| |
|
| |
logomachy--1. A dispute
about words. 2. A dispute carried on in words only; a battle of words.
logomachon--1. One who argues about words.
2. A word warrior.
|
|
| |
|
| |
2004-08-31
A bacchanal of cranks
A bacchanal of cranks
The pictures of the protesters at the Republican convention reminded me of what febrile nut cases gravitate toward the Left, and that reminded me, inevitably, of George Orwell's thoughts on Leftist cranks.
UPDATE: It's great having someone else do your research for you. James Taranto and Byron York, Logomachon's crack field reporters, have some more reports on the Leftist obsessives.
Going straight to the source, Are We Out of Touch with Common Humanity?, from a vegan Web site, is delightful not just because it consists largely of a more extensive quotations than usual of Orwell's famous opinion of the cranks who gravitate toward Socialism: In addition to this there is the horrible--the really disquieting--prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. The article also is amusing for its failure to address the issue framed in the title and its own fatuous conclusion that things are better now.
Things are really not much different, although the "fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac" perspective is more mainstream now. Even more devastating was Orwell’s characterization of the mainstream Leftist, which immediately precedes the section quoted:The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. [You can read it all here.] Orwell's typology of the Left is still true, though the cranks are more gaudy and more blatant in displaying the quirks and crochets that rule them. The protesters in NYC have put on display--in a way precluded by the lingering Edwardian sensibilities of inter-War England--the vivid world of stale archetypes that all the Left inhabit, where in the narcissistic way of unhappy children, great forces are all focused on them. The protesters at the RNC with their violence, costumes, nakedness, and body paint are distinctive only in their need to be open about their alienation from the adult world.
No less alienated, the front men for the Left--the politicians and journalists--succeed because they are able to discuss this worldview in coded phrases that sound sort of like rational, fact-based discourse, and of course one needed but to scratch a DNC delegate to disclose another alien in the mufti of prim little men and women in white-collar jobs.
The pre-convention protest activities are characterized by violence and portent; what they lack is meaning, in the sense of words, gestures, and symbols that point to things as they really are. As is usual with such things, the protests around the RNC are styled a "counter convention", as though the RNC would cause a Great Disturbance in the political plane unless it is neutralized or counter-balanced (the metaphors get a little confused). In contrast, while the Republicans had a response team at the DNC, it would never occur to conservatives that the DNC had to be expunged from the universe, let alone that it could be.
From that observation, it is a small step to realizing that the protests are really in the way of being a pagan religious festival. As Aristotle said, the (proper) end of politics is wise government. Politics is the process of selecting and influencing governors who will rule wisely; in a democracy this includes the general populace. Politics is also, in a famous phrase, the art of the possible.
The counter convention has zero chance of influencing either the RNC or the general populace; as politics it is a nullity. Hence, its purpose must be personal or spiritual. On the Left, these spheres are pretty well intertwined; for the cranky Left, there is no conflict between exhibitionism and prayer. (What did Jesus say about retiring to your room to pray rather than making a self-congratulatory spectacle of yourself?) Hence the signs; the anti-globalization acrobats; the frenzied parading of some symbols and attacks on other symbols (Starbucks and McDonalds); the paeans to a different, better world. They use the media and venues of political discourse, but they are not addressed to anyone. The protesters are engaged in a spiritual fight, pitting their own spiritual energy against the forces and structures of wickedness, on a landscape the non-believer cannot see and does not recognize when it is described to him.
Do not look for intelligibility. What makes the demonstrations significant to the protesters is how they demonstrate the purity of their source, namely the protesters souls. The banners and slogans are not meant to engage us in a dialogue. They are self-expression, a baring of the soul in a plea to the Heavens to rescue their world from its slide into the abyss of Republican evil.
|
Back-up Purple Heart
Back-up: The Purple Heart Kerry was ashamed to apply for—until now
WASHINGTON (HENS) EXCLUSIVE--Senator John Kerry has recommended himself for a Purple Heart for a previously unreported injury received during his combat tour in Vietnam more than 35 years ago.
The new award recommendation is accompanied by a statement from Kerry describing how he suffered the injury as a result of enemy action and a report from his proctologist confirming the injury and describing its lingering consequences.
Kerry received three Purple Hearts and two valor awards during his four months as a captain of a “Swift boat” in Vietnam from December 1968 to April 1969.
The recommendation apparently was submitted as his campaign prepared to concede that Kerry’s most controversial Purple Heart--earliest in time but awarded third--was awarded for a slight wound Kerry gave himself with his own grenade.
Still qualified to leave early
Veterans from Kerry’s Vietnam unit have challenged his account of his Vietnam service and criticized his decision to leave Vietnam after receiving the third--now disavowed--Purple Heart. If the new Purple Heart is awarded, it would mean that Kerry still qualified for early departure from Vietnam.
Kerry claims the injury occurred during his last combat mission, on 13 March 1968. Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for his actions later that day.
Kerry describes how he and some of his crew had gone ashore to retrieve the body of a “Nung” Vietnamese mercenary who had been killed by a booby trap. As Kerry, armed only with his favored M-79 grenade launcher and carrying a radio, and his crewmen were dragging the body, bundled in ponchos, back to their boat, they came under fire and had to jump into a ditch, where Kerry jammed his M-16’s muzzle into the mud. This matches published accounts by Kerry’s biographers. These versions continue with Kerry and his crew scrambling over a dike and carrying the corpse back to the boat through a mangrove swamp.
In the recommendation, Kerry reveals details left out of earlier accounts. As the fire fight raged about them, Kerry, carrying the corpse and further burdened with an M-16 rifle, an M-79 grenade launcher, an 81mm mortar, and his walkie-talkie radio, leapt over a dike into the mangrove swamp.
“As I vaulted over the dike and landed in the mud on the other side, I was overbalanced by the corpse on my shoulder,” Kerry writes in his statement. As he struggled to keep his feet, one foot slipped out from under him and he “did a ‘split’.” The extra weight forced his feet rapidly apart. As he hit the ground, he writes, he “felt a searing pain, sort of a ripping or tearing ‘down there’.”
Ironic thoughts in 'stinking ooze'
In a passage he says is taken from his wartime diary, Kerry relates that “As I sprawled in the stinking ooze, I thought how ironic it was that the shattered, blasted remains of what had once been a brave warrior had contributed to my own undoing, to the searing--but apparently non-lethal--rending of my own mortal flesh. It gave me a new perspective on life and its meaning and how we had to take our opportunities where we saw them. I saw then the falseness of all we had been told by president Bush, that the past was dead and just weighted us down.” When his crewmen came over the dike, he told them to pick up the dead mercenary but didn’t tell them why he was hobbling.
Kerry reports that the injury continued to cause him discomfort, especially “at certain times,” but explains that he was embarrassed to go to a Navy doctor for an examination. In any event, he was soon released from Vietnam duty and on his way back to the United States.
Back home in Boston, he soon saw his personal proctologist, Dr. Samuel Huntweis. Dr. Huntweis, supported the award recommenddation with a copy of his original examination notes and a description of how Kerry has coped with the long-term effects.
At the initial examination on 10 April 1969, Dr. Huntweis states that he noted “a trauma-induced injury ‘down there’.” The injury continues to cause Senator Kerry “difficulty.” Sometimes, the doctor told teld the award review board, “certain functions cannot be completed without digital manipulation.”
In Washington and on the campaign trail, initial responses to the reported recommendation have been marked by reticence and reluctance.
Rumsfeld's comments
Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was the most forthcoming. When questioned by reporters in a Wendy’s parking lot, he handed them a sheet of paper in which he subjected himself to a grueling grilling.
“Is this a terrible, horrifying, embarrassing violation of Senator Kerry’s privacy?"
“My goodness gracious, yes."
“Do you accept or reject the suggestion that this makes Senator Kerry look like a self-aggrandizing, fabulating twit?”
“I think that we can take that as a given.”
Mr. Rumsfeld said he didn't have time to explain what he meant by “fabulating,” saying that he would like to, but “not as much as Mrs. Rumsfeld likes to have her fries hot.”
Kerry campaign spokesman Mike Meehan hotly denied any knowledge of a recommendation for a new Purple Heart. He characterized such a submission--35 years after the fact--as “a little unusual”, but not “out of the ordinary.” Any such award would be, he said, just a “routine correction” of the record.
Meehan at first refused comment on Kerry’s alleged injury, but after persistent, pointed questioning by reporters, Meehan declared that he did not “think ‘digital manipulation’ necessarily means the Senator ‘has his finger up his butt on a daily basis’.”
Howling Ether News Service—When you can’t find it anywhere else, you can pull it out of the Howling Ether.
|
2004-08-29
Baby parts for sale
Baby parts for sale
I am a human being. Do not bend, spindle, fold, or chop into pieces for resale.
Remember when the progressive slogan of the day was the stunning revelation that students ought to be given at least the same consideration as computer cards? (Remember computer cards?)
Ah, Progress. Mona Charen describes the harvesting of parts from aborted babies for sale to researchers. The firm that handles the distribution promises clients
the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need, when you need it. To meet these standards, the abortion clinics take orders and try to produce specimens in the best condition, even if it means delivering living babies and drowning them or beating them to death--usually before the dissection begins.
How does it happen that the Left, which is always for humanity, always armed with touching stories of people's suffering, always ends up murdering millions?
The reason is that old joke: they love humanity but don't care about people. The left is fixed on building a perfect world. People are either building materials or obstacles. Sometimes, though, in the privacy of the police state, the leaders of the Soviet Union were more candid than our Progressives can be. Over the gates of the Solovki Gulag camp they posted this motto:With an Iron Fist, We Will Lead Humanity to Happiness.
So I'm sure the selling of baby parts is all for the best.
|
Swift enough for you?
Swift enough for you?
My mother liked to remind us of Jane Ace's aphorism, "Time wounds all heels". And so it does, sometimes by making pre-printed letters out-of-date before they are received.
I just got a letter from the Democratic National Committee with a full-color, signed photo of the Kedward team. I should say, "Registered Photo Number 160920059 Exclusively for" me. The letter of course, asks for money to help the Democrats reclaim the government from a band of harsh ideologues, end George Bush's willful control of the White House [yes, the petulant twits actually complain that the President is running the White House], end Dick Cheney's smug and arrogant tactics of misinformation [I'd say You're another, but I'm not sure what it means] and send the Bush crew of Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Rove out of office. The letter goes on to say that Kedward are "campaigning with untiring stamina", and closes with this gem: "Your swift response to this plea for help will enable us to stay strong in the fight."
You'd think they'd had all the Swift responses they could handle.
|
2004-08-24
"That's not a tour..."
"That's not a tour..."
I had printed out some more of my "Another Murdering Raping Burning Viet Vet for Kerry" bumper sticker. 
My thirteen-year old son looked at the somewhat ambiguous layout and whimsically wondered whether it accuses the Viet Vet of murdering, raping, and burning or advocates murdering, raping, and burning John Kerry.
He knew the gist of Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress. When I told him that Kerry had made his accusations after a Viet Nam tour of four months, he said: "Four months? That's not a tour. That's a sleep-over."
What a great kid!
|
2004-08-22
The new standard story on Kerry
The new standard story on Kerry
The mainstream press response to Unfit for Command and the Swift Boat Vets for Truth is changing shape. Whereas the initial response by the pundits was that the SBVT were lying hypocritical, Republican smear artists traducing the reputation of a war hero who was doubly patriotic for opposing a war in which he won medals, the news stories are showing two different themes. Neither story will be concerned with the facts.
First, the story is emotions. The anti-Kerry vets are angry about Kerry's anti-US-pro-Communist activities in the early '70s and especially about his accusations that American soldiers were ravaging the Vietnamese people like a Genghis Khan's Mongol hordes (see Some Veterans Still Bitter at Talk of Crimes) and Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad.
Second, though Kerry may have told conflicting stories, the main point is the holes in the Swift Boat vets' account of Kerry's actions. Swift Boat Accounts Flawed shows the slant.
Reporters are not scrutinizing John Kerry, yet, not the way they pored over Bush's National Guard attendance records. It is the upstarts who get the hyper-skeptical response. I think the press will--as they do in these articles--try to bury this story, the way book stores are. They do it by focusing narrowly on how Kerry's and the SBVT's statements match and don't match official records, when Kerry has refused to release his records and part of the SBVT indictment is that Kerry falsified records. They do it by obsessing on irrelevancies and alleged contradictions and inconsistencies in Swiftee statements and behavior, without providing context.
They do it by discrediting the individual Swiftees. They use the not untrue but misleading epithet and the easy stereotype, like calling John O'Neil a "long-time critic" of Kerry who debated Kerry at the behest of the Nixon White House, when O'Neil hasn't volunteered a word about Kerry for 33 years and came to the White House's attention because he already was challenging Kerry. They do it by distracting obtuseness, such as insisting that "self-inflicted" mean "deliberate" or by thinking a petty officer is an officer.
The press, as long as they can keep the story about the Swiftees and their problems, will do so. The pack won't go for Kerry unless he shows weakness or (to switch metaphors) unless there is blood in the water. The press will try to keep the story away from the falsified reports, fanciful diary entries, the movies of reenacted and rescripted firefights.
They will keep the story away from the bathetic conventionality and self-satisfaction of his thinking, such as the time he took shelter in a firefight and could find nothing better to do than enjoy a moment of smug irony at the expense of a hypothetical fat, war-profiteering businessman eating a fancy dinner at that very moment in New York. They will keep the story away from his petulant, self-centered grumping that "the war isn't accomplishing anything" because he feels unfulfilled, because he has not driven the Viet Cong from their strongholds in the Cau Mau peninsula with one spectacular Swift boat mission. Kerry's complaints are in the mode of the narcissistic wife and are too in tune with our feminized sensibilities.
What the Swiftees have to do is overcome the press' drag and inertia until Kerry stumbles.
I predict that if the SBVT story can't be stopped by press sludge and syrup, Kerry will do two things.
First, he will not release his records.
Second, he will apologize, sort of, for saying those harsh things. He won't actually admit that the Winter Soldier testimony was completely fraudulent or that his statement was written by one of his county's internal enemies in support of its external enemies. He will issue one of those "anybody I may have offended" regrets things and might even concede that most Vietnam veterans served honestly and honorably. He might go so far as to concede that the military did not turn us into the guilt-ravaged homicidal wrecks that he portrayed us to be. But he won't admit that we won the war and then Democratic Congress threw it away, lest something good come of something they opposed.
The press will say Case Closed. Feel the Closure. But it won't be.
One of Kerry's crewmen, Michael Medeiros, complained, "A lot of people just can't forgive and forget". For thirty years a lot of people have tried to forget, but you can't forgive someone until he admits he needs forgiving.
|
2004-08-21
More mean-spirited liberal attacks on Swift Vets
More mean-spirited liberal attacks on Swift Vets
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth continue to stir up the liberal Hive. Yesterday's Auth cartoon in the Phila. Inquirer shows an elephant labeled Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth" smearing black paint around, while W stands above it all.
[Just as an aside, aren't liberals, who are unusually intelligent, educated, and aesthetically refined, not to mention objective, scientific, and rational, embarrassed that one of their premier satirists is so literal and clunky?]
[As another aside, the Auth cartoon is an example of the incomplete predicate. You know, Right to Choose...what? Defended my country...from whom?. The Swift vet is tiptoeing furtively with brush and paint can, but he's not smearing anything. There is nothing representing, say, The Kerry Record (plaster bust on a pedestal) or Noble Veterans' Heroic Service (don't ask). It's Soviet Realism agit-prop without the intellectual content. Definitely one for the Herblock Hall of Fame]
The liberals' low opinion of veterans and narcissistic hysteria at any one who disagrees with them is beautifully revealed and deployed in today's Inquirer. Pat Oliphant (not available on line yet; there seems to be three day lag after publication) shows a bar of Vietnam veterans disparaging Kerry's medals. They are all fat, frowsty, feed-cap wearing hicks with bad grammar. They were to a man, clerk-typists and latrine maintenance techs in 'Nam (but I bet they didn't bug out after 4 months).
Liberals' refusal to address any issue on the basis of fact (that they didn't just make up) and reflexive resort to personal attack is infuriating, but Kerry's and the hive's outraged cries are giving the SBVfT far greater exposure. As the man said, there ain't no such thing as bad publicity.
|
Kerry's plan
Kerry's plan
After you look at this poster summary of Kerry's plan, follow the links to Tacitus' more extended but trenchant discussion of Kerry's plan for Iraq. Basically, Kerry's plan is withdraw, regardless. Indochina is not enough. He's determined to see America fail in Iraq and against Islamo-fascist terrorism in general.
Reagan's plan for the Soviets was "We win. They lose". Kerry-type liberals' plan for the US is "The US loses". Not "We lose". They're above it all.
|
2004-08-20
Republican slogans for NYC
Republican slogans for NYC
Well, actually, NRO asked for slogans for buttons. Some of my suggestions weren't half-bad, in my estimation, but judges never agree, so if I want them to see the light of day, I'd better self-publish.
But...but...I thought draft dodgers were the REAL patriots.
Defeat John "Band of Mongols" Kerry
No Republican ever called me a war criminal
2004--When Bush-Comes-to-Shove
[or make it convention specific] When Bush-Comes-to-Shove--8/30-9/2
[On background of burning WTC] Nuance THIS!
[On image of empty ketchup bottle]Empty Suit
[On image of empty ketchup bottle]'69--Empty Uniform/'04--Empty Suit
Kerry owes us 231 days, not 4 years. Or just
231 days-YES/4 years-NO
[Pretty cool, as soon someone explains that Kerry cut his Vietnam tour short by 231 days by faking Purple Hearts)
John Kerry: The Self-Made-Up Man [maybe with the "Up" being inserted ^]
Kerry: 57 Varieties of Story and of course
|
2004-08-12
Swift Boat Vets get Kerry's supporters' goat
Swift Boat Vets get Kerry's supporters' goat
The challenge by John Kerry's former Navy messmates to his use of his four months in Vietnam as a qualification to be President is stinging enough to draw some nasty Democratic counter-attacks.
Two appeared in the Wall Street Journal in the last week. Columnist Al Hunt's effort is his usual special pleading, bad logic, and slanted presentation. But facts are secondary; Hunt's point is that Calling John Kerry's military service into question is beyond the pale. Note that to support Kerry's false charges of wide-spread war-crimes by US soldiers, Hunt quotes Col. David Hackworth to the effect that there were "hundreds of My Lais". What Hunt doesn't tell you is that Hackworth (one of my personal demi-heroes) made the comment when he was being questioned about the string of mass murders committed by Tiger Force, a unit Hackworth founded, although Hunt does mention Tiger Force. Hunt also doesn't explain that Hackworth was idiosyncratically counting off-target bombs as war crimes, and that his source, an article on Hackworth and Tiger Force in the Toledo Blade commented that "hundreds of My Lais"was a controversial statement. Academics have long disputed just how many unknown atrocities occurred in Vietnam, but most scholars agree that the majority of soldiers in Vietnam did not commit war crimes.
Jim Rassmann is the Kerry supporter whom Kerry fished out of the water in Vietnam. His WSJ op-ed, "Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush," is short on argument, but full of false assumptions, personal invective, and emotional appeals that are not only irrelevant but preposterous. The peroration is particularly nasty: Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat. To start with, Nixon's Vietnam policy didn't fail; Nixon won the war, but the Democrats threw Vietnam and Cambodia to the wolves. John O'Neil of the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace did not challenge John Kerry's charges of wide-spread atrocities by US troops at the "behest" of Richard Nixon; Nixon never knew about John O’Neil until he began to get attention. O'Neil objected to Kerry's slanders, not--as Rassmann says--to his anti-war stance. And the Swift Boat veterans' TV ad does not lie about Mr. Rassmann or Navy records; it says nothing about them.
Further, can Mr. Rassmann seriously maintain that the Swift Boat veterans "don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat", but that John Kerry does—John Kerry, who falsely accused his comrades of being war criminals and treated with his nation’s foreign and domestic enemies? Not that understanding the feelings of combat veterans has anything to do with whether John Kerry's conduct was despicable.
If Mr. Rassmann, who presents himself as a retired police officer and orchid enthusiast, can write this kind of facile poison, he missed his calling.
But perhaps he didn't write it. There are two other egregious examples of dissembling rhetoric in Rassmann's piece that suggest a professional, partisan hand. First is his reference to "some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush". Of course, we know that the group is "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". Making up mocking parodies of opposing groups' names is good political fun, but it takes well developed Leftist chutzpah to blandly present the parody as the truth. The press and left-wing flacks did something similar back in the early '70s. They quickly took to referring to the Vietnam Veterans Against the War as the "Vietnam vets", as though all who had served in the SE Asia Theatre were of one mind.
Second, using the same demagogic sleight of hand, Rassmann tries to conflate anti-McCain ads in 2000 and anti-Kerry ads in 2004 into a "strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans". Clever Bush strategy, having Vietnam vets attack Vietnam vets. What kind of strategy, then, is veteran Rassmann's attack on the Swift Boat veterans? We'll find out on 12 September, when the Vietnam Veterans for the Truth hold a rally at the Capitol to proclaim John Kerry's unfitness to be president, and the Democrats have to spin them away.
|
2004-08-02
Mark Steyn's Rhetorical Silver Bullet
Mark Steyn's rhetorical silver bulletThe next time WMD, Bush lied, etc. comes up:Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.[JFKy]
Got that? If the Empire State Building's taken out, he'll certainly respond to it. Next time 'round, there won't be any mistakes about where the WMD are because they'll be in the middle of a big crater in Chicago. UPDATE:Kerry's firm, impassioned commitment with wiggle roomMy 15-year-old niece immediately pointed out that Kerry's promise of a "swift and certain response" to an attack came within 45 seconds of a promise never to send US troops into harm’s way without exhausting all other options. Maybe he hopes to finesse the difference by sending French troops before he has exhausted all other options.
Nyahh! Unfortunately, while we understood him--and were meant to understand him--to be saying "exhausting all other options", what he said is more muddled and uncertain than that....Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent."
...
...
...
And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.
I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. Protecting fundamental American values is not the same as protecting the American people. He declared health care for all and equality for women to be fundamental American values. Are we going to war with Iran or North Korea over those? Sounds like a war of choice to me.
A lot depends on the relationship between these two sentences: "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."
Are they, with the next sentence, part of a crescendo? Or does the second sentence explain "when force is required". Certainly, after an attack there is no "real and imminent" threat.
And if you follow the logic of "And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us", it seems that other nations do, after all, have a veto over our national security (leaving aside all the other ways the assumptions and insinuations of the sentence are wrong). If other nations don't cooperate, the terrorists will get us first.
Kerry wants to sound a firm and impassioned commitment and still leave himself wiggle room. He gives the game away when he explains why we need to get France and Germany to help.
...We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
So defending American values is too burdensome, too costly, and too risky for the American people? What kind of commitment to America is that?!?! If that line was intended to give the undecided and swayable Americans a reason to start to lean toward him, it is an insult. If it was intended to appeal to the values of the Democratic core, the convention delegates, it is a condemnation.
|
2004-08-01
A few clarifications from the DNC
A few clarifications from the DNC
I listened to Kerry's acceptance speech as I drove home from the gym. I went to bed thinking "Vapid". While I slept, electrons buzzed and burned as the blogsphere dissected the speech en masse and in detail. Conservatives were as one in finding the opening "reporting for duty" nauseous. Many pointed out that Kerry's Iraq policy was what Bush is doing, that Kerry's "war on terror" would be defensive and reactive, that the "faith and values" talk was all mendacious, insinuating Bush-bashing, and that the economic policy was incoherent, such as ending "corporate welfare" while "reward[ing] the companies that create and keep good- paying jobs . . . in the good old USA".
And liberals seem to be underwhelmed.
But Kerry isn't the Democratic party. He is its instrument. How the convention reacted to his speech tells us who the party is. Here are a couple of points about how the speech was received that I don't think have been made.
The biggest cheer was for this line, which had pride of place at the beginning of the peroration:And let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States. As OpinionJournal pointed out, this is a veiled reference to the Federal Marriage Amendment. It brought the whole convention to its feet, not just the Polymorphous Polygamy caucus. So we know what they really care about. The video of the speech shows audience members, including Hilary, turning to each other and nodding--"He got it in. Yeah!"
Nearly as enthusiastic were the reactions to his call for stem cell research and to "we are on God's side". He prefaced the latter with a reference to Lincoln's humble prayer that we might be on God's side, but Democrats don't need to pray on that. They believe they are on the side of history, of the people, of progress. Why not throw God in there; it's a nice affirmation.
The Patriotism Question"And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose, and we will win." I'm sure no one at the convention realized that this is yet another crib from a Republican. In 1977, Ronald Reagan told Richard Allen, who would be his National Security Advisor, that his policy toward the Soviet Union would be "simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: 'We win and they lose.'" On Thursday night, the crowd's reaction was muted and even seemed to be more of a groan than a cheer.
Kerry's brave declaration, in the face of vicious right-wing opposition, "That flag doesn't belong to any president . . . to any ideology . . . to any party. It belongs to all the American people." was well received, but perhaps the Dems were just celebrating stealing the flag.
Random"I defended this country as a young man . . .". But . . . but . . . Vietnam was an unnecessary, criminal war of aggression, inspired by an inordinate fear of Communism. I thought the real patriots were the draft dodgers. That's what they told us 35 years ago.
John Kerry sounds more dynamic at 140% speed (thank you Windows Media Player).
Unilateralist: A Republican who defends America with a 50-nation coalition.
Multi-lateralist: A Democrat who won't defend America unless France and Red China say OK.
So-called: Anything positive that is achieved during a Republican administration: war coalition, economic recovery, war on terror, religious conviction, improving air/water quality, values, tax cuts, summer weather.
Lying: The difference between what the Democrats say you said and what they now say you should have said.
Nuance: The difference between what the Democrats said then and what they say now.
Fight: 1) Bush: Fight. 2) Kerry: Talk about fighting.
|
Bake Sales
Bake Sales
From Kerry's convention speech: "You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service..."
The bake sales for body armor story has been debunked. But hey, I'm confused. What's all the fuss? I thought it was going to be a wonderful day when the Pentagon had to hold bake sales. Don't tell me this is another Democrat flip-flop!
As for John "Band of Mongols" Kerry, after he voted for the $87 billion for the Iraq war, he voted against it because it included no-bid contracts. Freedom from no-bid contracts wasn't in FDR's Four Freedoms, and it's not in any GI's list of "400 Freedoms I'm Fighting For".
I'd advise any soldier who is tempted to buy the "Help is on the way" blather to read the fine print, except that Kerry doesn't tell you what the fine print is until it's nuance time.
|
|
|
|
