Quote:
Originally posted by: Mavdog
Quote:
Originally posted by: Dooby
Mavdog, it may not be interesting to you, but Kerry is consistently being knocked off message for some petty stuff. Kerry has to go on GMA this morning and explain himself fro 3 minutes. I just have to wonder if he knows what the hell he is doing.
|
I agree that Kerry is not taking the reins as it were and putting forth a more focused campaign theme. It could very well be shown that Kerry is not ready for prime time, although I am not of that opinion yet. After all, we are still almost 90 days from the convention.
<u>The seemingly never ending journeys by Kerry's opponents to the early 70's and Kerry's statements/positions/indescretions are in fact tiring as well as a bore. Their infatuation with this period of his life and their hope that it is meaningful today in 2004 is a waste of their time, it has no bearing on today.</u> Should we look at GWBush's activities/statements of 1972 to understand where his mind is today? Absolutely not, in spite of the fact that it isn't very complimentary to GWBush. It's not important.
|
The whole planet knows this isn't true. Take names out of it. First, if Candidate A rises to prominance through an event, an examination of Candidate A's involvement and positions related to that even is relevant. Second, if Candidate A relies on or touts experience from a past event, an examination of Candidate A's involvement and positions related to that even is relevant.
Make no mistake, if John McCain had gotten the nomination for President, there would be several of his POW "buddies" giving their opinions of who the "real" John McCain is in their mind. Nobody ever points this out but Congressman Sam Johnson and John McCain were in the same camp during Vietnam and you never see them together. There is a reason for that. Not saying who is right and who is wrong, but there is a reason for that. And a thorough examination of those events is just and proper.
Likewise, an examination of Ross Perot's business history, attendance at the Naval Academy and service in the Navy is appropriate when he touted that history as a reason for voting for him.
And there has been a thorough examination of Bush's 70's-era activities- his national guard duties and his drunk driving conviction. And I can't think of anything less specifically relevant to being POTUS than a drunk driving conviction of man that hadn't taken a sip of alcohol for 10 years. Unless you think it reflects on his decision making abilities or character.... In which case, everything is fair game.