Monday, September 13, 2004


I have many, many disagreements with how President Bush and his administration has handled a variety of issues. But every time I start to consider whether I could see myself voting for the other guy, I'm confronted with statements like what John Kerry said in a recent New York Times article. After leveling a number of reasonable criticisms of how Bush et al have handled North Korea, Kerry was asked what he would do about a North Korean nuclear test. His reply:
When Mr. Kerry was pressed about how he would handle the threat of a North Korean nuclear test if he was in the Oval Office, he declined to be prescriptive, other than to say that the issue would probably have to be taken to the United Nations Security Council. "Hypothetical questions are not real," he said, arguing that North Korea was a case for preventive diplomacy, and that Mr. Bush's "ideologically driven" approach had kept him from truly engaging North Korea.
This is why I can't see myself voting for JFK. Kerry called David Sanger specifically to vent about North Korea. One can only presume that he might expect to be asked, "Well, what would you do differently?" And yet, he had no answer! What would I get in terms of American policy toward North Korea if I vote for Kerry? I have no idea? Ditto for Iraq. Oh how the man frustrates me!

Such is the sorry state of this election. I honestly have no idea what Kerry or his supporters, um, support. Besides 'get Bush out of office at any cost'. Which will leave us with what, exactly? I don't know if anyone knows.

I don't even think it's a cover-up of his true motives; I'm not sure that he has any. Now that's a sad campaign.

I'm actually at the point where I would vote for Clinton over Kerry. (Bill Clinton. Don't make me come over there... ;) And for me, that's saying something.

(If it were Gore vs. Kerry, I think I'd move to England.)

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?