Common Cause is biased. Let's assume Kerry won.
His Supreme Court picks would have been more to our
liking. But I doubt he would have been a distinguished
president re Iraq, nuclear disarmament, global
warming, universal health care, race, poverty and any
other big ones. FDR was described as having a
second-class mind but a first-class personality. He
surrounded himself with eggheads, listened to their
competing ideas, and chose what he liked and thought
he could sell to the country, e.g. social security.
Kerry is 180-FDR: fine mind, terrible personality. I
doubt he could have sold even Paradise to his
advisors, to Congress and most important, to the
American people. I hope the Dems can come up with a
candidate better than either Kerry or Gore for 2006.
Too bad Obama's so young and green.
I answered:
Well, you know, I want to take some time and
consider what you're saying. Jimmy Carter also had trouble selling
some of his prescient ideas. You're basically saying Kerry wasn't
politcal enough, that he's not a people person. And it definitely matters.
But in my blog I'm talking about something more
basic, like the issue of whether the election was stolen.
I think Gore had the environmental background to
move us to de-couple from the huge degree that we depend
on oil and therefore the mid-east. And I'm not
entirely sure Gore is really so apolitcal as he came off in the
public media of the time. I don't buy it[Wouldn't
any intelligent person sigh talking to Bush 43?]
But I agree these things matter.
On the other hand, Bush 43 packing the Supreme Court
is a huge, huge issue. The presidential election is not a test, as
the WSJ has told us, and we lost(or did we win?) it.
The reader replied:
When a reporter asked George Meany his opinion of
President Nixon, labor's big jefe replied: "Please,
dere's ladies present."
No comments:
Post a Comment