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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (30863)	11/2/2006 9:54:42 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541355

>> The one thing you've left out of your equation is that Kerry would have brought a large coterie of folk into government who would have been competent and not ideological. I did?! I thought I indicated as much in my very first sentence: "Kerry would have run the whole affair much more competently and with fewer immediate fall outs." >> A definite upgrade. You think so? I believe to the contrary. That was one of my two main points about why we should be grateful Kerry did not win. Here is an analogy: One reason so many people smoke is because smoking damage takes a long time to materialize. If it caused cancer within 5 years, you'd have far less smokers and as a result far fewer smoking related deaths. Similarly, Kerry would have prolonged our time in Iraq (assuming he'd have been as competent as you think). The damage would have been stretched over a longer period and passed on to other administration(s) with a net results of tying up the country and resources and troops for a very long time. As it stands, we are about to put an end to the Iraq fiasco within a single term. My other point, which we are both in agreement on, is that Kerry's better competence would not have won him and Dems much on politics anyway, because it is unlikely he could have solved the problem and avoid the negative spins.