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: Ilaine who wrote (82453)	11/1/2004 12:57:15 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793840

It would be a futile thing for Congress to take on the job of trying to stay in Iraq over Kerry's objections. It can declare and finance a war, but it cannot do a thing to wage it. If Congress insisted, I can't think of a way it could get around the President's power over military activity other than to impeach him.

To: Ilaine who wrote (82453)	11/1/2004 2:57:05 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793840

wounded Kerry presidency would, on the whole, be superior to one in which he was able to wield power without reservation. A Kerry presidency will be wounded from the get-go, regardless. Just look at his supporters. Half of them are the Howard Dean camp, who want him to reverse all of Bush's policies, ASAP. The other half are the Andrew Sullivan camp who have talked themselves into delusions that Kerry will be forced to continue Bush's policies, but in a more diplomatic and successful manner. On top of that you have Kerry's own track record of prolonged data gathering and procrastination on important decisions - and this assessment comes from his supporters! imo, this is a formula for paralysis, as no policy could satisfy both these camps, and Kerry will be getting rolled first one way, then another, by his many advisors.