ART, why do you always revert back to the two wrongs make a right argument. If you think Bush lies then why is it OK for Kerry to lie? Can you answer me that. The correct answer is they are both wrong to lie, period! Stop defending the left when they do something just because someone on the right does it. Let me give you an example. Bush is a free spending cowboy in Washington with a credit card that never seems to get maxed out. OK, now obviously, as a fiscal conservative I have serious issues about this. However, I won't say it's OK because Bill Clinton would do the same thing. Who cares! The bottom line is he is wrong! Just because Bill or Hillary or Al Gore would spend just as much money does not make it right. Do you follow?
I know liberals are used to shouting down their opponents, but that's kind of hard to do here. So I guess you have to settle for name-calling. Whatever. I would say an "embarrassment" is a guy who serves in the Nam then comes home and claims, without a shred of proof, that OTHER vets routinely committed war crimes. I would say a guy who so little values medals awarded him by his country that he throws them away to impress Jane Fonda. Oh, sorry, that wouldn't apply to Kerry since he later admitted he didn't actually throw away HIS medals. Guess he used one of those war criminal's medals. Kerry's sevice, while admirable, does not insulate him from criticism on his policy positions over the years, whcih consistently favored a weaker America, or his personal conduct. I have to marvel at these Dem's. They sit by and don't say a word when that POS Michael Moore calls the President a deserter, or when Clinton sleazeball Terry MacAuliffe claims the President was AWOL from a Guard drill 35 years ago, all without a shred of proof. But for some reason Kerry is above criticism.
Kerry is not above criticism at all. His voting record is an issue. So is security. So is his vision moving forward. Though, wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to put up with all the mud from both sides? There is a definite and serious split in ideology in this country. Both sides believe they are ABSOLUTELY right. This will likely boil down to once again people choosing an evil of two lessors. However, if I were a Republican, I would be very concerned if my focus was more on what was wrong with Kerry rather than what was right with Bush. If we look back to the 2000 election and think: Of those who voted for Gore, how many of them will vote for Bush this time around? So if the Democrats can capture the same Gore voters, and swing over some of the Bush voters, the election can be easily won. Lacking a third party candidate this time also favors the Democrats. The running mate is probably more important in this election than ever before. Can't you imagine a pretty boy like Edwards, with his southern charm, swinging some of the necessary votes away from Bush down in Dixie? Bush had better fire Cheney and take on a guy like Rudy Giuliani as his running mate. The issues will become very blurred in this campaign. The mud slinging will be intense, and the last election was oh so close. The rhetoric will be insane from both sides. The economy better start to improve quickly, as it is very hard to turn the economy around quickly in September. Bush had better do something about the price of oil and gas soon too. If I were Karl Rove, I would be concerned.
It is amazing how quickly things changed from being a guaranteed cake walk for Bush to him being the underdog? Part of it is media cheerleading for Kerry, part of it is foulups by Bush, which I have summarized repeatedly here, part of it is the curious hatred he seems to evoke in certain Dem partisans. No doubt virtually all Gore voters will vote against Bush. They would vote for Osama if necessary. So much for the issues being important. I think Edwards is likely to be the VP candidate. I wouldn't count on him swaying many southern votes. He is running because he is so detested in his home state of NC, the polls showed any strong Republican candidate would have crushed him. He has created a record of positions and sound bites that might endear him to Vermont voters but not to many southerners. It is odd that pointing out a candidate's past positions on the issues and his voting record have come to be regarded as "negative campaigning" and somehow illegitimate, particularly if those psoitions have been far left. Apparently the media doesn't have a problem with reckless allegations about the President's National Guard service 35 years ago. Somehow that is highly relevant, as are allegations about drug use by him and his driving record, etc, etc, but whether Kerry was carrying on an affair a year before he started his campaign is his personal business. Hey, his role model JFK did it, so why shouldn't he?