I'm not saying anyone is lying. I don't ascribe that generally and it pretty much is a waste of time. I'm saying Kerry is saying the same thing that basically every major candidate has said for the last 40 years and has shown nothing more nothing less.
You suggest "as the urgency increases, some president will have to act."
Same message by every candidate since the first oil embargo. When will the urgency increase to the point that there is an actual plan and one that is implemented?
There is much to attack the current administration. I'm suggesting that much of the current bash is pretty meaningless and will do little to enhance the debate and, imo, will do little for Kerry.
So long as the debate is on AWOL, Haliburton, the Cheney conspiracies, "it's all for big oil," the hidden Judeofascist cabal, etc., it takes away from the real issues that could elect Kerry, such as the extreme influence of the religious right, the emphasis on invasion of privacy and life styles, military and defense efficiencies and economies, disincentives of the IRC for an efficient economy, the troubling deficits (trade and budget) and many other economic issues.
Debating whether Cheney is running big oil won't change many voter opinions, when, in fact, most recognize that the policies haven't changed in 40+ years and are not likely to change under Kerry, until as you suggest that "the urgency increases....." |
