Don't we see a similar trend in Kerry's depressing candidacy? It seems evident that he is, as the Bush ads have it, a flip-flopper on the issues. The reason he won't give a straight answer on a question is because he is trying to define for himself the parameters of what is possible in the political field (or, more succinctly, the most inoffensive response). Kerry is an empty vessel as far as beliefs are concerned (is anybody else beginning to believe that Kerry really is as bad a candidate as everybody has said he is?) it's not a matter of the best policy, but the most inoffensive.
I am convinced that what GWB is perpetuating in the US is nothing short of a revolution. The Republicans are able to bring it out because of their utter disdain for the rules of engagement. In breaking treaties and the rule of international law they have created their own rules. The fact that they've done it shows that it's possible to do so.
If Kerry loses this election it is because he deserves to. I'm convinced that if he went on the attack then he would have a chance of winning. At the moment, nobody knows what he would do for the world. It's Bush who is the man of action, the man of powerful leadership. Kerry, the opinion poll watcher, should know most of all that what the US seems to want is a leader.
Simon
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> And what about Kucinich? He was in all the Dem
> debates, and got a
> chance to air his views. Why couldn't he get more
> than 1-2% of the
> primary vote - the Democratic primary, where voters
> are to the left
> of the general election? It's easy to blame money or
> the media, but
> the problem is more complex than that.
>
> Doug
____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html