If it were a good idea to turn the 2004 election into a referendum on
the Vietnam War, then it would have been a good idea to nominate Kerry.
As it stands it's just more baggage. I knew we were in trouble when the
3 finalists were all the best looking. And then you guys nominate the
most Leftist check signer of the bunch.
This is part of a pattern of oscillation that's been going on for much
of my life. Apparently each party thinks to itself "this guy is so
awful, they'll vote for anyone else" and so they inevitably nominate an
extremist. Johnson was so awful that we got Tricky Dick. He and that
pardon thing were so awful that we got Carter. He was so inept and
anti-Semitic that we got Reagan. Reagan-Bush was so awful that we got
Clinton. And finally, they were so bad that we got Bush Jr. Etc. He's
so bad that we either get Kerry this time or the NY senatrix the next.
We are the victims of this. Pray for a tie, and a second tie in the
vote among the States, so that Edwards can end the oscillation.
Bill
Lee Flier wrote:
> DSanner106 AT aol.com wrote:
>
>> I don't deny that portions of his speech would seem that way, but his
>> statements
>> about the crimes he had supposedly witnessed (he now claims this was
>> second
>> hand info and he did not witness any of it), were horrible, and the
>> focus of Viet cong attention.
>>
> Kerry was far from the only veteran making such statements and it is
> the truth that war crimes were committed...