The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Friday, July 30, 2004
(Kerry speech, continued) The BAD reviews continue to pour in...
Earlier I posted the Washington Post op-ed that was not exactly wild about Kerry's send off speech last night. In my further investingations, I have come across other surprises, most notably in The New Republic, which has a piece today called "Apocalypse Kerry". Among the points Lawrence Kaplan makes is this one:
Regarding his own Vietnam, as opposed to the Hollywood production staged around him, Kerry asked his audience "to judge me by my record." The question has been asked before, but Kerry did not answer it in his speech: If his Vietnam service offers proof that he is "decisive," then why is it that for two decades Kerry has been "only an average Senator," as pro-Kerry columnist Al Hunt wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal? If his wartime feats prove that Kerry is "strong" on national security, then why did he oppose virtually every stand-out weapons system in the U.S. arsenal today, speechify against the first Gulf War, and refuse to fund the second? Why, indeed, unless no correlation exists between his biography and his record? Kerry's speech last night showed how much distance there is between the two. Theatrics aside, it was far more in tune with his own lessons of Vietnam--and with those of the delegates before him--than with the Vietnam kitsch festooning the convention hall. Earlier in the evening, for example, Joe Biden sketched out a truly heroic foreign policy vision, insisting that Kerry understands the need to promote liberty abroad. He was followed by Joe Lieberman, who said we could count on Kerry to liberate those living under "murderous tyrannies." As for the candidate himself, he uttered nary a word about democracy promotion, nor even a banality or two about promoting freedom abroad. There was no heroism here. Only what Kerry defended as "complexity." Indeed, he spent far more time discussing domestic policy than he spent discussing foreign and defense policy. And when he did get around to discussing the matter of our national survival, he basically took a page from the post-Vietnam playbook favored by an earlier generation of Democrats. "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad," the candidate declared to rousing applause, "and shutting them down in the United States of America." Suggesting that Europeans won't send troops to Iraq simply because they can't stand his opponent, Kerry promised to be nicer to our allies so we could "bring our troops home." Unlike, say, in Bosnia, he pledged to go to war "only because we have to." Leaving unsaid exactly by whom and at what cost, he dedicated himself to making America "respected in the world." Finally, and without saying precisely what it is, Kerry said he knows "what we have to do in Iraq." He has a plan, you see.
Meanwhile, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris weighed in with this:
Then, after this long rendition of his childhood, he tells us at length what it was like to serve in Vietnam for the four months that he was there. So far, so good. But then he spent only about one minute talking about what he has done since. Beyond a brief allusion to his efforts for crime victims and to prosecute crimes against women as an assistant district attorney, his support for Clinton's plan for extra cops and a balanced budget and a reference to his work with John McCain on the POW and MIA issue in Vietnam, that's it.
What did this man do as an adult? What happened during his service as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant-governor in Massachusetts and in his 20 years in the United States Senate? What bills did he introduce? What initiatives did he sponsor? Which investigations did he lead? What amendments bear his name? What great debates did he participate in? What did he do for his constituents in Massachusetts? What businesses did he persuade to come to the Bay State? Which elderly did he help get their Social Security benefits? What injustices did he correct?
Kerry's biography ends at 24. America does not want to elect a lieutenant to the presidency. The voters want a commander-in-chief, but there is precious little in the autobiography of John Kerry, as we heard it last night, to commend him to us. The Democratic National Convention closes as a nutritious, tasty, appetizing bagel — with a hole in the middle. John Kerry? Oh yeah, he's the guy who fought in Vietnam and then he ran for president. That's not enough. Where did his 20 years in the Senate go?
Oddly, his absence of biography confirms the impression I formed of him during my White House years: He's a back-bencher. I never can recall a single time that his name came up in any discussion of White House strategy on anything. He was the man who wasn't there. We were always figuring out how to deal with Ted Kennedy or Pat Moynihan or Tom Daschle or Phil Gramm, or Al D'Amato or Bob Dole or Jesse Helms or Orin Hatch or Joe Biden. But nobody every asked about John Kerry. He wasn't much there then, and he's not much there now. Only now he wants us to trust him to be president.
Perhaps the most accurate analysis of the speech was provided by Thomas Sowell, a personal hero of mine. Sowell's take included:
John Kerry is running for a political office and he has a political track record that goes back 16 years in the United States Senate alone. The facts on how he has voted on innumerable issues are all on record. Yet everyone at this Democratic convention and on the campaign trail seems to want to talk about everything except that record. In fact, everything at this convention and on this year's campaign trail seems carefully designed to create the OPPOSITE impression from what Senator Kerry's voting record shows. Over the years Senator Kerry has voted again and again to cut spending on the military and on the intelligence services. In short, his votes have weakened this country militarily. Therefore the rhetoric of the convention and the Kerry campaign uses the word "strong" or "strength" at every opportunity. By repeating such words incessantly, the rhetoric counters the reality -- at least for those voters who cannot be bothered to find out the facts. John Kerry's military service three decades ago is likewise used over and over again at the Democratic convention and on the campaign trail to cover up his repeated weakening of this country's military defenses as a United States Senator during the many years since then. If we were fighting the Vietnam war over again, nobody would deny Kerry's qualifications for being an officer in that war. But that is not the job he is seeking this election year. You cannot defend this country with memories and rhetoric -- not in an age of international terrorism, which could become an age of nuclear terrorism in a very few years.
From all I am reading today about last night's speech, which many were saying needed to be a "home run", and from my own viewing of the speech, in which Kerry seemed rushed and hyperactive, I think those who think Kerry rose to the occasion are engaging in wishful thinking.
Regarding his own Vietnam, as opposed to the Hollywood production staged around him, Kerry asked his audience "to judge me by my record." The question has been asked before, but Kerry did not answer it in his speech: If his Vietnam service offers proof that he is "decisive," then why is it that for two decades Kerry has been "only an average Senator," as pro-Kerry columnist Al Hunt wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal? If his wartime feats prove that Kerry is "strong" on national security, then why did he oppose virtually every stand-out weapons system in the U.S. arsenal today, speechify against the first Gulf War, and refuse to fund the second? Why, indeed, unless no correlation exists between his biography and his record? Kerry's speech last night showed how much distance there is between the two. Theatrics aside, it was far more in tune with his own lessons of Vietnam--and with those of the delegates before him--than with the Vietnam kitsch festooning the convention hall. Earlier in the evening, for example, Joe Biden sketched out a truly heroic foreign policy vision, insisting that Kerry understands the need to promote liberty abroad. He was followed by Joe Lieberman, who said we could count on Kerry to liberate those living under "murderous tyrannies." As for the candidate himself, he uttered nary a word about democracy promotion, nor even a banality or two about promoting freedom abroad. There was no heroism here. Only what Kerry defended as "complexity." Indeed, he spent far more time discussing domestic policy than he spent discussing foreign and defense policy. And when he did get around to discussing the matter of our national survival, he basically took a page from the post-Vietnam playbook favored by an earlier generation of Democrats. "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad," the candidate declared to rousing applause, "and shutting them down in the United States of America." Suggesting that Europeans won't send troops to Iraq simply because they can't stand his opponent, Kerry promised to be nicer to our allies so we could "bring our troops home." Unlike, say, in Bosnia, he pledged to go to war "only because we have to." Leaving unsaid exactly by whom and at what cost, he dedicated himself to making America "respected in the world." Finally, and without saying precisely what it is, Kerry said he knows "what we have to do in Iraq." He has a plan, you see.
Meanwhile, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris weighed in with this:
Then, after this long rendition of his childhood, he tells us at length what it was like to serve in Vietnam for the four months that he was there. So far, so good. But then he spent only about one minute talking about what he has done since. Beyond a brief allusion to his efforts for crime victims and to prosecute crimes against women as an assistant district attorney, his support for Clinton's plan for extra cops and a balanced budget and a reference to his work with John McCain on the POW and MIA issue in Vietnam, that's it.
What did this man do as an adult? What happened during his service as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant-governor in Massachusetts and in his 20 years in the United States Senate? What bills did he introduce? What initiatives did he sponsor? Which investigations did he lead? What amendments bear his name? What great debates did he participate in? What did he do for his constituents in Massachusetts? What businesses did he persuade to come to the Bay State? Which elderly did he help get their Social Security benefits? What injustices did he correct?
Kerry's biography ends at 24. America does not want to elect a lieutenant to the presidency. The voters want a commander-in-chief, but there is precious little in the autobiography of John Kerry, as we heard it last night, to commend him to us. The Democratic National Convention closes as a nutritious, tasty, appetizing bagel — with a hole in the middle. John Kerry? Oh yeah, he's the guy who fought in Vietnam and then he ran for president. That's not enough. Where did his 20 years in the Senate go?
Oddly, his absence of biography confirms the impression I formed of him during my White House years: He's a back-bencher. I never can recall a single time that his name came up in any discussion of White House strategy on anything. He was the man who wasn't there. We were always figuring out how to deal with Ted Kennedy or Pat Moynihan or Tom Daschle or Phil Gramm, or Al D'Amato or Bob Dole or Jesse Helms or Orin Hatch or Joe Biden. But nobody every asked about John Kerry. He wasn't much there then, and he's not much there now. Only now he wants us to trust him to be president.
Perhaps the most accurate analysis of the speech was provided by Thomas Sowell, a personal hero of mine. Sowell's take included:
John Kerry is running for a political office and he has a political track record that goes back 16 years in the United States Senate alone. The facts on how he has voted on innumerable issues are all on record. Yet everyone at this Democratic convention and on the campaign trail seems to want to talk about everything except that record. In fact, everything at this convention and on this year's campaign trail seems carefully designed to create the OPPOSITE impression from what Senator Kerry's voting record shows. Over the years Senator Kerry has voted again and again to cut spending on the military and on the intelligence services. In short, his votes have weakened this country militarily. Therefore the rhetoric of the convention and the Kerry campaign uses the word "strong" or "strength" at every opportunity. By repeating such words incessantly, the rhetoric counters the reality -- at least for those voters who cannot be bothered to find out the facts. John Kerry's military service three decades ago is likewise used over and over again at the Democratic convention and on the campaign trail to cover up his repeated weakening of this country's military defenses as a United States Senator during the many years since then. If we were fighting the Vietnam war over again, nobody would deny Kerry's qualifications for being an officer in that war. But that is not the job he is seeking this election year. You cannot defend this country with memories and rhetoric -- not in an age of international terrorism, which could become an age of nuclear terrorism in a very few years.
From all I am reading today about last night's speech, which many were saying needed to be a "home run", and from my own viewing of the speech, in which Kerry seemed rushed and hyperactive, I think those who think Kerry rose to the occasion are engaging in wishful thinking.
