2 November 2006 @ 10:07AM >>

Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.John Kerry

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the Democrats’ choice for president last time around, is the subject of bi-partisan criticism for what sounded like a slap at American troops serving in Iraq. Kerry claimed his statement was a “botched joke,” and his first reaction was to attack anyone who criticized him for it.

A statement on his website attributed criticism to “assorted right wing nut-jobs” and “Republican hacks”:

If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

In Kerry-land, that’s apparently what passes for an apology. Meanwhile, the “assorted right-wing nut jobs” who asked criticized Kerry included such notable Republican hacks as Hillary Clinton and a number of other prominent Democratic office-seekers.

Kerry complains that the issue is a distration from an administration that “sent our brave troops to war without body armor,” forgetting that he voted for the war and then voted against a package funding the war. (As he infamously said in 2004, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”)

Kerry also criticizes “Republicans [who] want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men,” although it seems like—as in 2004—Kerry still wants to debate Kerry. James Taranto noticed this little contradiction in Kerry’s appearance on the Don Imus radio show yesterday:

KERRY: The people who owe an apology are people like Donald Rumsfeld, who didn’t send enough troops, who didn’t listen to the generals, who has made every mistake in the book.

[...]

IMUS: What do you think—I understand about the Bush folks. But Senator John McCain, he seems to think—he seems to agree with the Bush administration about your comments. And you know him, obviously, better than I do, but I know him pretty well. And he probably knows what you meant, too.

KERRY: I’m sorry that John McCain has said what he said. John McCain’s been a friend for a long time. But I have to tell you, I think John McCain is wrong about this.

John McCain has been a cheerleader for a policy that is incorrect. John McCain says we ought to send another 100,000 troops over there. First of all, we don’t have another 100,000 troops. Secondly, if you send them over there, it’s going to do exactly what’s already happened, which is attract more terrorists and more jihadists. Our own generals are telling us that it’s the numbers of troops that are the problem.

There you have it. John Kerry, the man who the Democrats hoped would become president in 2004, articulates his party’s position on the war perfectly. He criticizes the president for not sending enough troops in the exact same exchange that he criticizes a proposal to send more troops. When it comes to the War on Terror, the Democrats seem to stand for nothing besides “no.”

It kind of makes you wonder what the Democrats will do if they ever take the White House. Without someone like President Bush to reflexively oppose, how will they know what positions to take?

In the meantime, for the next two years, President Bush should announce his foreign policy positions to be the exact opposite of whatever he truly believes. Maybe he can trick the Democrats into unwittingly supporting what he really wants.

24 July 2006 @ 12:45PM >> If John Kerry were president, peace would magically descend on the Middle East:

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who was in town Sunday [...], took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

“If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened,” said Kerry [...]

Sure. Simply by being inside the Oval Office for an extended period of time, the mere presence of John Kerry’s superior intellect would bring about a peace that had eluded the region for generations.

I’m surprised Kerry’s ego hasn’t yet acquired enough mass to become visible to the naked eye.

26 January 2005 >> President Bush’s re-election left some Americans distraught and depressed. And with Inauguration Day set to rub salt in those still-healing wounds, I decided to act in the interest of national unity and extend an olive branch across the great Red/Blue divide. Would my overtures of peace be rebuffed? Video >>

28 October 2004 >> The choice we have on election day is between the worldview of September 10th—embodied by John Kerry—and President Bush’s September 12th worldview. More >>

14 October 2004 >> I won’t be scoring this debate on the merits of the points made by each candidate, because in both cases, their message was reflected in—and sometimes hindered by—their presentation. Because there was nothing terribly new or controversial said, people will mostly remember their visceral reactions to each candidate’s style.

How you felt about tonight’s debate probably depends on how much of it you watched. The earlier you turned it off, the more likely you are to feel that Kerry won.

Although President Bush had some good moments in the first half of the debate, his disjointed diction sometimes made him seem distracted. Kerry seemed more morbid than usual, and I’m not sure if that had to do with his appearance or his delivery; both conspired against him. But Kerry seemed confident in the first half of the debate, and there were times that it contrasted favorably with the answers where Bush fumbled verbally. Still, Kerry’s dour pessimism drips from his face as he rattles off everything wrong with the world today and how it’s all President Bush’s fault. I think that works against him. I’d score the first half of the debate a small Kerry win.

Somewhere right around the 45 minute mark, the momentum shifted. Bush seemed more comfortable. He got engaged, he got fired up, and all of a sudden there was a stark contrast with Kerry. As the debate wore on, Kerry’s dry delivery of complaint-laden answers that invariably ended with focus-grouped, committee-written soundbites just seemed phony. He didn’t sound genuine. President Bush did.

President Bush’s statements were backed by passion. Kerry seemed like he treats every moment in life with the same amount of energy as when reading a budget reconciliation memorandum. When you’re a politician who’s viewed by many to be a flip-flopping political opportunist, you damn well better be able to muster up a little passion to spackle over it. President Clinton could do it. Senator Kerry, you’re no Bill Clinton.

So, if you tuned out at the halfway point, you might say Kerry prevailed. But when President Bush came on strong, Kerry seemed to lose confidence. The longer you watched, the worse Kerry looked by comparison. Maybe if Kerry had the stage to himself, his performance would have been fine. But he sounded like a prototypical political issuing slogans and he shared the stage with a man who said what he believed and spoke from the heart. (The best example of this contrast was the last question of the night.) President Bush sounded genuine. That contrast was not helpful to Senator Kerry.

12 October 2004 >> I’ve heard what was billed as “the ultimate John Kerry ad” on the radio several times. I just found out it is now available in easy-to-swallow Web form.

Kind of takes the wind out of the sails of John Kerry’s claim that he’s had “one consistent position” on Iraq.

Credit for this piece goes to Mark Simone, a local radio show host on WABC 770AM here in New York City.

9 October 2004 @ 3:22PM >> Last night, President Bush displayed the plain-spoken resolve reminiscent of the days after September 11th. He was able to forcefully defend his decision to invade Iraq, and he tied that decision to the bigger picture of the post-September 11th world. He also explained that he’s not afraid to make such decisions even though it might not win him any popularity contests in the halls of European capitols. Sometimes doing the right thing is neither popular nor easy, but leadership isn’t defined by how many people love you after you take action.

John Kerry, on the other hand, seemed a little distracted, shaken almost, perhaps by witnessing President Bush’s performance. Kerry moved around the stage like a robot with a dying battery, and he ended every statement with phony sounding slogans that reeked of politician. Every single Kerry answer seemed to be a litany of criticisms of the president followed by a list of people who agree with Kerry. By the end of the debate, I wished someone had asked Kerry if there was one thing he could name about President Bush that wasn’t a complete disaster.

For all of Kerry’s much-vaunted intellect, I can’t understand how he doesn’t see that we’re living in a different world than the Cold War. All of Kerry’s foreign policy vision is predicated on the institutions and doctrines of the past. But the way you defeat an enemy state in a decades-long standoff where mutually assured destruction brings its own form of stability is not the same way you defeat terrorists who pledge no allegiance to any particular nation and who aren’t afraid to die.

I’ve always thought that if Kerry’s reflexive opposition to everything Bush were demonstrated to the voters, they’d reject him. A presidential candidate needs to stand for something more than merely the opposite of whatever the other guy says. But last night, there seemed to be nothing to John Kerry’s message beyond what a lousy president he thinks Bush is.

Bush won because his passion came across. You may not always like it, but you always know where the guy stands. I think that’s remarkably reassuring in a dangerous, uncertain world. Kerry looked like a petty politician pre-programmed to fire off a few slogans and important-sounding names. But in the end, I think voters want more from a president than lists of things he dislikes about his opponent and names of people who support him. People want to see vision. That’s where Bush shined, and that’s were Kerry lost this debate.

1 October 2004 >> Well, it looks like neither candidate landed a body blow during the big debate.

Kerry came across better than I expected. He wasn’t the droning, passionless blowhard that he so often is on the campaign trail, and he didn’t come across as a member of the Angry Left. People who were already leaning towards Kerry were probably reassured by his performance, but I don’t think he sealed the deal with anyone else.

Bush had a few verbal gaffes, but to voters, he’s already a known quantity. The quality of his public speaking is already factored into the equation, so I don’t think it does him any harm. He succeeded in staying on message and reinforced the notion that he’s decisive and resolute, and he hit Kerry’s inconsistencies enough to keep people wondering about him. However, I think the president missed a few opportunities to hit a home run.

John Kerry missed a big opportunity, too. After the debate was over, I didn’t understand Kerry’s foggy position on Iraq any more than I did going in. I don’t think I’m alone.

I call it a draw, which works to Bush’s advantage because he seems to be leading. The campaign dynamic going out of this debate is little changed from that going in.

Ultimately, if I worked on the Bush campaign, I’d make hay out of the fact that despite all the explanations from Kerry, you still can’t figure out where the guy stands on Iraq. If voters can’t understand Kerry’s Iraq position on November 2nd, he’s not likely to have a happy evening.

28 September 2004 >> In a recent political rally at the taxpayer-financed Colorado State University, Teresa Heinz Kerry revealed that she’s firmly entrenched in the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party, saying that her husband would never go to war “because of our greedy need for oil.”

(Her remarks included no information on the gas mileage of her private jet.)

Shortly thereafter, she hinted that America under John Kerry might well be a dictatorship: “Day One of his presidency, every child in America will have health care. Period.” Last I checked, Congress has a right to weigh in on whether the president can nationalize healthcare unilaterally. (Just ask Hillary.)

Teresa’s comments answered those who wondered whether she had yet grown tired of the taste of her own feet.

24 September 2004 @ 11:39PM >> James Taranto, who by the way serves as the editor of OpinionJournal.com, noticed a few similarities between C3PO, the haughty, British-sounding robot in Star Wars, and John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate. While re-watching the film recently, Taranto collected some choice quotes from the persnickety android, of which these are a few:

• “That malfunctioning little twerp! This is all his fault! He tricked me into going this way, but he’ll do no better.”
• “We’ll be destroyed for sure! This is madness! We’re doomed.”
• “Hey! You’re not permitted in there! You’ll be deactivated for sure! Don’t you call me a mindless philosopher, you overweight glob of grease!”
• “Secret mission? What plans? What are you talking about? I’m not getting in there! I’m going to regret this.”
• “Protocol? Why, it’s my primary function, sir. I am well versed in all the customs.”

Taranto’s column is called Best of the Web Today, ostensibly because it links to some of the best stuff on the Internet. But if you ask me, Taranto’s daily column is deserving of the title itself. It routinely consists of some of the funniest and most insightful writing on the web.

17 September 2004 @ 10:34PM >> John Kerry argues that if he were president, he’d be better at bringing allies to our side than President Bush. But when making that argument, Kerry frequently makes insulting comments about our existing allies.

This makes me wonder: if being a current ally of the United States results in derision from Candidate Kerry, how exactly would that make a President Kerry more adept at attracting allies?

The same sort of logical consistency is apparent here:

• In 1991, President George H. W. Bush calls for war against Saddam Hussein. He creates a coalition and gets congressional approval. The U.N. tells Saddam Hussein to comply with its Security Council resolutions or else. He does not comply, and the United States leads the way in supplying the “or else”. In 2004, John Kerry cites that war as a model to be followed. But in 1991, John Kerry voted against the war.
• In 2003, President George W. Bush calls for war against Saddam Hussein. He creates a coalition and gets congressional approval. The U.N. tells Saddam Hussein to comply with its Security Council resolutions or else. He does not comply, and the United States leads the way in supplying the “or else”. In 2004, John Kerry calls it “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Yet for some reason, when it came up for a vote, John Kerry voted for the war.

Maybe we shouldn’t think about complicated stuff like this. You see, John Kerry is smart enough to understand these intricate issues. That’s why he should be president and not any of us. If we fail to grasp John Kerry’s positions, it is only because we are insufficiently intellectual and wholly incapable of comprehending the complexity of Kerry’s thinking. That’s basically the argument Teresa Heinz Kerry made when she said “only an idiot” would disagree with her husband on health care.

Listen to John Kerry on a day-to-day basis. Do you hear much of anything other than criticism? We know all about what John Kerry is against—it seems to be whatever President Bush is for—but do we really know much of anything about any of Kerry’s plans?

So, what would Kerry do in the White House? Without an opposing candidate to calibrate himself against, how would Kerry determine what he believes? What are his default positions? Well, he shares a state (and staff) with Ted Kennedy, and his Senate votes reflect that. Perhaps that’s why Kerry talks more about four months in Vietnam than two decades in the U.S. Senate.

Want an idea what four years of a Kerry presidency would be like? Just look to his campaign today. The Kerrys apparently believe that people who disagree with them are idiots. (In all fairness, only Teresa actually said that, but watching John Kerry all these months, I’m not convinced he disagrees.)

And if we voters are idiots, it relieves John Kerry of the burden of articulating his plans, if any. We simply wouldn’t get the nuance. But if we can’t decipher Kerry’s plans, neither can al Qaeda. Therein may lie the true strategic brilliance of John Kerry: after four years of Kerry in the White House, Osama bin Laden will be so damn confused, he just might forget who his enemy is.

10 September 2004 >> Didn’t he just switch to being pro-war a month ago? Even knowing that no WMDs would be found? Sounds like Pendulum Boy is starting to swing in the other direction again.

2 September 2004 >> The problem with John Kerry isn’t so much that he changed his mind about such a defining moment in his life, it’s that he has no explanation for why he changed his mind. When a man undergoes a major personal transformation—such as President Bush’s decision to quit drinking—there’s usually a very telling biographical episode that gives us some insight into the man’s character. But in the case of John Kerry, there is no explanation. We’re just supposed to accept at face value that, one day, Kerry throws his medals away and the next he brandishes them as evidence of his heroism. One day he accuses his fellow soldiers of mass atrocities in Vietnam, the next day he stands on stage with a handful of them as evidence of his strength.

So, who is John Kerry? With just over sixty days to the election, we still don’t know.

Last night, Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia, broke away from his party to speak at the Republican Convention. Miller’s speech sought to end the mystery of John Kerry by reciting more from Senator Kerry’s voting record than Kerry himself cited at his own convention. More >>

26 August 2004 @ 4:03PM >> If anyone wonders whether the traditional media plays political favorites, the coverage of Campaign 2004 should remove all doubt.

The press that hammered President Bush for weeks over the “AWOL” accusations pushed by Michael Moore and Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe was silent for weeks when over 250 veterans kicked off the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign.

John Kerry hasn’t been pressed for answers the way President Bush was earlier this year. The traditional media was even quiet after Kerry finally admitted he never was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968 despite over 30 years of claiming otherwise.

When the media finally did start reporting the story, it was only to investigate links between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat vets. (I don’t recall any links being investigated between, say, Michael Moore and the Democratic Party.)

Yet, despite the bias of the traditional media, the story is still being heard.

Tony Blankley thinks this may be a turning point. “Mark the calendar. August 2004 is the first time that the major mainline media [...] ignored a news story that nonetheless became known by two-thirds of the country within two weeks of it being mentioned by the ‘marginal’ press.”

He’s right, and it raises an interesting question: are people waking up to media bias because they have so many other information sources now, or are they seeking other sources because of the media bias? It may be a little of both, but either way, the evidence is incontrovertible: the monopoly of the mainstream press is crumbling. The favoritism they’re showing in this campaign will only hasten the collapse.

25 August 2004 @ 7:34PM >> It really is amazing that John Kerry burst onto the political scene by disavowing his service in Vietnam and is now trying to become president by hyping it. Decades ago, he testified in front of the U.S. Senate and said he committed war crimes. Today, he snaps a salute, reports “ready for duty” and claims to be a war hero.

So which is it? Is he a war hero or a war criminal?

If you want to make up your own mind, I suggest reading John Kerry’s 1971 book, The New Soldier.

That book is remarkably hard to come by, but you can now read it online for free.

The front cover is particularly telling: a bunch of scruffy hippies flying the American flag upside down. Yes, these are supposedly our new soldiers. (Apparently, folks in 1971 weren’t very good at predicting the future.) That image alone, upon which the the text “by John Kerry” is printed, certainly isn’t helpful to Kerry’s “forget what I said before...now I’m a war hero” political packaging. And that may be precisely why you’ll hear nothing about that book in the old media.

But you can check it out for yourself. Even if you don’t have the time to read it, at least check out the pictures. They show images that I’m sure today’s John Kerry would just assume forget.

12 August 2004 @ 5:19PM >> If you don’t read Mark Steyn on a regular basis, you are missing one of the wittiest writers around. Steyn’s latest gem discusses the bizarre contradictions in John Kerry’s biography:

[W]ith Kerry [...] the official narrative makes no sense. He’s publicly opposed to the Vietnam War. But he volunteers for it. Then he comes back disgusted with his experience in war, publicly hurls his medals away (or someone else’s: that story keeps changing), denounces his fellow veterans as war criminals, torturers and rapists, and claims that he personally committed atrocities.

But then he decides to run for president and suddenly Jane Fonda morphs into John Wayne and all those war criminals are war heroes he wants at every rally and he’s got his medals back and his disgust at his wartime experience has mysteriously turned into pride in his wartime experience to the exclusion of all else.

Of course, as an unsophisticated conservative, maybe I just can’t comprehend the nuance of John Kerry. After all, I was unaware that the definition of nuance recently morphed into all over the map, which is precisely where John Kerry is—assuming the map isn’t one of Cambodia.

Kerry should be grateful that he was born when he was. In times past, people were institutionalized for demonstrating that much nuance.

5 August 2004 @ 2:23PM >> If I were John Kerry—I am not, as you may have noticed—I would be a little worried about this ad.

Comprised of interview clips from a number of Swift Boat servicemen, it paints a very different picture of Kerry’s Vietnam service than what we’ve been hearing so far.

Of course, Kerry’s actions from three decades ago may not seem relevant now, but it was Kerry who decided to make his service in Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign. (That decision itself is interesting, considering Kerry spent many years after his four-month stint in Vietnam repudiating his own actions there.) If Kerry is going to cite his service as a reason to vote for him, then it is legitimate to question that service and Kerry’s later denunciations of it.

2 August 2004 >> Although the animosity towards George W. Bush was apparent throughout the Democratic National Convention, it did not turn into a rally to rival the Paul Wellstone memorial. At the same time, Kerry made no effort to shake his finger at the more extreme among his supporters for routinely comparing our president to Adolf Hitler.

Perhaps this is emblematic of the convention as a whole. It was well scripted and strictly disciplined, but it also seemed to be castrated. Not much noteworthy happened at all, except for the news that racial demagogue Al Sharpton is now considered mainstream by the Democrats, and that Barack Obama is considered a rising star whose speech earned high marks from the chattering classes on both sides of the aisle.

It is also interesting to note that John Kerry spoke extensively about his four months in Vietnam, but said almost nothing about anything he’s done since—such as his two decades in the U.S. Senate. Teresa Heinz Kerry was given a prime-time speaking role, the first time such an honor has ever been bestowed on a candidate’s wife at a national party convention. Saying, “This is such a powerful moment for me,” Teresa talked about herself more than her husband or his plans.

While the convention had plenty of put-on patriotism and much military imagery, there wasn’t much substance to be found. What are Kerry’s plans, for example, to handle the epic battle of our time: the war against radical Islam? Other than trying to be friendlier with Europe and the U.N., I really couldn’t figure what Kerry has in mind. Perhaps that’s why polls show little or none of the customary post-convention “bounce”. One poll even suggests that President Bush gained ground during the Democratic Convention.

The convention and Kerry’s speech in particular didn’t get much praise from friend or foe:

• Lawrence Kaplan, The New Republic:
  

  No one who watched his acceptance speech last night could have missed the fact that, yes, John Kerry served heroically in Vietnam. Easier to miss was that, as a guide to what sort of approach to national security Kerry will enshrine in official policy—presumably the whole point of the exercise—last night’s martial imagery and rhetoric told us nothing at all. Or, rather, worse than nothing.

• Editorial, The New York Times:
  

  Biographies that make his few months in service overseas sound longer than his 19 years in the Senate will never be convincing.

• Thomas Oliphant, Boston Globe:
  

  Perhaps the public will let him off the hook, but the fact remains that Kerry essentially blew an opportunity he may not get again until the debates with Bush this fall. He and his advisers can and will argue that the cold facts of economic and foreign policy life will dominate political opinion in the weeks ahead; nevertheless, a golden opportunity slipped away.

• Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal:
  

  His main vow was that ‘I will bring back this nation’s time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.’ This would have ruled out Kosovo, Bosnia and Haiti—three military actions the Senator endorsed. Not to mention World War I and Korea. This is a repudiation of pre-emption, but worse it sounds like a return to the pre-9/11 policy of waiting until terrorists hit us, rather than taking the war to the terrorists on their turf. This is a debate Mr. Bush should also want to have.

• David Brooks, The New York Times:
  

  What an incoherent disaster. When you actually read for content, you see that [Kerry’s] speech skirts almost every tough issue and comes out on both sides of every major concern. The Iraq section is shamefully evasive. He can’t even bring himself to use the word ‘democratic’ or to contemplate any future for Iraq, democratic or otherwise. He can’t bring himself to say whether the war was a mistake or to lay out even the most meager plan for moving forward. For every gesture in the direction of greater defense spending, there are opposing hints about reducing our commitments and bringing the troops home.

• Mark Steyn, London Telegraph:
  

  It was interesting to see Ben Affleck emerge as the Hollywood mascot of the Democratic Convention. The week reminded me of Ben’s movie Pearl Harbor: wall-to-wall evocative military imagery, a cast of thousands, superb production values, but a huge gaping hole where the star performance was supposed to be.

• Editorial, New York Post:
  

  He thanked those of the ‘greatest generation for making America strong, for winning World War II, for winning the Cold War and for the great gift of service which brought America 50 years of peace and prosperity.’

  Hollow words, given that during Kerry’s years in the Senate he voted against most of the weapons systems that kept the Soviet Union at bay — and ultimately made the Cold War victory possible.

• Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle:
  

  ...this convention is packed with politicians who are boasting about the tremendous party unity they see everywhere. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said that the party is more united than she has seen it in 40 years. Three in 4 Democrats disagree with the nominee on the biggest issue out there — and that’s unity?

• David Broder, The Washington Post:
  

  Students of political rhetoric generally agree on the elements that make for a successful convention acceptance speech. Over the years, the best of them have had some or all of these ingredients: a fresh and powerful personal narrative, strong ideas, memorable phrases, and a rhythm that builds to an emotional climax.

  John Kerry’s address to the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night fell short in all these respects.

• Dick Morris, New York Post:
  

  He opened up his talk with a lengthy and evocative description of his childhood and what it was like growing up in divided Berlin. He told us of the ‘goose bumps’ he remembers getting when the band struck up ‘Stars and Stripes Forever.’

  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.

27 July 2004 >> Attention Mike Dukakis: All of a sudden, that tank doesn’t look so silly.

26 July 2004 >> What Kerry needs to do is attract some of the voters who don’t equate Bush with Hitler. That’ll be hard if Kerry is seen as surrounded by extremists. Maybe Kerry recognizes this but is trying to have it both ways, as he does when he votes in favor of bills before he votes against them. But this is an issue he can’t waffle on. When voters view the Democratic Convention, they’ll either see hatred on display or they won’t. I’m sure Kerry’s team will do their best to present a sanitized convention, but today’s Democrats seem to be driven by rage and not reason. And rage is very hard to contain, which means we may be in for a rather interesting week up in Boston. More >>

4 June 2004 @ 3:19PM >> Perhaps you’ve heard that John Kerry served in Vietnam. You may also have heard that Kerry later opposed the war. It’s classic John Kerry: he simultaneously wants credit for going to war and for opposing the war. Well, Kerry’s contribution to that chapter in our nation’s history has not gone unnoticed by the Vietnamese communists:

A Ho Chi Minh City museum that honors Vietnam war protesters features a photograph of Sen. John Kerry being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Do Muoi.

Maybe this is one of the foreign leaders from whom Kerry claims support.

“The Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry’s contributions to their victory,” said Jeffrey M. Epstein of Vietnam Vets for the Truth, a group opposing Kerry’s campaign for the presidency. “This find can be compared to the discovery of a painting of Neville Chamberlain hanging in a place of honor in Hitler’s Eagle’s Nest in 1945.”

13 May 2004 >> “The rich aren’t paying their fair share!” That’s the mantra you hear whenever a Democrat runs for office. You’d think that people employing such rhetoric would be sure to pony up their fair share, right? Especially if the people involved happened to be super-rich?

Not in the case of John Kerry or his wife Teresa.

Last year, Teresa—worth an estimated half-billion dollars—paid less than 15% of her income in taxes. Meanwhile, the non-Heinz Kerry paid just 23%.

Not that I’m complaining; I’m just a little envious. During my last full year of salaried employment, nearly 50% of my income was removed by various governments (federal, New York State and New York City) before it even hit my bank account.

Don’t take this as an argument in favor of higher taxes for anyone; instead, it’s a sign that we need a fairer tax system, one where the rate you pay doesn’t depend on the accountant you can afford. (A flat tax, anyone?)

But since real tax reform isn’t going to happen any time soon, I have a different request. If Kerry really has compassion for the common man, perhaps he can help this one figure out how to game the system like he and his wife do. I could use the break.

Next time you hear Kerry talk about soaking the rich, remember: he doesn’t mean himself or his wife. He probably means you.

3 May 2004 >> John Kerry several weeks ago: “I don’t fall down.“

John Kerry now: AP reports that “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry took a spill from his bicycle while riding Sunday afternoon [...]”

Is there one issue where this guy has taken a consistent stand?

20 April 2004 @ 3:06PM >> According to the left, Bush Lied. Saddam Hussein didn’t pose a threat to anyone, despite the fact that he had used weapons of mass destruction in the past. No, he didn’t have such weapons, they say, despite the fact that when U.N. inspectors vacated Iraq in 1998, they left with a long list of weapons that Saddam hadn’t accounted for.

No, Bush Lied, you see, despite the fact that the intelligence reports Bush cited were consistent across three U.S. administrations and were corroborated by the intelligence estimates of many western nations. Forget all that; those are merely inconvenient details that cloud the bigger picture: Bush Lied.

Now we discover that Denmark Lied, too! According to the BBC:

Denmark has declassified intelligence reports compiled before the Iraq war which show officials thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

In one report, Iraq was thought to have both chemical and biological weapons, as well as an active nuclear programme.

Since John Kerry is so fond of citing his purported popularity in foreign lands, perhaps he should consider running for Prime Minister of Denmark instead. At least then, his wife Teresa “I can’t believe I live in America” Heinz Kerry might be happy.