Monday, January 31, 2005
Here's a Doozy
Kerry says "I lost the election because of the Bin Laden tape. Are you sure it had nothing to do with standing for nothing, getting out organized in Ohio, Iowa (two strong labor states) and the West, standing for nothing, having 15 poistions on Iraq, standing for nothing? Quick think of two issues Kerry stood for during the election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I thought that statement of Kerry's was ridiculous. Maybe Kerry needs to believe it; more likely he doesn't believe it but has to give some excuse other than his shortcomings as a candidate. Of course I supported him strongly. Of course he would've been a much better prez than The Great Divider. But he did have shortcomings, mainly a baffing inability to connect with normal people. (Whoever they are). The job he was applying for requires a certain set of people skills, and he simply did not have them.
There are strong labor blocs in Indiana, my home state, but it's as red as red can be. Labor doesn't make the difference anymore. We can debate whether it should, but it hasn't for the last several elections. Standing for nothing? Kerry's problem was not that he didn't stand for anything (he did) but that he didn't articulate his positions in ways people could understand. There is a difference, I think.
Oh, two issues?
He had an ambitious and probably workable plan that would have vastly improved health care access in the country.
He was a strong pro-enviorment candidate.
He took a strong multi-lateralist position on foreign policy.
He believed in the seperation of church and state, and talked (I thought) quite eloquently of the need to stand by that principle.
That's twice as much as you asked for.
Now I'm gonna take on the Dem post...
Post a Comment