Politics: April 2004 Archives

Months ago, some advisor told John Kerry to be as "macho" as possible when he is interviewed. Every answer he gives is overly aggressive, in the manner of someone uncomfortable in his own skin. Clearly, he prefers the quiet, dismissive arrogance that endeared him to Massachusetts voters; acting like He-Man doesn't quite fit.

Senator Kerry, caught in a web of his own words about whether he threw his medals over the White House fence a third of a century ago, has decided to criticize President Bush's military service. He sputtered, "This comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the National Guard."

Actually, the original criticism to which he responded was from Karen Hughes, not the president, but leave that aside. I think the whole Medalgate episode is uninteresting in itself: he was a strident anti-war protestor, which everyone knows, and you'll think that was admirable or disgraceful according to your political beliefs.

What's interesting is a couple of things: first, that despite his initial reluctance to be "above the fray," Kerry abandoned that stance when his attacks on Bush have gone nowhere. (Why do we have to revisit the whole Guard thing again? Bush served honorably, and the pay records prove it beyond question.)

Second, I'm totally confused by t Kerry was supposed to have done or said or thrown. I bet most people are, too, if they've paid any attention. The relevant datum is that Kerry doesn't remember what he has said over the last 33 years because it's changed so much -- yet he can't escape his own words because his statements were recorded. Instead of just saying, "Look, I may have been unclear in the past, but here's the truth: I did ______, and if I said anything contrary to that, then I apologize for misspeaking."

Instead, Kerry lashes out at the interviewer and Bush and everyone else involved, because he can't show weakness or humanity. The whole incident makes him look as personally insecure as Algore, and as mendacious and slippery as Bill Clinton. Probably not the best combination in a general election.

leave Kerry in the lurch...

Democrat John Kerry on Sunday criticized the firing of two cargo workers who photographed flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers, saying such images shouldn't be hidden from the public.

He also castigated Bush for eating Asapargus on Tuesday and for wearing brown shoes with blue pants.

"The hungry throngs of unemployed IT workers desire Asparagus every day. They long for the succulent flavors of spring but this administration has outsourced their ability to pay for high-quality, organic vegetables."

He went on to say, "I, like many other Americans, don't agree with the the Bush tactic of mixing brown and blue. What's next? Will all the norms of fashion be tossed out the window just so Bush can dress comfortably? What will the starving dock-workers of Nantucket wear?"

Seriously folks: Kerry is making me sick by trying to turn every action, statement and occurrence related to this administration into something he can use for political gain. Does Kerry really think that Bush & Co. are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of us simple Americans by not letting us see flag-draped coffins? Does he not know that every major news outlet reports the deaths of American soldiers almost immediately after they happen? And just a few weeks ago, we saw the charred bodies of private citizens hanging from a bridge in Iraq. You think a few flag-draped coffins are part of a vast cover-up, Mr. Kerry?

I'm thinking the answer to the question in the headline is "no," but before you answer, read this screed, and pay attention to this paragraph:

There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

This has all the earmarks of Michael Moore since he decided to join the freakshow Left: self-righteousness, blatant anti-Americanism, with a little blasphemy thrown in for good measure. His mendacity has been chronicled in many other places (for instance, lying to get an interview with Charlton Heston). He's not real good with the facts -- I didn't know the U.N. had citizens, or maybe that's just sloppy writing? -- and he's probably not worth anyone's attention.

Still, if I saw him in person, I would be strongly tempted to punch him. In the passage above, he's basically saying, "The rest of America is so f----- up because they don't agree with me, so I hope a lot of Americans die." What kind of man wishes death on innocent people from a disagreement? Why do we keep having to read about this disgusting person?

Moore, unfortunately, speaks for a loud sliver of the American population that genuinely hates America. I know it's gauche in polite circles to question other people's patriotism, but when you're gladdened by the deaths of Americans, what else is that but anti-Americanism? In any situation, they know the U.S. is wrong, so it's just a question of figuring out what evils it is perpetrating.

When I've conversed with, or read about, an anti-American person, I've strongly suspected that they really hate themselves and are directing that hatred outward. I've never heard of a calm, self-confident America-hater.

I know, I know. Pray for your enemies.

(Ten points if you can write a Thomistic article on the question in the headline.)

This morning, I considered working from home, as I heard downtown was going to be such a mess because of the pro-abortion and anti-globalization people. I was expecting to see hairy-armpitted feminists and mangy college kids swirling around the streets of downtown D.C., but so far I'm disappointed.

After going to confession on K Street, I celebrated my infusion of grace by strolling around and smoking a Backwoods cigar. I wandered by the World Bank on 17th, and nobody was there. In Lafayette Square, across the street from of the White House, there were a handful of older white people standing on the curb with anti-war signs. They were vastly outnumbered by tourists gawking or arguing with them. ("You're full of s---, sir," said one tourist to a protestor as he walked away shaking his head.)

I want to see angry people marching. I want to smell a whiff of tear gas. I want to hear badly-rhymed slogans. I demand my freakshow!

In this article, I don't agree with Neumayr's assertion that Catholic bishops are Democrats first and foremost. That's completely unfair. He is entitled to his frustration with the bishops' collective squeamishness about the issue of pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

Last week Kerry arranged a meeting with Cardinal McCarrick [of Washington] -- a meeting Kerry had the chutzpah to arrange at his home (that plan was scotched after word of it leaked out, forcing the locale to be changed for face-saving reasons). Kerry called for the meeting to ensure that the pliant cardinal would keep the lid on the boiling pot of lay Catholic outrage. Unknown at the time, there was an added element of chutzpah to the meeting: At the very moment Kerry was chatting with the cardinal, his campaign team was preparing to roll out a pro-abortion advertising blitz. It appeared on television stations nationwide this week.

"The Supreme Court is just one vote away from outlawing a woman's right to choose. George Bush will appoint anti-choice, anti-privacy justices. But you can stop him. Help elect John Kerry and join the fight to protect our right to choice. Contribute now at JohnKerry.com. Call or log on now," says the ad, Kerry's can-rattling pitch to the deep-pocketed abortion lobby.

When someone kicks you in the teeth and mocks you -- and you're one of the princes of the Church -- isn't it appropriate to get a little angry on behalf of the Church? Not to mention the one whose body the Church is? When are the successors of the apostles realize that when you bend over backwards to accomodate them, your enemies despise you for your spinelessness. If they won't condemn men like Senator Kerry of behalf of their own office, won't they at least stand up for the honor of God?

From Charles Krauthammer's column today:

The first George Bush once said he thought the Persian Gulf War would cure America of the Vietnam syndrome. He was wrong. There is no cure for the Vietnam syndrome. It will go away only when the baby boom generation does, dying off like the Israelites in the desert, allowing a new generation, cleansed of the memories and the guilt, to look at the world clearly once again.

Replace "Vietnam" with "Vatican II" and you have a succinct reason why the Church will not fully recover its voice until the final shovelful of dirt is deposited on the last of the Least Generation.

Standard disclaimer: I'm talking about the ersatz "Spirit of Vatican II," not the actual council with its documents and suchlike.

Today, Senator Kerry thinks it's good time to excoriate the president in an NPR interview while soldiers and Marines are dying. At this very moment, there are men fighting to capture or kill the enemies of the United States and the Iraqi people. Doesn't he grasp that? Can't he come out of his fog of preening self-absorption and think, "Maybe there is a better time to offer my criticisms"?

I have no problem with criticizing Bush administration policy per se. But there's are proper times to do it, and there are better and worse ways to phrase it. You should not do it in a way that helps murderous, anti-American thugs. When Kerry recommends handing Iraq over to the U.N., or criticizing the arrest of someone openly fomenting rebellion against the Coalition, it can't do anything but gladden the hearts of the insurgents and their Islamist cheerleaders around the world.

When it comes to destroying armed, lawless militias, is the U.N. going to do a better job than the U.S. Marines? Let me put that another way: if you had to live in a war zone, would you feel safer being with a battalion of Marines, or with a battalion of blue-helmeted soldiers under U.N. command?

I listened to the interview as NPR broadcast it, and I've read several articles about the interview, and I don't think Kerry bothered to make a perfunctory statement such as, "Whatever my differences with the president, I want our troops to emerge victorious, and may God protect them and comfort their families." With all that money, he can't even buy himself an ounce of class.

Later today, Kerry is speaking at Georgetown University, which isn't that far away from my office. I want to go and ask, "Do you think encouraging the enemy is a good idea during wartime?" Of course, he did the same thing during the Vietnam War, so the answer is "no not really."

UPDATE: Kerry said in his Georgetown speech that the Iraq War was "one of the greatest failures of diplomacy and failures of judgment that I have seen in all the time that I've been in public life." He said "we're all united as a nation in supporting our troops" but said nothing about the troops winning.

He repeated his charge that the handover was predicated on the timing of the presidential election. He's wrong. The administration's original timetable called for the handover in 2005, but Ayatollah Sistani demanded an earlier date and so we compromised. It had nothing to do with the election, which one would think journalists might remember (it was in all the papers last November), but there are so few real journalists these days.

UPDATE #2: We're also "mak[ing] war against the Iraqi people" and the Hezbollah-backed Muqtada al-Sadr is a "legitimate voice." Is it fair to say he's making excuses for the enemy?

Two stories about Senator Kerry from a Catholic perspective:

1. Kerry attended an African Methodist Episcopal church on Sunday, which was really a political rally dressed up in churchly garb. "[T]he Rev. Gregory Groover recognized him from the pulpit as 'the next president of the United States,'" AP reports. But AME churches are predominantly black, and so it's okay for them to have tax-free political rallies on Sunday mornings. Kerry also received communion. Yes, communion in a Protestant church.

2. An article in the Telegraph about how American bishops are thinking of collectively refusing Kerry communion. The piece is well worth reading, because if true, this could really help turn the Church around: by showing that institutionally, the Church is willing to fight up for its beliefs even though it might not go over well with the liberal media. (As if the media loves the Church right now.)

Buried in the story is another item that Kerry avoided Mass in favor of attending a Baptist Church. Kerry's rejection of Catholic teaching on life issues, his rejection of the Eucharist in favor of Protestant services, and his defiance of the bishops, can only lead to one conclusion: he's really a Protestant. Refusing him communion is more of an act of public truth-in-labeling than anything else.

Postscript: He's sold out Christianity if he supports a pro-abortion purist like Kerry (and his own people -- abortion kills black babies disproportionately more than any other group). However, "Reverend Groover" is the coolest name for a preacher I've ever heard.

I have decided to form a group devoted to the election of Senator John F. Kerry called "Pro-Life Catholics for Kerry." I was thinking the other day: isn't being "pro-life" more than fetuses? What about what happens after the little things are born?

Senator Kerry has consistently opposed the machinery of death that spews out of the Defense Department and its lackey contractors. That's pro-life. He believes that human needs should take priority over killing in the Federal budget. That's pro-life. He wants to make sure that those with different sexual orientations can have children using extra-natural means, and not be beaten up by right-wing religious thugs. That's pro-life.

Sure, he isn't "pro-life" by the standards of, say, the Pope. He is personally against abortion, though, and as far as we know, he has never encouraged any of his past girlfriends or heiress wives to have abortions. Like President Clinton, he wants to mitigate the conditions that drive women to get abortions. Isn't that more important than making women feel bad about their choices?

I will be voting for John F. Kerry for President, and I encourage all pro-life Catholics to follow my example. I'll post the link to Pro-Life Catholics for Kerry site when it becomes available.