Why Kerry will Loose the Election VIEW FROM THE RIGHT
Why Kerry Will Lose The Election VIEW FROM THE RIGHT - Adam Sparks, Special to SF GateMonday, August 9, 2004
John Kerry will lose this election, and he will do so decisively. The defeat will go down as perhaps the only thing this candidate has ever done decisively.
We've just seen a four-day infomercial called the Democratic National Convention, where everyone put on his or her smiley face; Democrats were having a love fest. It was a sea change from their previous campaigning: For starters, they wouldn't even directly criticize the president -- all that vile Bush bashing of the last few months turned into gentle speeches with nary a mention of him. Secondly, the vehemently pacifist and rabidly anti-war party did a 180 degree turn around and created the most militaristic show since Eisenhower landed in Europe.
Kerry, saying he's "reporting for duty," greeted Americans in the most macho, Republican kind of way with a crisp salute. Then Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans, who, like him, served on the U.S. Navy's "swift boat" patrol craft, swarmed the podium. Finally, Kerry's war-hero service was retold to make sure Americans know he's really fit for service as commander in chief.
Yet the casual observer could see through the cracks in the veneer. That tired old huckster, the Rev. Al Sharpton, of Tawana Brawley hoax fame, was given a prime-time speaking spot in which to share his insight. He was a tough act to follow, but radical propagandist filmmaker and all-around hate monger Michael Moore, seated beside former President Jimmy Carter, was given the place of honor.
Not Much Bounce
Let's be serious; the convention was a grand flop. Following the event, polls were all over the place: Some showed no postconvention increase for Kerry at all, and others had a bounce so small it was within the margin of error. But the most seriously devastating of all them all was the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. In that survey of likely voters, President Bush led Kerry 50 percent to 46 percent. Ouch -- that's gotta hurt. A Newsweek survey did show some good news for Kerry, who picked up a few points in that vote. The bad news? It was the most dreadful showing of any postconvention bounce in the decades since the newsmagazine began measuring such shifts.
The Associated Press reported that its analysts say Bush is leading in electoral votes today. The weeks following the convention should be the high point of any candidate's campaign, so that's another sad marker.
Liberal New York Times syndicated columnist Maureen Dowd said it best: Kerry's nautical theme made the convention look like a goofy scene from "Gilligan's Island." You know you've got problems when you can't shore up the Left.
A Convoluted Message
This was Kerry's moment in the sun to introduce himself to Americans and talk about issues. Yet it was quite difficult among all his rhetoric to figure out what he was for or against, or what he would do differently. If he has not defined himself by now to the American people, any new self-definitions revealed as Election Day nears will be a day late and a dollar short.
During the primary campaign, Kerry joined running mate John Edwards in opposing Iraq liberation. They were both influenced by the Deaniacs, or, more accurately, former presidential contender Howard Dean's formidable fund raising and momentum, which he earned primarily by declaring how much he just hated the liberation of Iraq. The fact that both of the "me-too"s, Edwards and Kerry, voted for military intervention in Iraq was a minor detail to be papered over: They were misled. But do we really want folks in the White House who are so easily duped?
Kerry has clearly indicated he was always against the war, but that was after his vote in favor of the war, but not for war funding, which should not be understood as support, and in any case he would have done it much differently. His concern is now a lack of any real coalition and U.N. support, but when the United States had the backing of the United Nations and a real international presence in Desert Storm after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Kerry voted against that intervention. That information should clear it up for all those undecided voters who really wanted to know.
On abortion, he's about the same: He's voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, but he has recently declared his belief that life begins at conception. That pronouncement should get everyone on both sides of the issue to vote for him. At least we all know he's a man of his convictions, and not just poll driven, like those other big-haired, arrogant-looking politicians. Bush once characterized Kerry's popularity by saying, in effect, of course he's popular, adding, "He's been on every side of every issue." Kerry has no cohesive message.
A Confusing Vietnam Record
Kerry has been using his "hero" status as one of his finest achievements. But, as with much of what he does, he sends mixed messages. He proudly brings out his handful of Vietnam veterans and recalls his heroics, but, earlier, he testified before Congress and wrote in his book, "Tour of Duty," that he committed war crimes, and so did most of his comrades.
On swift-boat missions in Vietnam, Kerry wrote, "we established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets.
"We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those swift boats that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams," he added. "He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."
Pity the poor guy who has to reach back 35 years to show America just how great he is. And he does so very selectively: There's no mention of all his medal ribbons tossed with contempt over the White House fence for the same war he now fondly remembers. He brought a cast of sailors out with him on the convention podium and keeps a contingent with him at all times while campaigning, either to show Americans just how patriotic he is or to remind us incessantly that he served a grueling four months in Vietnam. For whatever reason, it's pathetic. The peaceniks know all about his antiwar theatrics; he needn't highlight those attributes. He's now going after the swing voter who respects America military strength and may have or have had family members in the service. In Kerry's world, you really can be all things to all people.
Forget the showboating -- no pun intended -- let's look at the record. Kerry received three Purple Hearts, and, after four months of duty, he requested permission to get the heck out of there. However, retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who ran the swift-boat campaign in Vietnam and now leads a group of fellow officers calling themselves the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, countered Kerry, saying, "I do not believe that John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command.
"Only one of his 23 fellow officers in charge from Coastal Division 11 supports John Kerry," he added. "Overall, more than 250 swift-boat veterans are on the record questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as commander in chief. That list includes his entire chain of command -- every single officer Kerry served under in Vietnam. The Kerry game plan is to ignore all this and pretend that the 13 veterans his campaign jets around the country and puts up in five-star hotels really represent the truth about his short, controversial combat tour."
You needn't go back 35 years to Vietnam to see what Kerry's all about. Just check out his voting record in the Senate, where he's been for the past 19 years. Can you name one piece of legislation he carried? Don't worry; neither can anyone else.
As Bush said following the convention, "After 19 years in the United States Senate, my opponent has had thousands of votes, but very few signature achievements." That's not leadership. Where's his big health-care initiatives, or his education or environmental improvement? Talk is cheap. What has he done that's so memorable, besides marry two extremely rich women?
Making Health Care Safe for Trial Lawyers
A centerpiece of Kerry's campaign is to make access to drugs and medicine affordable, but, when you hear the word affordable, hold on to your wallets. It means a health-care system that will rely on billions of dollars of tax increases to prop up. But, taking a page from John Edwards' "two Americas," as far as Kerry's concerned, only the rich should pay the taxes. But don't relax yet; "the rich" includes anyone with a job. Increasing taxes for just the wealthiest 1 percent, or even the richest 10 percent, will not pay for a singe-payer health-care system, which would cost several trillion dollars annually and would federalize one-fifth of the economy.
Edwards has a lot of experience in the health-care industry. He became one of the nation's richest trial lawyers by winning record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that botched treatment of women in labor caused infants to develop cerebral palsy, a brain disorder that causes motor-function impairment and lifelong disability. In these trials, Edward would often rely on junk science before North Carolina juries, claiming that a doctor's momentary hesitation in deciding whether to perform a cesarean section on a mother caused the brain damage. Edwards sometimes channeled a child's thoughts in the courtroom, saying, in the case of a fetus about to be born, "I'm having problems. I need out." This would be touching showmanship for the Psychic Friends Network, but not for the White House.
The real damage was not to babies such as that one, but to taxpayers, who now have to foot the bill in higher medical costs due to increased premiums or who find that, because of prohibitively expensive malpractice insurance, there are now far fewer practicing obstetricians. To add insult to injury, we have to suffer through Edwards, one of the richest senators, lecturing us on how there are two Americas, and "ain't that a darn shame?" Just what America needs -- a trial lawyer just a heartbeat away from the White House.
History on Bush's Side
No war president has ever lost an election in the United States, and it's unlikely this will be the case now. Until recently, the Democrats uttered a great deal of rhetorical propaganda about their contention that Bush "lied" about the war of liberation in Iraq: He lied about intelligence; he lied about WMDs. He lied, lied, lied. Everyone from the head of the Democratic Party to Michael Moore has delivered this mantra for the last three years.
Now that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has come out with its final report, which vindicated the president, you don't hear that much about lies anymore. The report says there were no lies. Bad intelligence, yes; lies, no. Unfortunately, much of the damage has been done, as Bush's "lies" have now become an urban legend, ingrained in the minds of many.
The 9/11 Commission's report, which involved the investigation and review of tens of thousands of pages of secret documents and interviews of hundreds of key witnesses, found not a single lie.
Now that Kerry can't rely on Bush as liar, he will need to come up with a novel new game plan. It'll be hard, but maybe he could have Edwards channel the baby Jesus telling people whom to vote for. Short of that, nothing will work.
Adam Sparks is a Bay Area writer. He can be reached at adamstyle@aol.com
http://www.MyPersonalEmail.com
MyPersonalEmail.com
Free Email for a Global Community
http://www.MyPersonalEmail.com
http://www.MyPersonalEmail.com
