> Give me a break. Kerry spent fourh months in Vietnam on a boat. On a
> boat, not roaming around in the jungle. My father did two tours in the
> jungle in Vietnam in '62 and '63 as a Green Beret. And he didn't do it so
> he could come home and launch a political career, either. He did it to
> serve his country.
I commend your father, but I'm not sure how know Kerry's motivations from
that time period.
>
> Kerry did four months, got himself "wounded" just enough to get out fast
> and get back to the U.S., then promptly became an anti-war activist. It is
> clear to me that Kerry had a plan from the very start to make a political
> career out of his service and he spun everything he could to max effect
> to launch that career.
>
Tell me, how exactly do you direct grenade shrapnel or rifle bullets so that
you get "wounded just enough"?
I can think of a lot better ways of starting a career.
> Then he stood up with a bunch of anti-war activists and threw out his
> medals. Or wait, did he? Apparently now that he's running as a war
> candidate his story on that front has changed.
So, seeing what he saw in Vietnam couldn't have had any bearing on his
political views of the war.
>
> More importantly, what has John Kerry done since he got into the U.S.
> Senate? Kissed Ted Kennedy's ass for the last 20 years, that's what. The
> guy is a back-bencher, a second-rate Senator with nothing to
> recommend him other than the fact that he's not Bush. That may be
> enough for hardcore Democrats, but that's not enough for me. Dems
> should have gotten Hillary to run, at least she would be a credible
> candidate. I don't even really like her, but she's done more in three
years
> in the Senate than Kerry did in 20.
>
Truthfully, I do think the dems capitulated in this election with their
nominee. They wanted someone who didn't seem so divisive to the general
public. Just think of what fun the republicans would have with Hillary.
The truth is, no matter what candidate you run they're going to go through
some massive character assassination. I believe that's the whole reason for
putting up state governors for President rather than senators. Senate
records are a lot more in the limelight than state governors and the issues
they've voted affect more people. That's why when Bush was a candidate he
wasn't grilled more on his political history. Bush was touted as having won
2 terms and won by major landslides. If you lived in Texas, you'd
understand why. When I've voted the past 2 major elections, there aren't a
lot of democratic candidates around. If you were to vote a straight party
dem ticket, you'd probably not be voting in 50% of the races. Texas is a
republican state. If you're a living breathing body and claim to be
republican, you can get elected. As a matter of fact, our current governor
was originally a dem. He switched because he saw the writing on the wall.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
