To: dennisw
What I don't understand is why the President doesn't turn the tables on Kerry when presented an opportunity. For example: the topic of the assault weapons ban. If it was so important to Kerry, he could have introduced a bill to extend it in the senate, no? (But that would have meant actually doing the job to which he was elected!) Kerry has a distinct record of chronic underachievement and that is extending to his run for the presidency.
21 posted on
10/14/2004 5:21:38 AM PDT by
madprofessor
((hypocrisy is the vaseline of social intercourse))
To: madprofessor
he could have introduced a bill to extend it in the senate, no?Doesn't it need to go through the House first?
23 posted on
10/14/2004 5:25:07 AM PDT by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
To: madprofessor
The Swifties should make an ad on this. The reason they oppose Kerry:
He exxagerated his accomplishments then and he exaggerates his accomplishments now. 5 bills vs 56 bills. Turning acts of cowardice into acts of heroism, purple hearts, weathering fire from both banks ...
After VN he turned on his fellow soldiers just as he is turning on Bush now. Kerry has been in Washington much longer than Bush yet all these problems apparently cropped up under Bush's watch. Clinton with the strongest economy couldn't to anything to solve these problems but but Bush is a failure because he can't solve them while fighting a war and a recession.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson