I understand why Kerry's answering questions about his plans with attacks on Bush, but I think it's an error. The people who are live in this election are already at least moderately uneasy about Bush, and he's got to do a certain amount of widening those cracks of doubt. But people keep asking Kerry about what he'd do precisely because what the doubters are now asking is: "Would Kerry do any better, even if we do thing Bush screwed up?" Answering by hammering on Bush and tossing in a vacuous postscript about "bringing our allies to the table" isn't going to ease anyone's mind.
Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.
Reason is supported by: