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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (52822)	11/3/2006 12:02:12 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

>>You are investing a lot of effort into defending Kerry. I can understand some people doing that based on their Bush Derangement Syndrome or their worship of Kerry (I can name a few who do both), but somebody who actually thinks about it -- that's harder to understand. You seem to think about your answers, even when you are being evasive, so I'm perplexed. What do you think about Kerry? Do you actually LIKE him? Or are your answers borne of BDS? What?<< ManyMoose - I'll answer that, though I will reserve the right to wander a bit off the precise topic as I do. I don't like seeing the right trying to perpetuate their idea that Kerry and all Democrats hate America, hate our troops, and have no principles. That pisses me off. I happen to think Kerry was a lousy nominee and a poor candidate, and that only a real bungler could have managed to lose to Bush in 2004, even if he lost by only 2%. I don't think Kerry is solely to blame for the loss. Democratic strategists have for a long time allowed Republicans to set the tone and terms of the debate, leaving them in a position where it's almost impossible to win. For example, the Republicans kept saying throughout that campaign, "So and so voted for the war, now he's against it." But the President himself said, in the weeks preceding the vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, that it was not a vote for war. He said that he needed to have the "credible threat of force" as a negotiating tool. If he were the man of his word that he claims to be, then that's what that vote would have actually been about, and he would not have later thrown it back in the faces of those who chose to trust him at that moment. But did the Democrats throw Bush's words in HIS face when he threw their votes in his? Only a few of them did, and they were not the ones running the show. The Democrats have done a poor job of countering Karl Rove's cynical Attack Politics. That doesn't mean that they don't actually have a better set of ideas than the Republicans do. - Allen