The statement "the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done"
reveals an inadvertent truth. The fact is, since 1971, John Kerry has not done much of ANYTHING, since he so famously got up before Senator Fulbright's committee and slandered his fellow soldiers. John Kerry has mouthed many words since then, which frequently show varying opinions at almost polar opposites from other opinions which he has uttered. But as far as DOING anything, he doesn't show up for Senate votes, and rarely sits in on committee meetings to which he has been assigned.
How could anyone distort what Kerry says, in view of the fact that his own words are so often contradictory? What IS the context? Is Kerry anti-war, or for the war on terror, but only in the "right" way? What is the "right" way? And not just simply, "I would have done it differently." Differently HOW? Everything he proposed sounds just like what Bush has ALREADY done.
Back in the dark days of the New Deal, Republicans were floundering around, trying to carry their case to the voters, by offering similar but less extensive programs of their own to compete with Roosevelt's "Brain Trust", and they were promptly labled "Me Too". Kerry is reduced to the position of saying, to whatever Bush is doing, "Me too."
If you have the real thing, and it appeals to the voters, why go for the imitation?
Not only "Me Too", but "Mother May I" and the "I've got a plan - I've got a plan - I've got a plan.............Where, and What is your plan Senator - you keep repeating that, now tell us what the "plan" is before the election, I don't think that is asking too much.
posted on 10/09/2004 5:51:41 AM PDT
("Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose." Ronald Reagan)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson