[GCFL-discuss] Throwing Stones

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

Hey Lance, are you still out there?
Remember a few months ago when you asked what I would do when I had to
make the same criticisms of Kerry that I was making (and still make) of
Bush? I said I would be throwing different stones at Kerry. Well, I am,
but not the stones I expected to be throwing. Here is a letter I just
sent to his still-functioning web site. At least I kept my word.

Siarlys


Dear Senator Kerry,

The emails I continue to receive, and the new postings that appear in
2005 at your John Kerry in 2004 web site, indicate that you aspire to be
the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. You see yourself leading
the fight to limit the damage George Bush can do in his second term, and
emerge as the leading candidate for another shot at being president in
2008. You are so wrong. You had your chance, and you blew it. You should
have the good grace to step aside so someone with a chance of winning the
confidence of a majority of voters can emerge.

Never since 1932 has there been such a good opportunity to dump a
president running for re-election. Never has a president gone into an
election year with such consistently low approval ratings. Never has so
solid a block of citizens been so determined to dump such an incompetent
president from office. You offered yourself as the man who could lead us
to victory. You failed us.

The voters who determined the final outcome were not motivated by
opposition to "gay marriage" or abortion. Those voters lined up behind
the incumbent months earlier; they were not among the undecided swing
voters who ususally go for the challenger (but did not this time).
Millions of people who voted for you oppose gay marriage. Millions who
voted for George Bush are prepared to accept it. The election was not
decided by your history with Vietnam Veterans Against the War; that could
have won you considerable admiration, if only you had had the courage to
present it boldly and honestly to the voters. The squabbles among the
Swift Vote veterans was a draw: those who lied about you weren't even
near the firefights you were in, while life-long Republicans who served
in your unit came forward to defend you. The election was decided by
voters who had not made up their mind until the morning of November 2.
They took a final look at you, decided you were not up to the job, held
their noses, and voted for George Bush.

The deciding issue was you, not any issue, not even the president's
conduct in office. If we had an election like the California recall, I am
confident that a majority of voters would have rejected George Bush, but
you might have fallen short of being the one to replace him.

A simple example from my home state of Wisconsin: You won the state with
50% of the vote, to 49% for Bush. Our incumbent Democratic senator was
returned to office with 56%. That means 6% of the voters, in a state with
Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature, were motivated
to re-elect George W. Bush, and also to re-elect the only member of the
United States Senate who voted "NO" on the USA Patriot act. What did
Senator Feingold have that you didn't? Candor, courage, consistency,
speaking plainly and openly to voters about what he believed, and
accepting their verdict based on what he genuinely stood for. You were so
fixated on being president that you kept your finger up all through the
campaign to see which way the wind was blowing. Nobody could tell what
you really stood for. You had so much you could have proudly said that
would have won you far more respect and support than the timid twisting
and turning, the vague phrase-mongering, that marked your campaign to the
end.

George Bush, disconnected from reality though he is, a dilattente who has
failed at everything he put his hand to from business to President of the
United States, at least is consistent in what he says and firmly believes
in what he says. That was enough for enough voters to squeak him back
into the White House for another four years. Never mind that he has never
allowed a fact to deter him from a course he imagines to be beneficial.
If you couldn't win in 2004, you really should not muddy the waters
further by fantasizing that you could pull it off next time around. For
the good of your country, settle for doing a good job as senator from
Massachusetts, and let someone who can offer a real inspiration to a
majority of the American people run over the evil juggernaut of Karl Rove
next time around.

You also failed us by denying John Edwards the running room to do what he
could have done best: carry a vigorous contest into the southern states.
You got more votes in the south than in New York and New England
combined. With a serious campaign effort, you could have carried North
Carolina, West Viriginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri. One of them
would have swung the electoral college.