RealGun
Member
We need somebody up there who is willing to say no to somebody else, and we get that only with gridlock.
Can we be clear that this is not a Libertarian argument? It is a desparate rationale why Kerry should win, i.e. a sad conclusion to yet another Bush bashing rant from a Democrat.
The reasons why Kerry should not be elected are so clear that there shouldn't need to be a debate on the details. I see nothing wrong with being critical after the election and setting ones goals for the 2008 election. Meanwhile, Bush is a good enough champion against John Kerry and all he stands for to be elected for four more years. There aren't any other realistic alternatives, if one wants to be relevant in this election.
I shouldn't pretend to affect what others do, but I can testify to my own reasoning and stand behind it.