|
Not exactly the correct point re: Kerry and Communism.
"Kerry was a vocal supporter of the "People's Peace Treaty," a supposed "people's" declaration to end the war, reportedly drawn up in communist East Germany. It included nine points, all of which were taken from Viet Cong (Vietnamese Communist) peace proposals at the Paris Peace Talks as conditions for a United States retreat from the Vietnam War."
(Vietnam Veterans against John Kerry)
Keep in mind, I said "branded a Communist". This is not an implication that he was a registered Communist, traitor, nothing of that nature, just a simple fact. More Americans recall Jane Fonda's history regarding Vietnam than her performance in "On Golden Pond"... this is the society we live in. Clinton was branded a bad president because he fooled around. Folks are branded all the time, and if a considerable portion of the country thinks you've been a Commie at one point in your life, that likely does disqualify you from leading the nation... especially if you're so liberal half the country wouldn't vote for you from the start.
I have nothing personal against Kerry. I don't think he'll win, although if he partners with Edwards or Clinton, who knows. My original point was that we cannot find a guy who "half the country thinks is a joker". Kerry fits the bill of my criticism, and that was my point. Is it simply our hyper-partisanship that dictates our belief in leadership? It might be. I'd love to think that there was a leader in our populace who MORE than the slight majority would fall on their sword for- a person that both ideological opposites would say is a "great man" without a qualifier. It is quite possible to disagree with a man and still think he's a great man, is it not?
As Americans, we consistently think we're the most well-informed folks in the world, and routinely prove ourselves wrong.
|