I think you make a good point FL. However, the difference is that Bush has admitted to the lost years, where Kerry has not admitted that he made mistakes in the past (I am not saying that he has made mistakes in the past). I am not pro Bush by any means; Bush's success and his appeal to the "underinformed electorate," has been his image as an average guy, with a sorry but redeemed past, and a reincarnated political and religious life, who now is performing strongly. I think Kerry would be better off accepting and explaining, instead of fighting, the facts of his past life. If he has no law enacted in his name, then he should admit and explain it to the American people. If he fought the war for which he enlisted for, and that bothers some people, then he should admit and explain it to the American people. What Kerry should not do is to compare himself with Bush; that would give Bush the idiot, a boost in credentials.
the difference is that Bush has admitted to the lost years, where Kerry has not admitted that he made mistakes in the past
I really don't see how admitting mistakes suddenly makes them a nonissue. It certainly doesn't fly in our justice system.
If he has no law enacted in his name, then he should admit and explain it to the American people.
He should admit it? I REALLY wasn't aware he had denied it.
If he fought the war for which he enlisted for, and that bothers some people, then he should admit and explain it to the American people.
I believe has talked about this quite a bit already, and will in all likelihood continue to do so.
While we're on the subject, I'm going to throw in my own uniformed two cents: is it so bad Kerry has no law to his name? We've got too many of the bastards, which are already enforce rather poorly. Opinions to the contrary?
Michael, people have a tendency to be forgiving when confronted with a person who admits to his/her faults or wrongs. In fact, in our justice system, jurors are much more sympathetic to the wrongdoer who admits he was wrong. The reason is simple: everyone makes mistakes and everyone wants to be forgiven, so everyone wants to return the favor by being forgiving. By admitting to the wrong, the wrongdoer makes it a nonissue by taking the sting out; his opponent can not use it against him and if he does, the impact is not as great.
As to your other comments, you are right, I am uninformed on many of the things I said; all I am saying is that if there is an issue, Kerry should take the sting out by explain it to the American people so that it is not used against him by his opponents, even if it means admitting to certain things. Is there a law enacted and has Kerry's name on it? I am not sure. Is it a good thing to have a law enacted, and have your name on it? I am not sure and you are raising a valid point. Dr. King is credited for the Civil Rights movement, which led to the enactment of many laws subsequently, but as far as I know there is no law enacted with his name on it; and none attributed to him by the lawmakers. Does that render his efforts on the Civil Rights moot? I think not.
Thank again for commenting on my comments. You certainly raise valid points and ask good questions. Next time around I will be more careful on writing things on the areas that I am uninformed about.
I think you make a good point FL. However, the difference is that Bush has admitted to the lost years, where Kerry has not admitted that he made mistakes in the past (I am not saying that he has made mistakes in the past). I am not pro Bush by any means; Bush's success and his appeal to the "underinformed electorate," has been his image as an average guy, with a sorry but redeemed past, and a reincarnated political and religious life, who now is performing strongly. I think Kerry would be better off accepting and explaining, instead of fighting, the facts of his past life. If he has no law enacted in his name, then he should admit and explain it to the American people. If he fought the war for which he enlisted for, and that bothers some people, then he should admit and explain it to the American people. What Kerry should not do is to compare himself with Bush; that would give Bush the idiot, a boost in credentials.
Posted by Tadgh | Link to this comment | 08- 1-04 7:01 AM
the difference is that Bush has admitted to the lost years, where Kerry has not admitted that he made mistakes in the past
I really don't see how admitting mistakes suddenly makes them a nonissue. It certainly doesn't fly in our justice system.
If he has no law enacted in his name, then he should admit and explain it to the American people.
He should admit it? I REALLY wasn't aware he had denied it.
If he fought the war for which he enlisted for, and that bothers some people, then he should admit and explain it to the American people.
I believe has talked about this quite a bit already, and will in all likelihood continue to do so.
While we're on the subject, I'm going to throw in my own uniformed two cents: is it so bad Kerry has no law to his name? We've got too many of the bastards, which are already enforce rather poorly. Opinions to the contrary?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08- 1-04 3:54 PM
Michael, people have a tendency to be forgiving when confronted with a person who admits to his/her faults or wrongs. In fact, in our justice system, jurors are much more sympathetic to the wrongdoer who admits he was wrong. The reason is simple: everyone makes mistakes and everyone wants to be forgiven, so everyone wants to return the favor by being forgiving. By admitting to the wrong, the wrongdoer makes it a nonissue by taking the sting out; his opponent can not use it against him and if he does, the impact is not as great.
As to your other comments, you are right, I am uninformed on many of the things I said; all I am saying is that if there is an issue, Kerry should take the sting out by explain it to the American people so that it is not used against him by his opponents, even if it means admitting to certain things. Is there a law enacted and has Kerry's name on it? I am not sure. Is it a good thing to have a law enacted, and have your name on it? I am not sure and you are raising a valid point. Dr. King is credited for the Civil Rights movement, which led to the enactment of many laws subsequently, but as far as I know there is no law enacted with his name on it; and none attributed to him by the lawmakers. Does that render his efforts on the Civil Rights moot? I think not.
Thank again for commenting on my comments. You certainly raise valid points and ask good questions. Next time around I will be more careful on writing things on the areas that I am uninformed about.
Posted by Tadhg | Link to this comment | 08- 1-04 9:16 PM