I'm not calling you a fool, I am saying that anyone who decides to vote for an incumbent on the basis of an "idea" that the incumbent didn't do anything about during a first term is a fool.
Because you are going to vote for the incumbent, without regard to such any such late inning promises, I was not referring to you.
Thank you for the clarification.
I'd expand your statement to include ALL politicians, though. One doesn't have to be an incumbent to promise change then not deliver. In part electing a candidate is a measure of faith.
What I know of Bush leads me to belive *IF* he is fully committed to this change we'll see action on the matter. When examining his term the issues he took to heart have either passed or been adopted in one form or another. I'd say determination on whether he is serious about this matter will be reflected in his attitude. If he's serious, his attitude will be reminiscent of his drive for tax cuts, presciption drugs and the Iraq war. The middle I wasn't in favor of but he clearly fought for that legislation in the same way he did the other two.
Good point. Kerry's a fine example... 18 years in the Senate and he never had a bright idea to propose something that would win over the hearts and minds of 50 other Senators.
So now the "lazy loafer" thinks if we just elect him to a HIGHER office, he will suddenly have even BETTER ideas for proposing legislation that will get adopted???
Oh, and I agree with oceanview that a NEW TAX of any kind is a LOSER issue at this point and time. Bush should PUSH Kerry to actually PROPOSE his ideas in the Senate NOW, not just make secret promises.
" am saying that anyone who decides to vote for an incumbent on the basis of an "idea" that the incumbent didn't do anything about during a first term is a fool."
Then I must conclude that any person casting a vote for JFnK must be a fool 5x as foolish as anyone casting a vote for GWB.