Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I agree that Dean would have been a better candidate, and also think he would have one. Really the only reasons I can see why Kerry got the nomination was due to the fact that he looked more "presidential". Kerry seemed to have far more negatives than Dean, didn't have the personality of Dean, and had a campaign team seemingly worse then Dean's.
And as for the launching attacks with no rebuttal, move on (.org).
|
You just proved my point for me. Moveon.org had to respond to Bush's attacks because Kerry would not. That made things even worse for Kerry - not only will he not fight to defend himself, but it got so bad that someone ELSE had to step in and fight back for him. As soon as I saw that Kerry wasn't gonna fight for the office, and instead was gonna let other groups try to do it for him, I immediately predicted a Bush victory.
Quote:
Kettle: Hello Pot!
Pot: You're Black!
Suffice to say, I think your blindness to liberal attacks and use of the same tactics is suprising.
|
What tactics? The tactics the conservatives used were to call anyone who disagreed with them unpatriotic, morally bankrupt, and godless. I've certainly never used those phrases in my arguments against the conservatives.
Your statement again proves my point. The conservative side is having a grand old time launching attacks against the liberal side claiming the liberals are attacking them.
They're glossing over the fact that one can disagree with a position without attacking the position holder. The fact that I disagree with the war does not mean I consider every republican to be morally bankrupt or unpatriotic.
But the conservatives want to paint things as though I do, because then that makes me look petty, and reinforces the liberal whacko stereotype that the republicans invented.