Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (41237)	4/28/2004 9:52:30 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793868

Has Kerry gone round the bend? Not yet. He is still on the same message. He wraps it in different colored paper every week, but the message is always the same. "ima nam vet...vote for me...ima a hero" A more sublime message is beginning to emanate from him and get through too. "Nothing is too good for the troops, and that is what they get."

To: LindyBill who wrote (41237)	4/28/2004 1:20:28 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793868

The weirdest thing is that Kerry must think that Bush-Cheney-04 is behind the attacks, which they almost certainly are not. They don't need to be. BC04 doesn't need to expend one iota of political capital on this one. It's prefab, and it's been following Kerry around for years. His thing with the medals has been around for about as long as there's been a John Kerry with presidential ambitions. Karl Rove was in short pants when Kerry threw-didn't-throw-threw-someone-else's medals, and George Dubya Bush was chasing tail and raising hell. And if you believe the Democrats, Cheney was in bed with Mrs. Cheney looking for another deferment. ;^) At this point in his career, Kerry is stuck with the reputation he earned all by himself. As for attacking Cheney on defense -- apparently Kerry thinks that cutting the size of the military is the functional equivalent of cutting the size of the paychecks and benefits for the existing military? My sense is that people who actually served in the military know the difference. Interesting that Kerry is running on what most pundits think is Bush's turf, defense. And Moveon, an antiwar group, of all organizations, is admiring Kerry for serving in Vietnam and criticizing Bush/Cheney for not serving in Vietnam? What's next? Dogs and cats sleeping together?