What kind of stupid-ass question is this?

Media silent on Kerry's cancer
Sunday, August 29, 2004

I am a former cancer victim in my third year of what I hope to be a successful remission. It is therefor disturbing to find that apart from ABC's Peter Jennings' inquiries about Sen. John Kerry's fairly recent encounter with prostate cancer, the issue appears to have been totally avoided by the media.

Kerry is seeking the presidency. Is that a responsible undertaking for anyone who could well be faced with a recurrence of cancer? Is Kerry truly confident that Sen. John Edwards, a first-term senator, is ready and qualified to replace him should that happen a year or so into a President Kerry's first term in office?

Before too long, Kerry should be asked the following question during a prime-time TV appearance: "In this time when the United States faces an extended war against terror, is the nation best served by a president who has not so long ago been a victim of cancer?"

The U.S. public deserves an honest answer. SHARON CORNISH Hillsboro

Posted by Prometheus 6 on August 30, 2004 - 11:06am :: Politics
 
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There is no question intended. Using her standard, FDR would have been sacked for not having fully recovered from polio by the time Pearl Harbor was bombed and it was Jack Kennedy's back troubles that actually made him turn a deaf ear to Curtis LeMay's pleas to "nuke" North Vietnam. I'm not a Kerry partisn but so what if he was treated for prostrate cancer. Dick Cheney has a pacemaker and has had two heart attacks since becoming vice president. Life goes on. O-bla-dee, O-bla-dah!

Posted by  PTCruiser on August 30, 2004 - 6:57pm.

I forgot to add the following: That's why we have a prescribed process for succession in the event of the death of a president. To paraphrase the late Joe Tex, the death of one monkey does not stop the show.

Posted by  PTCruiser on August 30, 2004 - 7:01pm.