“I will be a Commander in Chief who will never mislead us into war.” – Massachusetts Senator John Kerry during his acceptance speech at last week’s Democrat National Convention.
He will, however, mislead us into believing he can be an effective Commander in Chief.
You know, having a full-time career and a social life can really get in the way of blogging. Six days ago, John Kerry gave his acceptance speech in Boston at the Democrat National Convention. While that can be an eternity in political terms, his speech is still as timely and poignant as it was the morning after. Why?
Because for an address that was supposed to be the speech of his life, it has done absolutely nothing for him.
OK…wait, that’s not entirely true. He’s ahead in some polls by one or two points. He’s behind in others by just as much. Bottom line? We’re back to the “statistical dead-heat” we heard so much about in the 2000 elections.
Now, historically at least, the party convention should provide a significant bump–and that didn’t happen for John Kerry. Why?
Well, his speech for one. While it made him seem the most engaged he’s ever been, it was amazingly dull. It was also long–clocking in at roughly one hour. It was also big on rhetoric and short on detail. For the “Prime-Time Coming Out Party” of a Presidential nominee, there wasn’t a whole lot of flair. There was plenty of pageantry and pomp, but no real circumstance.
The speech was also what Senator Kerry accuses Bush campaign ads of being: negative.
“I will be a Commander in Chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.”
Four things are wrong with this:
I don’t know what Senator Kerry is thinking, but it might help if he knew how his own Government worked. If he has proof to any of the above, incidentally, it might be good if he provided it.
“Now I know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities and I do because some issues just aren’t all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn’t make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn’t make it so. And proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn’t make it so.”
Saying you can do a better job as President doesn’t make it so, either. Senator, you said yourself that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We also wouldn’t be fighting a war “on the cheap” if you could have seen your way clear to vote for the $87 billion that you voted for before you voted against.
“I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.”
Your record certainly doesn’t agree with your claims, Senator. Further, I don’t want to know what you’re going to do after an attack. I want to know what you’re going to do to prevent the next September 11th.
This next passage was the part that bothered me a lot when I saw it:
“And tonight, we have an important message for those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country. Before wrapping themselves in the flag and shutting their eyes and ears to the truth, they should remember what America is really all about. They should remember the great idea of freedom for which so many have given their lives. Our purpose now is to reclaim democracy itself. We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism.”
“You see that flag up there. We call her Old Glory. The stars and stripes forever. I fought under that flag, as did so many of you here and all across our country. That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head. It was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men I served with and friends I grew up with. For us, that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in. Our strength. Our diversity. Our love of country. All that makes America both great and good.”
“That flag doesn’t belong to any President. It doesn’t belong to any ideology and it doesn’t belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people.”
You’re right, Senator. That flag doesn’t belong to any President…and I can’t think of one that’s made that claim. Certainly George W. Bush hasn’t. Senator, no one questions your patriotism. We do, however, question your ideas and your ability to lead America. That’s not wrapping ourselves in the flag. That’s freedom of speech and just because you don’t agree doesn’t make us hate-mongers or right-wing attack drones as you so often charge.
The more important question here, Senator, is why aren’t you triumphing your patriotism more? You’re running for President of the United States…where’s your American pride and your love of our flag? You criticize our President for proudly displaying the flag, yet you only evoke your “pride” in our nation while on the campaign trail talking about your military service.
Patriotism and American Pride is never out of fashion, Senator. Perhaps you should try it on.
“I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let’s be optimists, not just opponents. Let’s build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let’s honor this nation’s diversity; let’s respect one another; and let’s never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.”
So, let me see if I get this straight: you accuse the President of lying, misleading the nation into going to war, pillaging the Constitution, running attack advertisements, wrapping himself in the American flag, giving economic breaks to his rich buddies, destroying the environment and weakening America, yet you want to build unity and not angry division?!?!?
Kerry’s entire speech did nothing but trash the President, yet he claims that George W. Bush is being negative and building “angry division.”
The Senator should consider his own wounds, for he is also a practitioner.
The reason why Kerry got absolutely NO bump in the polls at all is because people see his speech for what it really was: a lot of empty talk. For a man who should be 10-15 points ahead of the incumbent at this point, he’s barely keeping his head above water.
It’s not because the people don’t know him.
It’s because the message sucks and people don’t like it.
I’ve been saying it for a while and it remains true: the November elections will be as close, if not closer, than those of 2000. If John Kerry hopes to win, he’s got to come up with something better than speeches that rework the same old charges.
He needs to say what he’s going to do and how he’s going to do it. THAT’S leadership.
William Smith
ConservativeBlogger.com
Loading tweets...
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments