 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hleone
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 81
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:25 am Post subject: John Kerry's failproof instincts for making wrong choices |
 |
|
Why did John Kerry lose so decisively?
Because he has an uncanny ability to choose the wrong side of every important issue!
Just consider a few of the well-known choices made by Kerry.
He chose to serve in Vietnam to build his political resume, though he was against the war in college.
He chose to embellish his service actions to garner questionable medals for valor.
He chose to go home early and leave his fellow sailors in harms way.
He chose to use his military service to legitimize, and become spokesman for, the anti-war movement.
He chose to write an anti-war book mocking on its cover the Iwo Jima Memorial and to publicly throw away his military medals in protest.
He chose to secretly and illegally meet with sworn enemies and to promote the enemy's proposal for the U.S. to accept defeat.
He chose to publicly accuse his fellow sailors, airmen and soldiers of committing war crimes on a daily basis.
He chose to oppose U.S. military strength, while Reagan was fighting and winning the cold war.
He chose to cut U.S. intelligence budgets, after the first Trade Center attack by terrorists.
He chose to oppose the first Gulf War, despite its massive coalition of countries, after Saddam Hussein invaded neighbor Kuwait.
He chose to oppose the Iraq war, only after Howard Dean took a commanding lead in the Democratic primaries for President.
He chose to make his very questionable service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.
He chose not to personally respond to the charges of the Swiftees.
He chose to send his surrogates out en masse to defame the 264 veterans as "a bunch of partisan liars."
He chose to continually lie to the American electorate about having all his military records available to the public on his website.
He chose to actively attempt to quash TV ad buys by the Swiftees and deny them their right to speak out to the American people.
He chose as his running mate a trial lawyer and inexperienced politician, unpopular even in his own home state.
He chose to align his campaign with people despised by the "moral majority," including Michael Moore, Al Franken, George Soros, Jimmy Carter, Dan Rather and the like.
He chose to honor a drunken Whoopi Goldberg and other angry Hollywood elites, after an evening of extreme profanity and hatred toward President Bush, by calling them "the heart and soul of America."
He chose to go out of his way to mention the Vice-President's gay daughter during the last debate, which he knew he was losing to President Bush.
How could this guy even be nominated, much less expect to win? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I could probably add a couple of other bad decsions to your list, but can't disagree with any you have listed. I will, though, try to take a stab at your last question:
| Quote: | | How could this guy even be nominated, much less expect to win? |
I think the answer to this comes from early in the campaign season when the MSM/OIM, who we now know were much more involved in Democratic strategy and campaign than they ever let on, announced that the election theme of the Democrats was going to be "Anybody but Bush," and later was stated to be nothing more than a "Referendum on the Incumbent." If that's the sum and substance of the Liberal sentiment, then I think they said up front that they frankly didn't care who their candidate was going to be - the election was not about the Democratic candidate; the election was all about defeating Bush. I don't see any evidence that they ever deviated from this simple theme. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gia_lin_fo
Ensign
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 66
Location: Franklin, TN
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anker-Klanker wrote: | | I think the answer to this comes from early in the campaign season when the MSM/OIM, who we now know were much more involved in Democratic strategy and campaign than they ever let on, announced that the election theme of the Democrats was going to be "Anybody but Bush," and later was stated to be nothing more than a "Referendum on the Incumbent." If that's the sum and substance of the Liberal sentiment, then I think they said up front that they frankly didn't care who their candidate was going to be - the election was not about the Democratic candidate; the election was all about defeating Bush. I don't see any evidence that they ever deviated from this simple theme. |
However, in the end, it was the Demagogic candidate that did them in. They ended up with the worst candidate from the bait bucket that they had to pick from. I truly believe that after electing a draft dodger they were a shoo in with a war hero. At least, he was a war hero to their side.
_________________
VietNam 1970-1971 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MSeeger
Seaman
Joined: 01 Oct 2004
Posts: 174
Location: Katy, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It makes me wonder what they will do four years from now when their favorite scapegoat is gone. Who will the liberals find to demonize next?
Maria
_________________
Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal. 6:7 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
