[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Says Hugh Hewitt:

... the weakness of Kerrry as a candidate is obvious from the fact that it has now been 38 days since Kerry sat down on camera with a major figure from American journalism for an in-depth interview that would be certain to bring up Kerry's whoppers about his Vietnam service.

I see. And the last Bush on-camera interview with a major figure from American journalism was... when? Larry King, on August 12th? So that'd be 26 days ago or so.

We now know the official difference between weak candidates and strong candidates. If you don't do interviews for 26 days, that's OK -- but if you go 12 days further, well, that's weakness.

Comments

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

But there's a major difference. Kerry has something to explain--why is he lying about having been in Vietnam? Whereas Bush has done nothing that requires explanation.

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. I mean, there's no way you're not being sarcastic, right? Right?

[head58.livejournal.com]

Nothing specific, anyway. Not in the way that Kerry really needs to address these very specific charges being thrown at him nearly constantly in the media for the past month.

I have to agree with the person Bryant got the original quote from. This is a big sign of weakness from Kerry and Democrats in general. They don't fight back, and the Republicans know it.

Four more years, here we come!

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

Of course, I can come up with real specific charges that Bush won't answer, either. Especially if I'm not constrained by any requirement to produce evidence (other than hearsay) to back up my charges.

How do you fight back against people who have no qualms about making things up out of whole cloth? ("Kerry's Purple Hearts are for self-inflicted scratches." "George Soros gets his money from drug cartels.")