For months now, I've been bashing President George W. Bush for, well, pretty much everything. And if I hadn't been busy filming a documentary, I probably would have bashed him even more often then I have.
Now, however, it's Senator John Kerry's turn to face my cyber-wrath.
Senator Kerry has been bashing President Bush over the economy and the war in Iraq even more frequently than I have. He's the Democratic nominee for the White House so one has to expect that.
However, I profoundly disappointed in how little he has done to present the American public with a viable alternative. He's done relatively little to give me the sense that he has a plan to do things better or offer us a better solution.
Take the war in Iraq for example. People have been pestering him for details on how he would do things differently ever since he became the Democratic nominee. He finally put forward his plan.
Sort of.
The thing is only 3 pages long; consisting primarily of bullet points and sound bites. Bullet points and sound bites are fine, but you need more than that to convince the American people that you have a plan to win in Iraq.
You need more than that to convince the American public that we're better off with John Kerry in the White House than with George W. Bush.
You need details.
A good 15 - 20 pages of them.
Filled with charts, graphs, maps and, above all else, details about a Kerry Administration would get us out of Iraq better than a second round of Bush II.
You need details.
How would Kerry as president do things differently? He has talked a lot about "internationalizing" the war, but what would he do to get that level of international support for a war that the rest of the world simply wants to abandon?
How would this hypothetical, international contingent operate that is different from the way everything is currently run? If it's the daily operations aren't really any different, how can we expect the final outcome of the war to be different?
Details, Senator Kerry. Details.
When I co-directing my local chapter of Students for Clinton-Gore in 1992, I had a library of white papers at my disposal. All of them showed how then Governor Clinton would provide the American public with a better alternative than the elder President Bush. All of them were much more comprehensive than anything Senator Kerry has put forward.
The whole thing reminds me of an old poltical adage that I heard when I was running my local chapter of the college Democrats way-back-when.
"You can't beat somebody with nobody," the saying goes.
And until Senator Kerry puts forward a lot more detail before he can truly become somebody on a national stage.
It's just a shame that Senator Kerry didn't hear the same lessons in college that I did.
As things now stand, if John Kerry becomes the next President of the United States, it will be in spite of all that he has done during the campaign; not because of it.
Now, however, it's Senator John Kerry's turn to face my cyber-wrath.
Senator Kerry has been bashing President Bush over the economy and the war in Iraq even more frequently than I have. He's the Democratic nominee for the White House so one has to expect that.
However, I profoundly disappointed in how little he has done to present the American public with a viable alternative. He's done relatively little to give me the sense that he has a plan to do things better or offer us a better solution.
Take the war in Iraq for example. People have been pestering him for details on how he would do things differently ever since he became the Democratic nominee. He finally put forward his plan.
Sort of.
The thing is only 3 pages long; consisting primarily of bullet points and sound bites. Bullet points and sound bites are fine, but you need more than that to convince the American people that you have a plan to win in Iraq.
You need more than that to convince the American public that we're better off with John Kerry in the White House than with George W. Bush.
You need details.
A good 15 - 20 pages of them.
Filled with charts, graphs, maps and, above all else, details about a Kerry Administration would get us out of Iraq better than a second round of Bush II.
You need details.
How would Kerry as president do things differently? He has talked a lot about "internationalizing" the war, but what would he do to get that level of international support for a war that the rest of the world simply wants to abandon?
How would this hypothetical, international contingent operate that is different from the way everything is currently run? If it's the daily operations aren't really any different, how can we expect the final outcome of the war to be different?
Details, Senator Kerry. Details.
When I co-directing my local chapter of Students for Clinton-Gore in 1992, I had a library of white papers at my disposal. All of them showed how then Governor Clinton would provide the American public with a better alternative than the elder President Bush. All of them were much more comprehensive than anything Senator Kerry has put forward.
The whole thing reminds me of an old poltical adage that I heard when I was running my local chapter of the college Democrats way-back-when.
"You can't beat somebody with nobody," the saying goes.
And until Senator Kerry puts forward a lot more detail before he can truly become somebody on a national stage.
It's just a shame that Senator Kerry didn't hear the same lessons in college that I did.
As things now stand, if John Kerry becomes the next President of the United States, it will be in spite of all that he has done during the campaign; not because of it.
Comments