Sunday, July 18, 2004
Stop Insulting Flip-Floppers!
William Eckhardt of Chicago writes:
Republicans claim that John Kerry continually flip-flops on the issues and also that he is the most steadfastly liberal member of the Senate. How can these both be true? (Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune, 7/18/04)
This is why my work is never done.
Here's the deal, Mr. Eckhardt. I can sum it up most simply by saying watch what he does, not what he says. Senator Kerry earned the dubious title “the most liberal member of the Senate” with his voting record. Consider the following:
He voted with Ted Kennedy 93% of the time.
In 2003, he voted against Pres. Bush more often than Ted Kennedy.
He earned a lifetime liberal voting record from the Americans for Democratic Action (a liberal activist group that is widely regarded as the litmus test for liberal voting records) TWO POINTS HIGHER than Ted Kennedy’s.
He earned this rating by things like voting for higher taxes and for cutting defense and intelligence spending, and voting against partial-birth abortion and requiring parental notification for a minor’s abortion.
The flip-flop statements are easily explained. Like all liberals, Sen. Kerry takes great pains to conceal his real agenda from the voters. That's the only way he has any chance of getting elected.
Here's one example: back in December, 2002, John Francois Kerry said that he favored a payroll tax holiday on the first $10,000 of income. He continued to push this proposal in January, 2004 in the NPR, Democratic Candidate Debate in Des Moines, IA, but just two days after making this statement, he told CNBC's Gloria Borger that he wasn't in favor of his one-year payroll tax holiday "at this moment in time." Ask yourself, how do you think he would vote?
I don't think it's fair to call Sen. Kerry a flip-flopper. It’s true that he does say things like “I did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” referring to voting against the funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after voting in favor of giving the president the authority to take military action in Iraq. In 1996, he did criticize his opponent in the senate race, William Weld, for favoring the death penalty for terrorists, then changed his position in 2002, saying “me too! I want those terrorists to get the death penalty!.” He did say in 1992 that military service should not be a credential for those seeking public office. This from a guy who today can’t order a cup of coffee without mentioning his service in Viet Nam.
Don’t get me wrong. Given these facts, I understand the confusion. Still, I contend that referring to John Kerry as a flip-flopper is an insult to flip-floppers because it suggests that he takes one position on important issues, then another, or even that he re-evaluates his position based on changing circumstances or new information. That’s not what’s happening. The truth is that he has an unswerving commitment to certain core beliefs, namely, in the foreign policy arena, a McGovernite belief that there’s no problem that can’t be resolved by appeasement and retreat and domestically, the condescending elitist article of faith that his utopian vision is what’s best for you. Your job is just to submit and pay. He never flip-flops on those positions. He only changes the mask he wears to conceal them.
Mr. Eckhardt, please watch this blog for more about Senator Kerry, including why as America faces a determined enemy who desires to murder as many of her citizens as possible, we cannot trust John Kerry with our national security.
William Eckhardt of Chicago writes:
Republicans claim that John Kerry continually flip-flops on the issues and also that he is the most steadfastly liberal member of the Senate. How can these both be true? (Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune, 7/18/04)
This is why my work is never done.
Here's the deal, Mr. Eckhardt. I can sum it up most simply by saying watch what he does, not what he says. Senator Kerry earned the dubious title “the most liberal member of the Senate” with his voting record. Consider the following:
He voted with Ted Kennedy 93% of the time.
In 2003, he voted against Pres. Bush more often than Ted Kennedy.
He earned a lifetime liberal voting record from the Americans for Democratic Action (a liberal activist group that is widely regarded as the litmus test for liberal voting records) TWO POINTS HIGHER than Ted Kennedy’s.
He earned this rating by things like voting for higher taxes and for cutting defense and intelligence spending, and voting against partial-birth abortion and requiring parental notification for a minor’s abortion.
The flip-flop statements are easily explained. Like all liberals, Sen. Kerry takes great pains to conceal his real agenda from the voters. That's the only way he has any chance of getting elected.
Here's one example: back in December, 2002, John Francois Kerry said that he favored a payroll tax holiday on the first $10,000 of income. He continued to push this proposal in January, 2004 in the NPR, Democratic Candidate Debate in Des Moines, IA, but just two days after making this statement, he told CNBC's Gloria Borger that he wasn't in favor of his one-year payroll tax holiday "at this moment in time." Ask yourself, how do you think he would vote?
I don't think it's fair to call Sen. Kerry a flip-flopper. It’s true that he does say things like “I did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” referring to voting against the funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after voting in favor of giving the president the authority to take military action in Iraq. In 1996, he did criticize his opponent in the senate race, William Weld, for favoring the death penalty for terrorists, then changed his position in 2002, saying “me too! I want those terrorists to get the death penalty!.” He did say in 1992 that military service should not be a credential for those seeking public office. This from a guy who today can’t order a cup of coffee without mentioning his service in Viet Nam.
Don’t get me wrong. Given these facts, I understand the confusion. Still, I contend that referring to John Kerry as a flip-flopper is an insult to flip-floppers because it suggests that he takes one position on important issues, then another, or even that he re-evaluates his position based on changing circumstances or new information. That’s not what’s happening. The truth is that he has an unswerving commitment to certain core beliefs, namely, in the foreign policy arena, a McGovernite belief that there’s no problem that can’t be resolved by appeasement and retreat and domestically, the condescending elitist article of faith that his utopian vision is what’s best for you. Your job is just to submit and pay. He never flip-flops on those positions. He only changes the mask he wears to conceal them.
Mr. Eckhardt, please watch this blog for more about Senator Kerry, including why as America faces a determined enemy who desires to murder as many of her citizens as possible, we cannot trust John Kerry with our national security.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
What It Really Means
1. War Protestors Whine (and Sue, of course) Over Stupid Billboard
(“Antiwar Group Says Its Ad Is Rejected,” New York Times, 7/12/04)
Supposedly: Alleged “censorship” of a proposed billboard featuring a red, white and blue bomb with the words “Democracy is Best Taught by Example, Not by War,” by the owner of the billboard, the evil Clear Channel Communications. Project Billboard—original name! —says Clear Channel reneged on a deal to display it in Times Square 8/2-11/2 (Election Day.) The fact that a Clear Channel exec Tom Hicks is a friend of President Bush proves conclusively that the company is motivated by a desire to suppress this important speech because it makes the president look bad, which in turn could cause him to use the FCC to retaliate by fining Clear Channel radio stations. (To really appreciate these theories, it helps to have both a tinfoil hat and a Michael Moore decoder ring.)
What They’re Missing: Only the government, not a private corporation, can censor. I thought this was Civics 101? No one cares about this stupid billboard, which will probably help Pres. Bush’s election chances if it is erected, but like all businesses, Clear Channel likes to steer clear of controversy. Individuals and corporations are entitled to use their property as they see fit, at least until the left achieves its desire to impose socialism on the rest of us.
The Real Issue: These pathetic arrested development cases are once again attempting to elevate their silly protest to the level of a Constitutional crisis by concocting bizarre conspiracies in which they are so important that the entire weight of the federal government is being brought to bear to keep them from revealing the truth to mankind. I understand that everyone wants to be special, but couldn’t you guys just get one of those self-help books they talk about on “Oprah?”
2. John Francois Kerry’s Military Service
Supposedly: The fact that Sen. John Fonda Kerry volunteered to serve in Viet Nam after he graduated from Yale proves that he is qualified to fight the war on terror and that he shares the view that America is a “shining city on a hill.” A caller disputed my statement that Sen. Kerry is not qualified to fight the war on terror because he is an internationalist who doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism.
What They’re Missing: Let’s see … his voting record, his extremely damaging anti-war activities when he returned from Viet Nam, the fact that what happened in 1969 has nothing to do with what a person will do in 2005.
Senator Kerry announced in 1972 that he’d like to see U.S. troops deployed only at the direction of the U.N. He supported the nuclear freeze and similar appeasement strategies (if you can call them that) against the Soviet Union. After the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, he proposed a $45 billion cut in defense and intelligence spending. In January 2004 he told Tom Brokaw that the terrorist threat is ‘exaggerated.’
The Real Issue: If anything, John Kerry’s behavior when he returned from Viet Nam, coupled with his voting record, demonstrates that his military experience hardened his commitment to internationalism, his perception of the U.S. military as a force for evil, not good, in the world, and his aversion to the use of military force, especially without the green light from the U.N. (read: France). Plus, he’s a phony, opportunistic, elitist hypocrite. There’s that.
3. So-Called Same-Sex Marriage
Supposedly: Under current law, homosexual people are being deprived of basic civil rights, which is tantamount to the shameful treatment of African-Americans before the 1960’s. All they want is simple fairness and justice, to be treated like every other American.
What They’re Missing: Contrary to the incessantly repeated complaint, homosexuals are not deprived of anything. Like all other competent adults, they can marry persons of the opposite gender. The fact that they choose to have sex with people of the same gender has nothing to do with the definition of an institution that has been the fundamental building block of civilization for several thousand years. It’s disgraceful that they continue to try to wrap themselves in the moral authority of the civil rights movement, which was about an immutable, visible, inherited physical characteristic, not a consensual behavior.
The Real Issue: The desperate need by a small percentage of militant activists to obtain validation for their “alternative lifestyle” by getting the imprimatur of the state that says it’s “normal.” I firmly believe that this insecure craving for the approval of others does not afflict the vast majority of homosexual people, who simply want to live and let live. It is only a tiny percentage of shrill activists who are pushing this divisive issue.
1. War Protestors Whine (and Sue, of course) Over Stupid Billboard
(“Antiwar Group Says Its Ad Is Rejected,” New York Times, 7/12/04)
Supposedly: Alleged “censorship” of a proposed billboard featuring a red, white and blue bomb with the words “Democracy is Best Taught by Example, Not by War,” by the owner of the billboard, the evil Clear Channel Communications. Project Billboard—original name! —says Clear Channel reneged on a deal to display it in Times Square 8/2-11/2 (Election Day.) The fact that a Clear Channel exec Tom Hicks is a friend of President Bush proves conclusively that the company is motivated by a desire to suppress this important speech because it makes the president look bad, which in turn could cause him to use the FCC to retaliate by fining Clear Channel radio stations. (To really appreciate these theories, it helps to have both a tinfoil hat and a Michael Moore decoder ring.)
What They’re Missing: Only the government, not a private corporation, can censor. I thought this was Civics 101? No one cares about this stupid billboard, which will probably help Pres. Bush’s election chances if it is erected, but like all businesses, Clear Channel likes to steer clear of controversy. Individuals and corporations are entitled to use their property as they see fit, at least until the left achieves its desire to impose socialism on the rest of us.
The Real Issue: These pathetic arrested development cases are once again attempting to elevate their silly protest to the level of a Constitutional crisis by concocting bizarre conspiracies in which they are so important that the entire weight of the federal government is being brought to bear to keep them from revealing the truth to mankind. I understand that everyone wants to be special, but couldn’t you guys just get one of those self-help books they talk about on “Oprah?”
2. John Francois Kerry’s Military Service
Supposedly: The fact that Sen. John Fonda Kerry volunteered to serve in Viet Nam after he graduated from Yale proves that he is qualified to fight the war on terror and that he shares the view that America is a “shining city on a hill.” A caller disputed my statement that Sen. Kerry is not qualified to fight the war on terror because he is an internationalist who doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism.
What They’re Missing: Let’s see … his voting record, his extremely damaging anti-war activities when he returned from Viet Nam, the fact that what happened in 1969 has nothing to do with what a person will do in 2005.
Senator Kerry announced in 1972 that he’d like to see U.S. troops deployed only at the direction of the U.N. He supported the nuclear freeze and similar appeasement strategies (if you can call them that) against the Soviet Union. After the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, he proposed a $45 billion cut in defense and intelligence spending. In January 2004 he told Tom Brokaw that the terrorist threat is ‘exaggerated.’
The Real Issue: If anything, John Kerry’s behavior when he returned from Viet Nam, coupled with his voting record, demonstrates that his military experience hardened his commitment to internationalism, his perception of the U.S. military as a force for evil, not good, in the world, and his aversion to the use of military force, especially without the green light from the U.N. (read: France). Plus, he’s a phony, opportunistic, elitist hypocrite. There’s that.
3. So-Called Same-Sex Marriage
Supposedly: Under current law, homosexual people are being deprived of basic civil rights, which is tantamount to the shameful treatment of African-Americans before the 1960’s. All they want is simple fairness and justice, to be treated like every other American.
What They’re Missing: Contrary to the incessantly repeated complaint, homosexuals are not deprived of anything. Like all other competent adults, they can marry persons of the opposite gender. The fact that they choose to have sex with people of the same gender has nothing to do with the definition of an institution that has been the fundamental building block of civilization for several thousand years. It’s disgraceful that they continue to try to wrap themselves in the moral authority of the civil rights movement, which was about an immutable, visible, inherited physical characteristic, not a consensual behavior.
The Real Issue: The desperate need by a small percentage of militant activists to obtain validation for their “alternative lifestyle” by getting the imprimatur of the state that says it’s “normal.” I firmly believe that this insecure craving for the approval of others does not afflict the vast majority of homosexual people, who simply want to live and let live. It is only a tiny percentage of shrill activists who are pushing this divisive issue.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
A Challenge to Those Guardians of the Truth, the Media
On today’s show I said something I thought I would never say about Michael Moore: I never thought he would stoop this low. I know, I know … I should have known better, but I am an optimist, especially about human nature and I always try to see the good in everyone. Clearly, though, there is no good to see in this contemptible, America-hating, pathological narcissist serial liar/media darling. If you have any doubt, and you missed the show today, here’s the latest:
The Washington Times reports today (Inside the Beltway, by John McCaslin, 7/13/04) that the family of U. S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone is outraged and contemplating legal action over the inclusion of video footage of the major’s March 2003 funeral at Arlington National Cemetary. The major’s aunt, Kandi Gallagher, said that he was a “totally conservative Republican” and would have found the film to be “putrid.”
Can we once and for all dispense with all the nauseating baloney about Michael Moore caring about the troops, the most blatant and sickening example of which was that closing monologue voiceover in that hateful, deceitful borefest that he calls a “documentary?”
Once again, I issue a challenge to those courageous guardians of the truth, the heirs to the legacy of Edward R. Murrow, journalists everywhere to ask Ms. Lila Lipscomb, another unfortunate prop in Moore’s filthy scheme, what she thinks of Mr. Moore’s work now. And don’t forget to ask her about all the statements he made cheerleading the people who killed her son.
Please don't forget to check out my review of "Fahrenheit 9/11" on my personal blog, which you'll find at my personal dot com.
On today’s show I said something I thought I would never say about Michael Moore: I never thought he would stoop this low. I know, I know … I should have known better, but I am an optimist, especially about human nature and I always try to see the good in everyone. Clearly, though, there is no good to see in this contemptible, America-hating, pathological narcissist serial liar/media darling. If you have any doubt, and you missed the show today, here’s the latest:
The Washington Times reports today (Inside the Beltway, by John McCaslin, 7/13/04) that the family of U. S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone is outraged and contemplating legal action over the inclusion of video footage of the major’s March 2003 funeral at Arlington National Cemetary. The major’s aunt, Kandi Gallagher, said that he was a “totally conservative Republican” and would have found the film to be “putrid.”
Can we once and for all dispense with all the nauseating baloney about Michael Moore caring about the troops, the most blatant and sickening example of which was that closing monologue voiceover in that hateful, deceitful borefest that he calls a “documentary?”
Once again, I issue a challenge to those courageous guardians of the truth, the heirs to the legacy of Edward R. Murrow, journalists everywhere to ask Ms. Lila Lipscomb, another unfortunate prop in Moore’s filthy scheme, what she thinks of Mr. Moore’s work now. And don’t forget to ask her about all the statements he made cheerleading the people who killed her son.
Please don't forget to check out my review of "Fahrenheit 9/11" on my personal blog, which you'll find at my personal dot com.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Michael Moore DOES hate America (and he’s also a hypocritical, pathological narcissist and serial liar who needs to be exposed)
Thanks again to today’s special guest, Mike Wilson, the director of the upcoming documentary, “Michael Moore Hates America,” who is unquestionably one of the nicest people on the planet as far as I can tell. In fact, as I told him on the air, he might be a tad TOO nice. Just take a look at his Filmmaker’s Journal on the website (michaelmoorehatesamerica.com). In the July 7 entry, he writes
‘The Daily Show just aired. It was hilarious. I have no regrets about doing it… and I have to say, I'm thoroughly impressed that Moore played along (even though the result was to take a shot at me). Perhaps his sense of humor about this is finally coming around. Samantha Bee is hilarious, and it was cool to hang out with her for the day.’
I’m sorry, Mike, but the folks at the Daily Show were using your appearance to present one of the two versions of Michael Moore currently given us by the mainstream media and popular entertainment shows like the Daily Show and Late Night with Conan O’Brien. The first, that he is an important, albeit controversial, voice, a courageous polemicist and serious commentator on the issues of the day, is so laughable and ridiculous on its face that the only people gullible enough to believe it all the likes of Roger Ebert and similarly mush-headed, uninformed and ideologically blind individuals. In the latter presentation, Moore is an affable, funny regular guy who is just having fun, doesn’t take himself seriously and who enjoys delivering a well-deserved kick in the pants to the powerful, the self-important and the pompous. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the many episodes in which Moore has thrown tantrums when he isn’t given the celebrity treatment that his insatiable sense of entitlement tells him he deserves demonstrate. He has no sense of humor about himself. That's not the worst of it though. The worst is that given Moore’s traitorous lies, presenting him in this way is equivalent to Jack Benny inviting Joseph Goebbels on his radio show to do a wacky monologue in 1942.
When Samantha Bee interviews Moore’s mouthpiece attorney and asks “Doesn’t the First Amendment give Mike Wilson the right to force Michael Moore to talk to him?” she is mocking Mike Wilson by suggesting that he has a lot of nerve expecting the great Mr. Moore to deign to talk to him. The real question is why won’t Michael Moore agree to answer questions from anyone who might ask him to defend the many lies, half-truths and other deceitful aspects of his work. He's made it clear that he will only appear in friendly venues. If he’s telling the truth (he’s not, I know), what is he so afraid of? And why are so many leftist entertainers so tolerant of someone who stonewalls so well he makes Richard Nixon look like an open book? Why did he hire Chris Lehane, a former Clintonista/Wesley Clarke flak, a smarmy, bug-eyed weasel who looks like a cross between Claude Raines and Nancy Pelosi to run his silly "war room?" Lehane rumored to be a Daniel Segretti type dirty trickster and was said to be involved with Alex Polier rumors (remember, Kerry's alleged affair with an intern, which was a real non-starter.)
We wish Mike Wilson all the luck in the world and we look forward to seeing his movie, but a suggestion: please butch up!
Thanks again to today’s special guest, Mike Wilson, the director of the upcoming documentary, “Michael Moore Hates America,” who is unquestionably one of the nicest people on the planet as far as I can tell. In fact, as I told him on the air, he might be a tad TOO nice. Just take a look at his Filmmaker’s Journal on the website (michaelmoorehatesamerica.com). In the July 7 entry, he writes
‘The Daily Show just aired. It was hilarious. I have no regrets about doing it… and I have to say, I'm thoroughly impressed that Moore played along (even though the result was to take a shot at me). Perhaps his sense of humor about this is finally coming around. Samantha Bee is hilarious, and it was cool to hang out with her for the day.’
I’m sorry, Mike, but the folks at the Daily Show were using your appearance to present one of the two versions of Michael Moore currently given us by the mainstream media and popular entertainment shows like the Daily Show and Late Night with Conan O’Brien. The first, that he is an important, albeit controversial, voice, a courageous polemicist and serious commentator on the issues of the day, is so laughable and ridiculous on its face that the only people gullible enough to believe it all the likes of Roger Ebert and similarly mush-headed, uninformed and ideologically blind individuals. In the latter presentation, Moore is an affable, funny regular guy who is just having fun, doesn’t take himself seriously and who enjoys delivering a well-deserved kick in the pants to the powerful, the self-important and the pompous. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the many episodes in which Moore has thrown tantrums when he isn’t given the celebrity treatment that his insatiable sense of entitlement tells him he deserves demonstrate. He has no sense of humor about himself. That's not the worst of it though. The worst is that given Moore’s traitorous lies, presenting him in this way is equivalent to Jack Benny inviting Joseph Goebbels on his radio show to do a wacky monologue in 1942.
When Samantha Bee interviews Moore’s mouthpiece attorney and asks “Doesn’t the First Amendment give Mike Wilson the right to force Michael Moore to talk to him?” she is mocking Mike Wilson by suggesting that he has a lot of nerve expecting the great Mr. Moore to deign to talk to him. The real question is why won’t Michael Moore agree to answer questions from anyone who might ask him to defend the many lies, half-truths and other deceitful aspects of his work. He's made it clear that he will only appear in friendly venues. If he’s telling the truth (he’s not, I know), what is he so afraid of? And why are so many leftist entertainers so tolerant of someone who stonewalls so well he makes Richard Nixon look like an open book? Why did he hire Chris Lehane, a former Clintonista/Wesley Clarke flak, a smarmy, bug-eyed weasel who looks like a cross between Claude Raines and Nancy Pelosi to run his silly "war room?" Lehane rumored to be a Daniel Segretti type dirty trickster and was said to be involved with Alex Polier rumors (remember, Kerry's alleged affair with an intern, which was a real non-starter.)
We wish Mike Wilson all the luck in the world and we look forward to seeing his movie, but a suggestion: please butch up!
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Just a heads-up
My review of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is posted on my personal blog, where you can not only read it, but also comment. It contains links to all my references rebutting the many lies of the Round Mound Whose Lies Astound, Michael Moore.
Enjoy!
My review of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is posted on my personal blog, where you can not only read it, but also comment. It contains links to all my references rebutting the many lies of the Round Mound Whose Lies Astound, Michael Moore.
Enjoy!
This is why my work is never done
Recently I heard the following dialogue between a Bush supporter and a Kerry supporter.
Bush Guy: John Kerry served in Viet Nam and I respect that, but when he got home he went out of his way to demonize his fellow service people by accusing them of atrocities and drug use, and then started running around with Jane Fonda, waving Viet Cong flags and throwing away his medals or his ribbons—whatever—he threw some of the awards he won over there away. I’ve got a real problem with what he did when he got home.
Kerry Dude: Oh really? (said with that distinctive condescension that we’ve come to know and love) So what was George W. Bush doing during the Viet Nam war?
The short answer is that he was serving in the Texas National Guard. The more detailed, and more important answer is that there is only one candidate and one party that is living in a time warp and is incessantly bleating about Viet Nam—no, make that Viet N-A-H-M—and that’s John Kerry. From Day 1 of his campaign, and I’m talking about his campaign for Congress in 1972, and for every day ever since, he has pointed to his military service as evidence of his experience in conducting foreign policy. As lame and transparent as that is, and as ineffective as it is at getting intelligent observers to overlook his anti-national security voting record, that’s his schtick. Having raised the issue, now he wants to turn it around on the other guy who never brought it up in the first place. It’s like this:
Man: You told me you were a gourmet chef when you offered to cook dinner. This meal you cooked is really crummy. The vegetables are cold, the meat is overcooked and dry, and this wine sucks! I am very surprised and disappointed.
Woman: Oh yeah? I didn’t see you in the kitchen. Plus I know you are a rotten cook.
Libs, I understand your desperation and frustration. You have nothing to offer, at least nothing that you can tell us honestly. The minute you let anyone see behind the mask, you’ve lost the election. So your argument is “Bush is a liar and moron.” That’s not much of a platform, guys. The rest of us know that when you start pointing fingers at the other guy, that’s a major tip-off that you have nothing to say for yourself.
Here’s a challenge for you. Without mentioning President Bush, respond to the following question: John Kerry has made it clear that he believes fighting terrorism is about intelligence and law enforcement, not military action, which was essentially the position of the Clinton administration. Given the proven ineffectiveness of that approach (if you need evidence, consult archive video of a smoldering World Trade Center and your fellow citizens diving head first toward the ground, having lept off a 100-story platform), why should we trust him with fighting terrorism?
That’s just one example. When you come up with an answer, I have more, but in every case, you have to answer without mentioning President Bush. Good luck!
Recently I heard the following dialogue between a Bush supporter and a Kerry supporter.
Bush Guy: John Kerry served in Viet Nam and I respect that, but when he got home he went out of his way to demonize his fellow service people by accusing them of atrocities and drug use, and then started running around with Jane Fonda, waving Viet Cong flags and throwing away his medals or his ribbons—whatever—he threw some of the awards he won over there away. I’ve got a real problem with what he did when he got home.
Kerry Dude: Oh really? (said with that distinctive condescension that we’ve come to know and love) So what was George W. Bush doing during the Viet Nam war?
The short answer is that he was serving in the Texas National Guard. The more detailed, and more important answer is that there is only one candidate and one party that is living in a time warp and is incessantly bleating about Viet Nam—no, make that Viet N-A-H-M—and that’s John Kerry. From Day 1 of his campaign, and I’m talking about his campaign for Congress in 1972, and for every day ever since, he has pointed to his military service as evidence of his experience in conducting foreign policy. As lame and transparent as that is, and as ineffective as it is at getting intelligent observers to overlook his anti-national security voting record, that’s his schtick. Having raised the issue, now he wants to turn it around on the other guy who never brought it up in the first place. It’s like this:
Man: You told me you were a gourmet chef when you offered to cook dinner. This meal you cooked is really crummy. The vegetables are cold, the meat is overcooked and dry, and this wine sucks! I am very surprised and disappointed.
Woman: Oh yeah? I didn’t see you in the kitchen. Plus I know you are a rotten cook.
Libs, I understand your desperation and frustration. You have nothing to offer, at least nothing that you can tell us honestly. The minute you let anyone see behind the mask, you’ve lost the election. So your argument is “Bush is a liar and moron.” That’s not much of a platform, guys. The rest of us know that when you start pointing fingers at the other guy, that’s a major tip-off that you have nothing to say for yourself.
Here’s a challenge for you. Without mentioning President Bush, respond to the following question: John Kerry has made it clear that he believes fighting terrorism is about intelligence and law enforcement, not military action, which was essentially the position of the Clinton administration. Given the proven ineffectiveness of that approach (if you need evidence, consult archive video of a smoldering World Trade Center and your fellow citizens diving head first toward the ground, having lept off a 100-story platform), why should we trust him with fighting terrorism?
That’s just one example. When you come up with an answer, I have more, but in every case, you have to answer without mentioning President Bush. Good luck!
Monday, July 05, 2004
Fear Not: The American People Have More Common Sense Than They May Always Show
I have been receiving a number of e-mails from listeners who are extremely distressed about Michael Moore's latest propaganda film, "Farenheit 9/11." As promised, I will post my review, complete with links and rebuttals for the major lies in the movie, today on my personal dotcom. Before you even get to the substance of the film, there's an issue that you need to mention to your misguided friends and family members. Michael Moore has made it quite clear that he will not consent to any interview in any venue other than those that are friendly to his point of view. The reason, of course, is because his work cannot withstand any scrutiny. I'm not even talking rigorous scrutiny. I mean the questions an intelligent child would ask. Without saying that, and making your friend defensive, simply ask him to consider why someone who is telling the truth would object to answering questions about his work. He refused an interview with Fox News just two minutes before Bill McCuddy, their entertainment reporter, was to be ushered in with his film crew. Fox News is a major cable outlet that could give publicity to his film, and we know how much Michael Moore loves publicity, so why would he refuse?
Only liars need fear.
I have been receiving a number of e-mails from listeners who are extremely distressed about Michael Moore's latest propaganda film, "Farenheit 9/11." As promised, I will post my review, complete with links and rebuttals for the major lies in the movie, today on my personal dotcom. Before you even get to the substance of the film, there's an issue that you need to mention to your misguided friends and family members. Michael Moore has made it quite clear that he will not consent to any interview in any venue other than those that are friendly to his point of view. The reason, of course, is because his work cannot withstand any scrutiny. I'm not even talking rigorous scrutiny. I mean the questions an intelligent child would ask. Without saying that, and making your friend defensive, simply ask him to consider why someone who is telling the truth would object to answering questions about his work. He refused an interview with Fox News just two minutes before Bill McCuddy, their entertainment reporter, was to be ushered in with his film crew. Fox News is a major cable outlet that could give publicity to his film, and we know how much Michael Moore loves publicity, so why would he refuse?
Only liars need fear.
What is John Kerry Hiding Now?
On his website, John Francois Kerry touts his national security credentials as “a proven leader” and includes the following:
“In 1997 Kerry wrote The New War, an in-depth assessment of the national security issues facing the United States in the 21st Century.”
The book is also included in a new Kerry ad promoting his many wonderful qualities and qualifications.
A couple of things you might want to know about that book: (1) the ‘war’ referred to by Kerry is using law enforcement against drug traffickers and mobsters, including Japan’s yakuza and (2) it’s currently out of print. So, even though it was published in 1997, after the first attack on the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack and numerous other instances of Islamic terrorism, there’s no mention of this growing and serious threat in the book that the Kerry campaign claims contains his plan to fight terrorism. Do you suppose that’s what John Kerry hopes you don’t find out? Do you suppose any of those hard-hitting interviewers in the mainstream press will ask him about that?
On his website, John Francois Kerry touts his national security credentials as “a proven leader” and includes the following:
“In 1997 Kerry wrote The New War, an in-depth assessment of the national security issues facing the United States in the 21st Century.”
The book is also included in a new Kerry ad promoting his many wonderful qualities and qualifications.
A couple of things you might want to know about that book: (1) the ‘war’ referred to by Kerry is using law enforcement against drug traffickers and mobsters, including Japan’s yakuza and (2) it’s currently out of print. So, even though it was published in 1997, after the first attack on the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack and numerous other instances of Islamic terrorism, there’s no mention of this growing and serious threat in the book that the Kerry campaign claims contains his plan to fight terrorism. Do you suppose that’s what John Kerry hopes you don’t find out? Do you suppose any of those hard-hitting interviewers in the mainstream press will ask him about that?