www.moveon.org & www.buzzflash.com &
http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajority/run/oreo &
www.democracynow.org
& http://www.airamericaradio.com/ &
http://oliverwillis.com/branddemocrat/ & http://barbrastreisand.com/ &
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17216&c=206
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|