[GCFL-discuss] Throwing Stones

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

Impressive. I think Kerry would have had 10 times the chance to win if he
had stepped out and said his vote reflected the information as it came.
Instead of trying to fight Bush's attack of "flip-flopping".

God bless you,
Lance
John 8:32 "You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free."

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:18:31 -0600 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> 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.