him discuss how he would accomplish these things. And I have seen nothing in
his record that shows him taking a leadership role to push any of these views
over the last many years as a member of congress.
So while it is easy to call a view "tautlogy", which I am not even sure that
the heck that means, he doesn't have a record of being for anything. Being
against something is entirely different that being for anything. For example,
I am against poverty, hunger and poor education. That's easy. The problem is
to select HOW you are going to solve each, what specific activities you are
FOR, then making an effort to implement them. So, I disagree that being
against something is the same as being for something else.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Problem for the Democrats is that since they aren't running FOR anything,
but
> are running AGAINST Bush
That's an empty tautology. By being against Bush and his policies,
they're automatically _for_ something. Anyone running against the
incumbent is automatically "against" the incumbent. Otherwise, there
would be no reason to be running because there wouldn't be any need to
run FOR anything. It's redundant, circular logic.
Here's what they are running for:
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
