Doesn't it seem just a bit peculiar that the executive in charge of our whole nation is comparing his record to that of a man whose history of service is primarily in the legislative arena? Wouldn't it make more sense to point out his accomplishments in the oval office and let the electorate judge that?
Well, of course. But that's just the point isn't it? The current Administration can point to NO successes--just a lot of projects started and a lot of unfinished business. It isn't just the major tax cuts that are scheduled to kick in later, after the next election. There's also that prescription drug program that might or might not get set up in a couple of years, depending on whether there's any money left over from the war in Iraq.
Maybe that's why a comparison with Senator Kerry's record as a law-maker is being trotted out early. Maybe in the later stages of the campaign they'll make the point that, if what's been promised for later is to be accomplished, the Administration needs another term in office.
Maybe they figure that if they can just delay the discussion of the facts long enough, it will be too late to make the case that nothing, other than making a lot of people angry, has been accomplished.
In other words, Senator Kerry's legislative history is just a diversion. But, if we look very closely, we'll see there's another reason the current Administration wants to attack it. Because, you see, it's the legislative directives with which the executive disagrees and which his refusal to carry out has brought us to the point where nothing is getting done.
That's their story, you see. If they were just allowed to do things THEIR way and they didn't have to be bothered with congressional directives, then all the good things that were promised would already be done.
Being a mother, I don't believe it. That excuse reminds me too much of someone who hasn't done his homework because the teacher gave a stupid assignement.