Why I support Kerry/Edwards

The Democrats put their lightweight in the lower spot on the ticket.

(Does anyone else feel deprived of a Kerry-Cheney debate?)

2 Responses to “Why I support Kerry/Edwards”

  1. kevin whited Says:

    By that accounting, the smarter technocratic George Bush should have been the presidential nominee in 1980 and 1984 instead of Ronald Reagan.

    While I’m sure liberals are vigorously nodding their heads, that further illustrates the point.

    Just as Reagan was a transformative conservative leader, we will, with the wisdom of years to help our perspective, one day realize this President as one. And, those with objectivity among us can even concede they aren’t the brightest men ever to have served in the office (that may well have been Woodrow Wilson).

    Just curious, though, Steve, what your SATs were, since the President’s are public knowledge. Did you top his scores?

    Anyway, those opposed to his theocon/ownership society agenda may not LIKE the agenda, but that’s a different debate. Interestingly, liberals would be better served if they would nominate a candidate interested in taking on that agenda as it is (yes, I do sound Straussian), instead of canards and straw men like “two Americas.” Kerry Edwards haven’t.

  2. Steve Says:

    Kevin — Three quick responses:

    1. I don’t see George W. Bush as akin to Ronald Reagan. I see him as akin to what you would get if George H. W. Bush pretended to be Ronald Reagan.

    2. I didn’t say President Bush is dumb. I said President Bush is a lightweight.

    3. If George H. W. Bush is “technocratic”, then I don’t know what a technocrat is.

    Thanks for your comments! More in a few days…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: