The media and the GOPpers have been all over Kerry because he changes his mind, can't make up his mind, feels the way the breeze is blowing and heads in that direction, etc.
That is the nature of a politician. They rarely make up their minds, well until they reach a point in which they have to. All politicians, GOP, DEM, Indies, Greens, Reform, Commie, Nazi, etc. they all change their minds because no one would get any votes if they didn't coordinate their message with public opinion.
The American Republic is an always has been based on coalition and compromise. Politicians compromise their core ideology to get elected, and then they collude with other politicians in other compromises to get their pet projects through.
Bush in 2000 said a bunch of things that were not true, impossible and things he would not pursue. The media and a bunch of Bush haters in my neck of the woods complained and bellyached about it. I calmly explained that Bush's actions were those of any politician. They make claims and send out their message until they get alot of negative feedback on it, then they change their mind(s). Bush does it, Kerry does it, Nader does it, Perot did it, and every human being this world over changes their mind at some point or another.
All this waffling mud being slung at Kerry is a diversion from the real issues.
Nonetheless, Kerry is a poor candidate the Dems' establishment backed for the nomination. They should have picked Edwards if they want to beat Bush, or come up with someone who didn't even seek the nomination. Kerry is too much of an easy target using these waffle-issue diversions.
If anyone wants to slam Kerry, all they have to do is point to that meeting he had with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. He looked pretty unpresidential on that day, and that sums it up for me.
Again, in 2004 and the race for the White House, the American electorate is faced with a non-choice:
1. George "The neo-Butcher of Baghdad" Bush: is he a man or a chimp, has GW Bush fully evolved? ***or***
2. John "The Waffling Ketchup King" Kerry: can he make up his mind, or does he consult his wife's money before thinking?
People, the two-party system has failed. Kerry, if he should rise to the presidency (I think not), would continue with the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, and would downplay his liberalism by stealing GOPper issues and passing them off as Democratic issues.
Bush (and he will win in a landslide) will merely keep plugging away at the problematic policies he's already set and give more freedom to the big corporations before extending more tax cuts to the working poor and middle class. And there's the sinister possibility that the Administration will throw caution to the wind and do whatever the hell they want to do in their second and last term (and we all know Cheney is not running for pres. in 08, Guiliani has the inside track to that).
There is no friggen choice, both candidates suck. Bush worse than Kerry, but I wouldn't be too enthused about who wins.
This election is like Florida State playing Miami, I couldn't give a fock who wins! It's just one bunch of criminals against the other group of crooks! :chair:
|