Or will they 'Kerry' it?
http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/cartoons/021904_stantis.jpg
To 'Kerry' means to totally avoid the issues at hand and focus solely on bashing Bush. You recall that John Kerry, a 2004 Presidental Candidate did that very thing.
Today's Democratic candidates don't present plans, solutions, or ideas. They just 'Kerry' it.
They denounce Bush yet offer no solutions of your own.
Tis the liberal way.
2007-08-01 09:32:54 · 9 answers · asked by Frank Dileo 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
moveonorg.-- Does it matter? He is still an appeaser. Heard of the 'swiftboat' movement.
2007-08-01 09:44:05 · update #1
I just wonder when they'll realize that Bush isn't running in '08, so they can stop trying to drive his name into the dust. Obama is the only one who has come out with a plan, and it involves leaving the 'quagmire' of Iraq, only to invade a country with millions of soldiers and atomic weapons.
2007-08-01 09:38:41 · answer #1 · answered by Dekardkain 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I agree with most of what mackenzie said, but I've got to add, how the hell can american citizens make an informed choice concerning a candidate when all we hear is what the Democrats are AGAINST? Hillary can't make a speech that doesn't include Bush. I haven't heard one Democrat offer a solution to anything without bashing Bush. Okay, we got the picture. Are we to assume that they'll base all their decisions on doing the opposite of Bush? I never cared what party a candidate represented. I've always tried to make my decision based on the candidate's platform. All we know is that they all hate Bush.
2007-08-01 17:01:15 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We're somewhat trapped. Instead of focusing on what is our focus, rights, we've made ourselves into "anti-conservatives" or "anti-republicans".
Look, your party serves a purpose in this country. So do we. We need brakes and gas no matter what direction we are going. I understand the defensiveness (I've seen what you put up with, we had the same junk to deal with when President Clinton was in office and it wasn't ALL republicans doing it.)
We're not going to have solutions to that. That isn't our job. It's yours. We just have to stop insulting you long enough to make it a matter of convincing the public that we want out, and want other ways to deal with terrorists, while you do the opposite (both within our rights and doing our jobs).
Trust the U.S. citizens to make the decisions they need to and end the political bigotry.
You're just adding to it. Your point is reasonable. It's the extra stuff I'd like to see gone (I have no right to insist).
I support free speech. That doesn't mean I have to stay silent or like sedition. Senator Kerry doesn't deserve that, any more than President Bush (yes, my President) deserves the junk he's dealing with now, or the Senate deserves the stuff they're dealing with now.
Political bigotry hurts us all. It's the last bastion of prejudice in our country.
2007-08-01 16:43:20 · answer #3 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Didn't Obama, raising spectres of Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, propose attacking Pakistan?
Not a sound policy, to be sure, but at least it's in the right area of the world and against the right enemy. Unlike the direction of Reid, Pelosi or Murtha.
2007-08-01 16:59:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The whole complicated Democrat strategy is in place.--They'll tap George's home phone and do what ever he thinks is right.
Until then, they'll "stay the course", because "it's better to fight them there" , so "they wont follow us here".
They will "take the offense", and "set up a military front to fight terrorism abroad, instead of having to fight them on our streets"
I don't know where they got all these "new" ideas, but they're ingenious, don't you think?
2007-08-01 16:52:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Did you know that Kerry fought in Vietnam?
***When I was in Vietnam............... lol!
They will definately Kerry it. Remember my first answer here? That was his tactic when faced with a difficult question during the debates in '04.
P.S. - Yes Mr. Edwards, I do like your haircut! Do you like my Breck ad?
2007-08-01 16:42:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
How about trying to take out their leader who happens to be in Afghanistan/Pakistan mountains. What the hell are we doing in Iraq except helping the terrorists recruit and train. Has anybody got a clue as to what GWB's plan is/was/is going to be/ it seems to change daily.
2007-08-01 16:42:14 · answer #7 · answered by World Peace Now 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yep. Avoid the true issues and pander for votes with empty promises.
Pathetic.
2007-08-01 16:37:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Do expect them to give the terrorists their plans!!!????
The republicans will not give a pull out date in Iraq because it will help the enemy, but you expect dems to give a detailed terrorist plan?
2007-08-01 16:39:21 · answer #9 · answered by beren 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋