Tuesday, August 31, 2004

What's Up With The Kerry Campaign?

What is going on with these people? The latest Kerry flip-flip was one of his best (or worst, depending on how you look at it). On August 1st, Kerry suggested that it would be a good idea to pull some troops out of Europe and South Korea. On August 16th president Bush announced plans to do just that. 48 hours later, Kerry slammed Bush for doing something that he, Kerry, had advocated just 17 days earlier!
It got me wondering; did Kerry's campaign manager, Bob Shrum, tell Kerry to do that, or was it Kerry's idea? 20 years ago, a Democrat could get away with such an outrageous flip-flip, but times have changed. Doesn't Kerry and his people realize that?
I'm beginning to think we were wrong about Kerry. Maybe he isn't a Liberal. Maybe he isn't anything. The man appears to have absolutely no core beliefs other than he, John Forbes Kerry, should be President of the United States.
After his "Christmas in Cambodia" lie had been nailed, Kerry and his campaign lost their discipline at perhaps the most critical moment of this election year. The campaign rushed out a cover story; Kerry was close to the Cambodia border and/or accidently crossed the border in January 1969. Meanwhile, Kerry's pet biographer, Douglas Brinkley, was telling the London Daily Telegraph a completely different story. Brinkley informed the Telegraph that Kerry conducted three or four clandestine missions into Cambodia, ferrying special forces (Navy Seals, Green Berets etc.) there early in 1969. Obviously, these two tall tales are mutually contradictory. Was there a breakdown of communication between Brinkley and the campaign? It would certainly seem so. It didn't help that Brinkley chose a British newspaper. Why didn't he choose the New York Times? The campaign may have seen it before they rushed out their own story, which in so many ways was inferior to Brinkley's.
Remember Kerry's original story: he was in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, He was fired at by the Khmer Rouge and by drunken South Vietnamese soldiers who were celebrating Christmas. Meanwhile, back in Washington, Richard Nixon was denying that any American forces were in Cambodia. For this reason, Christmas 1968 was a "turning point" in Kerry's life; "seared -- seared" in his memory. As you probably know by now, there are many problems with this story. Here are the highlights:

1)Richard Nixon was NOT president during Christmas 1968, Lyndon Johnson was. Nixon actually took office on January 20th, 1969.

2)The Khmer Rouge did NOT take the field until 1972.

3)The South Vietnamese were Buddhists: therefore, unlikely to be celebrating Christmas.

4)The large and noisy Swift Boats were NEVER used on such clandestine missions.

5)Not one of Kerry's fellow swiftees - not even among his so-called "Band of Brothers" confirms his story; in fact, two of his old PCF-44 crew have flatly denied ever crossing into Cambodia.

If Kerry was only close to the border, why would it be a "turning point" in his life, "seared" in his memory? If he accidently crossed the border; again, what was his beef with Nixon? It would have been Kerry's fault, not Nixon's. And why were those drunken South Vietnamese Buddhist soldiers celebrating Christmas in January? Come to think of it, why did they decide to throw a Christmas party in Cambodia? They must have been very drunk!

Brinkley's story - while undeniably also full of holes - is much easier to defend. They were secret missions. Nobody wants to talk about them (apart from the blabbermouth, Kerry). I believe the liberal mainstream media would have been satisfied; unfortunately, the Kerry campaign blew it. Now even the Washington Post has been forced to conclude that Kerry's Excellent Cambodia Adventure never happened. Kerry made it all up.

Monday, August 30, 2004

What Do They Really Think Of Kerry?

I happen to believe that your average Liberal is an honest and decent person; so at what point does the Liberal throw up his/her hands in disgust at John Forbes Kerry? Those Liberals who dominate the mainstream media aren't necessarily honest and decent. Most of them are partisan hacks; however, even they must be at least having doubts about Kerry.
I predict that once it becomes clear that Kerry cannot win the election, the media will turn on him with a vengeance; venting all of their pent up anger and frustration on him. I believe this will happen about six weeks before election day. There's a Pullitzer Prize awaiting the first New York Times or Washington Post reporter to set aside his/her political agenda and thoroughly investigate Kerry's war record.
And what of Kerry's own campaign staff? They have spent the past few weeks frantically plugging holes in Kerry's disintegrating reputation. They are privy to far more embarrassing information than the rest of us. Are they beginning to look askance at their candidate? This is bound to be undermining the morale and enthusiasm of Kerry campaign workers across the nation.

Kerry's Credentials

What do I know about John Kerry? The two things that immediately spring to mind are 1) he’s a United States Senator and 2) he’s a Vietnam combat veteran.
Now if someone were to ask me which of the two is more important, I would have no hesitation in choosing the former. Like most people, I have the greatest admiration for veterans; but there are, after all, millions of them. On the other hand, there aren’t many people who have served three full terms in the U.S. Senate.
John Kerry, his campaign and his party disagree.
Last month, during the days leading up to the Democrat National Convention in Boston, we were told by Kerry’s campaign that the convention provided an opportunity for John Kerry to “introduce himself to the American people.”
On the big day, Kerry arrived at the Fleet Center, Boston by boat, with his “Band of Brothers” also on board. Unfortunately, the campaign couldn’t get hold of a Swift Boat, but at least there were no Viet Cong snipers in the vicinity.
After treating us to his Vietnam home movies, John Kerry gave his acceptance speech. Here was his chance to lay out his qualifications to be the 44th President of the United States. Kerry began his 55 minute speech with a salute and the now famous words: “I’m John Kerry ­-- reporting for duty!”
In this long rambling speech, Kerry devoted a whopping 26 seconds to his almost 20 years – one third of his life – in the U.S. Senate. The remaining 99% of the speech consisted of attacks against George W. Bush (fair enough) and constant references to his 132 days in Vietnam, 35 years ago.
Leading up to Kerry’s grand finale, the 15,000 delegates spent four days either bashing Bush or hailing Kerry, the war hero. His 19 years in the Senate were hardly mentioned, and his years as Lieutenant-Governor of Massachusetts (under Michael Dukakis) weren’t mentioned at all.
What are we to make of all this? Kerry’s qualifications for the office of U.S. President appear to be 1) He’s not George Bush and 2) his four months in Vietnam. His years in the Senate are considered irrelevant. Given that nearly 300 million Americans aren’t George Bush either, that leaves us with Kerry’s sole qualification for being president: his Vietnam service.
Doesn’t that mean that everyone who served FIVE months or more in Vietnam are more qualified than Kerry? That’s about 2 million people; the population of Houston, the nation’s fourth largest city. And let’s not forget the millions who fought in World War II, Korea and the two Iraq wars.
I don’t understand why Kerry – normally not known for his modesty – is so reluctant to discuss his years in the Senate. You don’t think (dare I say it) that he may be embarrassed, even ashamed of his Senate record, do you? Surely not!
Of course, I’m being sarcastic. It is often said that “sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.” That may be true, but I like it.
John Kerry and his campaign have done everything in their power to avoid discussing Kerry’s abysmal Senate voting record on matters relating to national security.
His brief sojourn in south-east Asia has been used as a shield to deflect criticisms of that record. His answer to each criticism is always the same: “How dare you question my patriotism! Why, I served in Vietnam! You didn’t! I’ve got three Purple Hearts! Yadda-yadda-yadda…”
This from a candidate and party that spent eight years defending the lying, cheating draft-dodging Bill Clinton. You couldn’t make this stuff up. It’s hilarious.
Now that the The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth have demolished Kerry’s Vietnam shield, what else remains? How ironic that a man who has based his entire political career on the Vietnam War is now being consumed by it. For John Kerry, the chickens have come home to roost.

NYC Protestors

If I was John Kerry, I would fervently hope the TV networks pay no attention to the tens of thousands of left-wing whack-jobs protesting the Republican National Convention at New York City's Madison Square Garden.

I have to wonder about the sanity of these people. Do they really believe they are doing the Democrat Party any favors? Do they think their antics will gain one single vote for John Kerry? If these misfits get the media attention they hope for, George Bush's "convention bounce" will reach double-digits.
So my messageto them is: enjoy yourselves, BE yourselves, let it all hang out!

Tuesday, August 03, 2004

Will The Media Turn On Kerry?

John Kerry announced on Sunday that he does have a plan for Iraq... only it's a "secret". We'll have to elect Kerry to find out what it is. This announcement was greeted with hoots of derision; not only from Rush Limbaugh, but also many in the mainstream liberal media. I think this is a preview of coming attractions. Don't get me wrong, the liberal media desperately wants to see Bush defeated, and are doing everything they can to make that happen. But it's almost impossible for them to generate any kind of enthusiasm for Kerry, who is disliked even by his fellow Senate Democrats.
When it becomes clear that Kerry cannot win, the media will turn on him... and it will be ferocious. All of their pent up anger and frustration will be directed at him. This is one of the reasons why I am confident of a landslide victory for President George W. Bush. It may even surpass the landslides achieved by LBJ, Nixon and Reagan.
As I said yesterday, Kerry can't hide anymore. We're going to see and hear a lot more from this arrogant, pompous, narcissistic blowhard. Even his cheerleaders in the media will get sick of him.

Monday, August 02, 2004

Newt May Be Right

On Hannity & Colmes a couple of weeks ago, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted that Bush would win 58-42 or better. I remember thinking : "I hope you're right, Newt; but come on! Bush will be happy with another squeaker like last time.
But now I've changed my mind. The latest Gallup poll - conducted after the Democrat convention - actually shows a Bush bounce. I'll bet all of that negative bounce occured after Kerry's speech, which enthused the liberal media, but no one else, apparently.
Kerry is a lousy candidate. He has maintained a small lead in the polls partly because he has kept a low profile; but now has been officially nominated as the Democrat presidential candidate, he can't hide anymore. We're going to see him on our TV screens every day between now and November. The American people are going to be so sick of his pompous drone, there's no way they're going to vote for another four years of it!