Friday, October 29, 2004
I Like Kerry
There, I've said it. I've read so much about people who are reluctant to vote for Kerry, people who think Kerry will be a disaster, etc. etc. Yet I like Kerry. I would have voted for him in the Primaries (if the primaries had mattered in New Jersey). I haven't read anything on a blog that praises Kerry - just criticism, carping, etc. etc. So, here is my list of reasons why I like Kerry, why he was my candidate from the beginning (over Dean and Edwards and Clark) and why I think he would be a fantastic President.
1. Most criticism of Kerry focuses on his anti-war history, his vote against the first Gulf war, and his qualifications of the current war. They paint Kerry as anti-war and reluctant to pull the trigger. But the key is to listen to what Kerry has said in these sessions.
a) When he spoke against Viet Nam, he had come back from war and personally witnessed disturbing acts against civilians in a muddled, complicated theater of war. The war had grown immensely unpopular. Yet he didn't shirk duty. He did what was required of him and then spoke his consciousness in an effort to correct policy. This is the hallmark of a young man who both respected service and respected the responsibility of his conscious. Compare this with George W. Bush's service and I think you have a difference of character that is stark. As young men, neither Bush nor Kerry would be making decisions about whether our country should go to war. But they did make personal decisions about responsibility and ethics, and Kerry's ethics here are about as admirable I think as you can get from anyone in politics. He may have said things hurtful to other veterans, but from what I've read and seen of these remarks, they are certainly more mild and statemanlike than those of other activists and protestors of the time - and beat in a country mile what W. Bush was doing at the time, which was puking drunk in a parking lot while avoiding his national guard duty.
b) About Gulf War 1, Kerry voted against going to war "at that time." His comments were that "we are rushing to war when we have not yet exhausted avenues to remove Saddam from Kuwait." I do not take this to mean that Kerry was expressing a reserve at sacrificing lives because all war is bad. I take his comments to be a strategic assessment of geopolitics, and the differences between staging an invasion and pushing Saddam out by other means. You must remember many things here - 1) We had put Saddam in power and we were backing Saddam's army. 2) Bush I's ambassador to Iraq had actually tacitly encouraged Saddam to enter Kuwait. 3) As Powell and Rumsfeld knew, any military action on Iraq would require a sustained military base of operations in the midst of radical Islamic undemocratic regime. 4) There were, undoubtedly, other ways of getting Saddam out of Kuwait. Invading and setting up a permanent base in Saudi Arabia was a recipe for the rise of Anti-American terrorism, precisely what we are reaping now (and I might add, particularly since we didn't finish the job and remove Saddam at the time). It might have been a last resort, but Kerry's only point with his vote here was that we were choosing the option of last resort first - and I think that it's very possible he could have been right in his assessment (we'll of course never know).
c) Kerry voted for giving Bush the *authority* to go about Gulf War II. Dean and other Dems would not have done that but I believe this was the correct vote, even if Bush abused this by not fully achieving UN backing. But I believe that Kerry also knew that containing Saddam required that the stick of potential war have the full force required from this vote. It was also a vote in support of Presidential power. If you listen to Kerry's remarks on this, he says precisely that the President needs to have the authority to wage war as needed and to make threats that have the full believability of being backed up. Kerry is basically saying that ANY President must be willing to pull the trigger - that is what this vote means and I think it is very clear from this that Kerry IS a trigger puller (notwithstanding the goose-hunt photo op).
(I should say at this point that I do agree with some of the criticism of Democratic strategy to place all of Kerry's appeal in this regard on his Viet Nam fighting history. That is really no argument at all - plenty of Presidents who were never in a war could very well defend the country and push the big red button if they needed to. And it opened him up to precisely the Swift Boat attacks on his character rather than on his policy stances. I wish instead that Kerry had simply come out and said that the moment he got in office, we would conduct his own war on terrorism. But that STRATEGICALLY, his war would not go through Iraq but through the heart of Islamic fundamentalism. That has been his policy and it is too bad he hasn't been able to state that more clearly. I don't think it is so much a rhetorical style problem of Kerry's (that is part of it - he does sometime wander, when he is tired) -I think it was more of a campaign blunder on the part of Kerry's earlier handlers, whom he has since replaced).
2. All of this has been pretty long because I believe that the foreign policy issue is THE issue in this election. But not just war or anti-war attitude, I believe that Kerry understands the underlying logic of terrorism better than either Bush or anyone else the Dems had to offer. Even better, perhaps, than Clark (who was my original choice). But Clark's view, I think, is ultimately limited to military strategy. Kerry is right to say that fighting terrorism is a multi-pronged effort in which diplomacy, police work, and military might all work hand in hand. In fact, this was the Bush dictum too right after Sept. 11th. They've abandoned that dictum in search of a re-election. I think that's unconscionable.
3.Regarding health care. Kerry has a plan that I like. It is not socialized medicine, it is not a Hillary Clinton plan. It is a plan to extend benefits and to help our private system provide coverage better. We essentially have two options in health care: better care for fewer and fewer people (with there always being a chance that you could go from being one of those with care to one of those without), or worse care for more people. I think Kerry's plan balances these two poles nicely, while other Dems and Republicans would wash us up on one or another shoals. I am willing to give up a little bit of quality to have more security that I'll have health care at all - but I don't want us going from 1st world to socialized hack medicine either. Can Kerry fund the plan as much as he wants? Probably not. That's probably a good thing. He'll scale it back and fix it a little bit - better than nothing.
4. Regarding the economy. No contest. Rolling back the over 200K tax cut is a no brainer. Are we in a war or what? We're spending 150 billion a year on Iraq. Come on - a little reality check here, people. Has anyone ever heard of the fall of Rome? Four more years of this and there's a good chance of a catastrophic economic collapse. Where will all your trickle-down economics be then? Jobs going oversees...well, I personally see that trend starting to slow down, but as even Pat Buchanan says, there's no reason to be creating tax policy that ENCOURAGES looting our country's economic resources. We need to build industries, not export them. Some corrections on this just make sense. Certainly the campaign rhetoric on the Dem's side can sound protectionist, but none of that is Kerry's policy. He's bringing in a solid new-Democratic economic team, and I think it's exciting to think we could restart our economic engine with vim and vigor again, like we had in the nineties. Then we'll see deficit reduction AND prosperity.
5. Regarding Ideology. Kerry worked across the isle with McCain to close the book on Vietnam POWs. I admire Kerry's reaching out to moderate Repubs and his flexibility to place thought over ideology. Certainly one must flush the current Administration on this regard. A Hillary or Dean candidate on the Dem side wouldn't give me much faith in building a broad middle consensus either. Kerry does, and I like that.
6. Character. I just like Kerry. I think he is intelligent and forceful. A great talker when he's rested and...I know this sounds counter-intuitive - but I find him personable. This whole flip-flop thing is a complete campaign media fabrication, so I discount it completely. In fact, I find it disturbing whenever I read a Republican blog mentioning it. If you've bought this line this tells me you are simply a sucker for campaign brainwashing or a complete useless sop and probably don't have a dint worth of anything to say. You can critize Kerry for many things (his appearance on the Daily Show was a complete snooze, for instance), but not that. The guy is reassuring and has a very definitive moral center. Sure, he's more of a politician than someone like Clark. I think that is Senatorial syndrome. It would actually be nice to have a President who can work with the Senate, even an opposition Senate, to get critical legislation passed that will protect this country from terrorism and get people flu shots. And he may not have the zing of Clinton, but I believe he can keep his pecker in his pants. In my mind, that's a plus in a President.
7. What else is there? Is there any other issue? Supreme Court? Cultural issues? Gay rights? Abortion? Stem cells? In my mind, none of these issues is the President - it's about the party that controls the White House. As long as Republicans control Penn. Ave., we're going to see gay-baiting and bible thumping from the far right. I'm sorry if that disgusts me but it does. The only Republicans I would ever trust to withstand such a right-wing assault would be Powell or McCain. (I'm sorry, Giuliani, but you've lost my faith.) If I truly believed Kerry was a no-go on these other issues I'd consider the Republican. But Kerry excites me and if we can put the Bible-thumpers in a cave and block the door for the next four years, I'm all for it.
NOTE: see comments for my take on the recent Bin Laden message.
1. Most criticism of Kerry focuses on his anti-war history, his vote against the first Gulf war, and his qualifications of the current war. They paint Kerry as anti-war and reluctant to pull the trigger. But the key is to listen to what Kerry has said in these sessions.
a) When he spoke against Viet Nam, he had come back from war and personally witnessed disturbing acts against civilians in a muddled, complicated theater of war. The war had grown immensely unpopular. Yet he didn't shirk duty. He did what was required of him and then spoke his consciousness in an effort to correct policy. This is the hallmark of a young man who both respected service and respected the responsibility of his conscious. Compare this with George W. Bush's service and I think you have a difference of character that is stark. As young men, neither Bush nor Kerry would be making decisions about whether our country should go to war. But they did make personal decisions about responsibility and ethics, and Kerry's ethics here are about as admirable I think as you can get from anyone in politics. He may have said things hurtful to other veterans, but from what I've read and seen of these remarks, they are certainly more mild and statemanlike than those of other activists and protestors of the time - and beat in a country mile what W. Bush was doing at the time, which was puking drunk in a parking lot while avoiding his national guard duty.
b) About Gulf War 1, Kerry voted against going to war "at that time." His comments were that "we are rushing to war when we have not yet exhausted avenues to remove Saddam from Kuwait." I do not take this to mean that Kerry was expressing a reserve at sacrificing lives because all war is bad. I take his comments to be a strategic assessment of geopolitics, and the differences between staging an invasion and pushing Saddam out by other means. You must remember many things here - 1) We had put Saddam in power and we were backing Saddam's army. 2) Bush I's ambassador to Iraq had actually tacitly encouraged Saddam to enter Kuwait. 3) As Powell and Rumsfeld knew, any military action on Iraq would require a sustained military base of operations in the midst of radical Islamic undemocratic regime. 4) There were, undoubtedly, other ways of getting Saddam out of Kuwait. Invading and setting up a permanent base in Saudi Arabia was a recipe for the rise of Anti-American terrorism, precisely what we are reaping now (and I might add, particularly since we didn't finish the job and remove Saddam at the time). It might have been a last resort, but Kerry's only point with his vote here was that we were choosing the option of last resort first - and I think that it's very possible he could have been right in his assessment (we'll of course never know).
c) Kerry voted for giving Bush the *authority* to go about Gulf War II. Dean and other Dems would not have done that but I believe this was the correct vote, even if Bush abused this by not fully achieving UN backing. But I believe that Kerry also knew that containing Saddam required that the stick of potential war have the full force required from this vote. It was also a vote in support of Presidential power. If you listen to Kerry's remarks on this, he says precisely that the President needs to have the authority to wage war as needed and to make threats that have the full believability of being backed up. Kerry is basically saying that ANY President must be willing to pull the trigger - that is what this vote means and I think it is very clear from this that Kerry IS a trigger puller (notwithstanding the goose-hunt photo op).
(I should say at this point that I do agree with some of the criticism of Democratic strategy to place all of Kerry's appeal in this regard on his Viet Nam fighting history. That is really no argument at all - plenty of Presidents who were never in a war could very well defend the country and push the big red button if they needed to. And it opened him up to precisely the Swift Boat attacks on his character rather than on his policy stances. I wish instead that Kerry had simply come out and said that the moment he got in office, we would conduct his own war on terrorism. But that STRATEGICALLY, his war would not go through Iraq but through the heart of Islamic fundamentalism. That has been his policy and it is too bad he hasn't been able to state that more clearly. I don't think it is so much a rhetorical style problem of Kerry's (that is part of it - he does sometime wander, when he is tired) -I think it was more of a campaign blunder on the part of Kerry's earlier handlers, whom he has since replaced).
2. All of this has been pretty long because I believe that the foreign policy issue is THE issue in this election. But not just war or anti-war attitude, I believe that Kerry understands the underlying logic of terrorism better than either Bush or anyone else the Dems had to offer. Even better, perhaps, than Clark (who was my original choice). But Clark's view, I think, is ultimately limited to military strategy. Kerry is right to say that fighting terrorism is a multi-pronged effort in which diplomacy, police work, and military might all work hand in hand. In fact, this was the Bush dictum too right after Sept. 11th. They've abandoned that dictum in search of a re-election. I think that's unconscionable.
3.Regarding health care. Kerry has a plan that I like. It is not socialized medicine, it is not a Hillary Clinton plan. It is a plan to extend benefits and to help our private system provide coverage better. We essentially have two options in health care: better care for fewer and fewer people (with there always being a chance that you could go from being one of those with care to one of those without), or worse care for more people. I think Kerry's plan balances these two poles nicely, while other Dems and Republicans would wash us up on one or another shoals. I am willing to give up a little bit of quality to have more security that I'll have health care at all - but I don't want us going from 1st world to socialized hack medicine either. Can Kerry fund the plan as much as he wants? Probably not. That's probably a good thing. He'll scale it back and fix it a little bit - better than nothing.
4. Regarding the economy. No contest. Rolling back the over 200K tax cut is a no brainer. Are we in a war or what? We're spending 150 billion a year on Iraq. Come on - a little reality check here, people. Has anyone ever heard of the fall of Rome? Four more years of this and there's a good chance of a catastrophic economic collapse. Where will all your trickle-down economics be then? Jobs going oversees...well, I personally see that trend starting to slow down, but as even Pat Buchanan says, there's no reason to be creating tax policy that ENCOURAGES looting our country's economic resources. We need to build industries, not export them. Some corrections on this just make sense. Certainly the campaign rhetoric on the Dem's side can sound protectionist, but none of that is Kerry's policy. He's bringing in a solid new-Democratic economic team, and I think it's exciting to think we could restart our economic engine with vim and vigor again, like we had in the nineties. Then we'll see deficit reduction AND prosperity.
5. Regarding Ideology. Kerry worked across the isle with McCain to close the book on Vietnam POWs. I admire Kerry's reaching out to moderate Repubs and his flexibility to place thought over ideology. Certainly one must flush the current Administration on this regard. A Hillary or Dean candidate on the Dem side wouldn't give me much faith in building a broad middle consensus either. Kerry does, and I like that.
6. Character. I just like Kerry. I think he is intelligent and forceful. A great talker when he's rested and...I know this sounds counter-intuitive - but I find him personable. This whole flip-flop thing is a complete campaign media fabrication, so I discount it completely. In fact, I find it disturbing whenever I read a Republican blog mentioning it. If you've bought this line this tells me you are simply a sucker for campaign brainwashing or a complete useless sop and probably don't have a dint worth of anything to say. You can critize Kerry for many things (his appearance on the Daily Show was a complete snooze, for instance), but not that. The guy is reassuring and has a very definitive moral center. Sure, he's more of a politician than someone like Clark. I think that is Senatorial syndrome. It would actually be nice to have a President who can work with the Senate, even an opposition Senate, to get critical legislation passed that will protect this country from terrorism and get people flu shots. And he may not have the zing of Clinton, but I believe he can keep his pecker in his pants. In my mind, that's a plus in a President.
7. What else is there? Is there any other issue? Supreme Court? Cultural issues? Gay rights? Abortion? Stem cells? In my mind, none of these issues is the President - it's about the party that controls the White House. As long as Republicans control Penn. Ave., we're going to see gay-baiting and bible thumping from the far right. I'm sorry if that disgusts me but it does. The only Republicans I would ever trust to withstand such a right-wing assault would be Powell or McCain. (I'm sorry, Giuliani, but you've lost my faith.) If I truly believed Kerry was a no-go on these other issues I'd consider the Republican. But Kerry excites me and if we can put the Bible-thumpers in a cave and block the door for the next four years, I'm all for it.
NOTE: see comments for my take on the recent Bin Laden message.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary
Actually, Andrew Sullivan has been doing a bang-up job "fisking" this whole Mary hoo-ha.
Go here. Or visit Andrew's blog.
But here's my letter to the NY Times:
Dear Editor:
I suppose if Kerry had called Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist," as Republican Alan Keyes did weeks ago, Lynn Cheney and Republican politicos such as William Safire would have been perfectly pleased.
The outrage from Republicans obviously isn't because Kerry suddenly drew Mary Cheney into the debate. Kerry may have been trying to frame a political point when he said that he supports Mary Cheney's right to be who she is, but only those who think there's something wrong with being gay can construe mentioning her in that context as an insult. Meanwhile, Bush has truly insulted millions of gay people and their families through his tacit encouragement of gay-baiting campaign techniques and his callous support of the anti-family amendment. So tell me, which families should be the more outraged?
Go here. Or visit Andrew's blog.
But here's my letter to the NY Times:
Dear Editor:
I suppose if Kerry had called Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist," as Republican Alan Keyes did weeks ago, Lynn Cheney and Republican politicos such as William Safire would have been perfectly pleased.
The outrage from Republicans obviously isn't because Kerry suddenly drew Mary Cheney into the debate. Kerry may have been trying to frame a political point when he said that he supports Mary Cheney's right to be who she is, but only those who think there's something wrong with being gay can construe mentioning her in that context as an insult. Meanwhile, Bush has truly insulted millions of gay people and their families through his tacit encouragement of gay-baiting campaign techniques and his callous support of the anti-family amendment. So tell me, which families should be the more outraged?
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Our Third-World Dictatorship
CNN.com - U.S.�gets election advice from outsiders - Oct 7, 2004
This article sums it all up. We have been living in a dictatorship for a while now - there is no democracy; all our elections are rigged.
This article sums it all up. We have been living in a dictatorship for a while now - there is no democracy; all our elections are rigged.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Today's Blogozogits/EvilBush/CNN Poll
Today's Blogozogits/EvilBush/CNN Poll shows some interesting useless facts about Americans that can be used by politicians to push through their favorite evil policies and re-elect the Great Satan in service of the Illuminati's rule of the universe.
51% of Americans believe that outsourcing is a problem.
38% of Americans believe that outsourcing means that you have no indoor plumbing.
4% of Americans are trying to outsource their own job.
2% of Americans have no brain matter whatsoever.
5% of Americans believe that gays should have tails because their daddy told 'em so.
10% of American's can't say the word 'gay' without giggling.
22% of married heterosexuals have had at least one gay affair.
40% of unmarried heterosexuals are heathanous sex pigs.
30% of the above are neutered, repressed conservative Xtians who don't give head but will take it up the ass and deny that they do it.
The remaining 30% of unmarried heterosexuals are pretty damn ugly and smelly and on welfare, so what would you want with them anyway?
Overall, 25% of Americans are basically straight.
35% swing both ways and that either freaks them out or makes them support Ralph Nader.
25% of Americans are secretly gay and planning to run/or have been elected for office as a conservative Republican.
Everyone else is openly gay or lesbian and happily married (or looking for Mr./Ms. Right).
35% of Americans are African-American.
25% of Americans believe African-Americans should call themselves 'black.'
15% of Americans believe they should call themselves nigga' without the final r.
10% of Americans believe that this nation is already Satan's Black nigga' love slave and are stockpiling guns for the imminent Aryan revolution.
40% of female Americans think George W. Bush is cute and would have his baby.
1% of gay American's think John Kerry is cute and would have his baby, but he still wouldn't vote for him. (P.S., his initials are A.S.)
25% of Americans mistakenly believe that Teresa-Heintz Kerry is a Black American.
25% (mostly the same as above) mistakenly belive that Governor McGreevey is a Gay Armenian.
28% of Americans will change their minds about which candidate they plan to vote for merely by watching the opponent's political ad.
98% of the above have the capacity to do this up to an average of ten times a day, and will finally vote for the candidate whose ad they last watched before they go to the polls.
62% of Americans will vote for whomever is leading in the polls, so that they can be on the winning side.
89% of Americans can listen to a candidate's views and then answer a pollster's questions saying, "I'm skeptical," but in actuality, are not skeptical but have been competely brainwashed into a sloganeering zomby mouthing the campaign manager's intended pre-planned slogan while still having the capacity to think that they are in fact coming up with these pre-planned embedded ideas on their own.
62% of Americans get dizzy even trying to follow the logic of the above.
76% of Americans believe that if we were attacked again by terrorists, we should find a sufficiently powerless and resource-rich country and bomb the hell out of them so that we could feel better about it.
12% of Americans cry desperately into their arms each night as this world slowly goes down the shitter.
51% of Americans believe that outsourcing is a problem.
38% of Americans believe that outsourcing means that you have no indoor plumbing.
4% of Americans are trying to outsource their own job.
2% of Americans have no brain matter whatsoever.
5% of Americans believe that gays should have tails because their daddy told 'em so.
10% of American's can't say the word 'gay' without giggling.
22% of married heterosexuals have had at least one gay affair.
40% of unmarried heterosexuals are heathanous sex pigs.
30% of the above are neutered, repressed conservative Xtians who don't give head but will take it up the ass and deny that they do it.
The remaining 30% of unmarried heterosexuals are pretty damn ugly and smelly and on welfare, so what would you want with them anyway?
Overall, 25% of Americans are basically straight.
35% swing both ways and that either freaks them out or makes them support Ralph Nader.
25% of Americans are secretly gay and planning to run/or have been elected for office as a conservative Republican.
Everyone else is openly gay or lesbian and happily married (or looking for Mr./Ms. Right).
35% of Americans are African-American.
25% of Americans believe African-Americans should call themselves 'black.'
15% of Americans believe they should call themselves nigga' without the final r.
10% of Americans believe that this nation is already Satan's Black nigga' love slave and are stockpiling guns for the imminent Aryan revolution.
40% of female Americans think George W. Bush is cute and would have his baby.
1% of gay American's think John Kerry is cute and would have his baby, but he still wouldn't vote for him. (P.S., his initials are A.S.)
25% of Americans mistakenly believe that Teresa-Heintz Kerry is a Black American.
25% (mostly the same as above) mistakenly belive that Governor McGreevey is a Gay Armenian.
28% of Americans will change their minds about which candidate they plan to vote for merely by watching the opponent's political ad.
98% of the above have the capacity to do this up to an average of ten times a day, and will finally vote for the candidate whose ad they last watched before they go to the polls.
62% of Americans will vote for whomever is leading in the polls, so that they can be on the winning side.
89% of Americans can listen to a candidate's views and then answer a pollster's questions saying, "I'm skeptical," but in actuality, are not skeptical but have been competely brainwashed into a sloganeering zomby mouthing the campaign manager's intended pre-planned slogan while still having the capacity to think that they are in fact coming up with these pre-planned embedded ideas on their own.
62% of Americans get dizzy even trying to follow the logic of the above.
76% of Americans believe that if we were attacked again by terrorists, we should find a sufficiently powerless and resource-rich country and bomb the hell out of them so that we could feel better about it.
12% of Americans cry desperately into their arms each night as this world slowly goes down the shitter.
Rice Doesn't Pass Idiot Test
Attempting to bash Kerry, Condoleezza Rice tells the press that she doesn't understand Kerry's idea that unilateral actions by the US should meet a global test of legitmacy. Actually - even more alarmingly - Rice says "I don't understand...legitimate reasons." Well. There's the problem. This administration doesn't even understand what legitimacy means. So how can they create a "legitimate" democracy anywhere - even here at home, let alone in Iraq?
CNN.com - Kerry dismisses criticism of 'global test' remark as 'pathetic' - Oct 4, 2004: "'I don't understand 'proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons,' ' she said."
CNN.com - Kerry dismisses criticism of 'global test' remark as 'pathetic' - Oct 4, 2004: "'I don't understand 'proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons,' ' she said."
Friday, October 01, 2004
Debate #1 - Sept 30
Kerry wins this round.
Sure, Kerry missed a few good opportunities. Here's what he missed:
1. Bush - What about Tony Blair? Isn't he part of our coalition?
2. What Kerry should have said - Blair just apologized for the war. Why haven't you?
1. Bush - We need to stay the course. Don't waver.
2. What Kerry should have said - Are you saying, don't waver from the course that's causing insurgents to stream into Iraq, lawlessness to abound, and the war to be lost? I call that stupidity. I say, when the course is disaster, change course.
1. Bush - we need a President that's decisive. Hold to core values.
2. What Kerry should have said - you mean, like, "we shouldn't be nation building," and here we are nation building? Every President needs to respond to realities in the world. But your core values, Mr. Bush, seem to be about benefiting a very narrow segment of wealthy individuals at the expense of the safety of Americans.That's not a value most Americans share.
Otherwise, Kerry did have a few good points - but mostly, he proved that he wasn't Bush. That is, that he has one or two brains in his head, and isn't a complete puppet of corporate interests. That, in itself, I think will get across to the "undecided middle." We will see.....
Sure, Kerry missed a few good opportunities. Here's what he missed:
1. Bush - What about Tony Blair? Isn't he part of our coalition?
2. What Kerry should have said - Blair just apologized for the war. Why haven't you?
1. Bush - We need to stay the course. Don't waver.
2. What Kerry should have said - Are you saying, don't waver from the course that's causing insurgents to stream into Iraq, lawlessness to abound, and the war to be lost? I call that stupidity. I say, when the course is disaster, change course.
1. Bush - we need a President that's decisive. Hold to core values.
2. What Kerry should have said - you mean, like, "we shouldn't be nation building," and here we are nation building? Every President needs to respond to realities in the world. But your core values, Mr. Bush, seem to be about benefiting a very narrow segment of wealthy individuals at the expense of the safety of Americans.That's not a value most Americans share.
Otherwise, Kerry did have a few good points - but mostly, he proved that he wasn't Bush. That is, that he has one or two brains in his head, and isn't a complete puppet of corporate interests. That, in itself, I think will get across to the "undecided middle." We will see.....
