Apparently, it is too much to expect some people to understand how someone could have voted for Reagon and supported the current administration in their efforts two years ago, but has now not only declared his candidacy, but is suggesting that there needs to be a countrywide discussion of the issues and how to deal with them going forward--not in the context of centering on "blame," but looking at where we are now, and considering options for going forward to be actually shared honestly with the American voters. It's seems it is impossible for some people to make the incredible leap of logic that someone may have supported this administration initially, but after having seen the last two years of behavior (both domestic and international handling of affairs) that they either support someone else to take over the job or feel like they themselves could do a better job at it. Conditions currently are such that General Clark truly believes that there are better ways to handle all the responsibilities of this job. Can they not critize his ideas without impugning his integrity?How many voters, I wonder, feel that even they could do a better job? I've heard of ridiculous arguements, but seriously, this one truly is astounding.This is a good editorial piece from the LA Times. <<<< In his newsletter last week, Washington's highly respected political handicapper Charlie Cook correctly noted that "for the White House, it is particularly important that Clark's credibility be impeached as soon as possible." The White House and its media allies clearly agree.>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-op-marshall28sep28,1,7865792.story?coll=la-home2-utilities
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra