|
The flip flop man returns
The day after the election, Sen. Kerry gave an unusually graceful and conciliatory concession speech in which he told his supporters that in a phone call, he and the president had talked about “the desperate need for unity and finding the common ground, coming together.” Kerry even said, in a genuinely moving line, that in American elections there are no losers, because when you wake up the next morning, you’re still an American, and that’s the greatest privilege there is. Well, that was then. Yesterday, barely two weeks later, Kerry sent an e-mail to supporters in which he said: “Despite the words of cooperation and moderate-sounding promises, this administration is planning a right-wing assault on values and ideals we hold most deeply.” [Italics added.] Now, that is not just a return to harsh political partisanship which would be bad enough; it is speaking of the president of the United States as though he were some alien, hostile force, outside the American political system, a threat to our country. But, of course, that’s the way Kerry and other Democrats have spoken of Republicans for years. It still hasn’t gotten through to Kerry that if he hadn’t had shown such contempt for Bush during the campaign, if he hadn’t spoken of the Bush administration as though it were peopled by enemies and subhumans,—an attitude that suggested to voters that Kerry had absolutely no common ground with Bush, particularly in the area of national defense—then Kerry would have seemed less alien and threatening himself and probably have won the election.
The Democrats have learned nothing from their defeat, and seem to be incapable of learning from it. Like the souls in Dante’s hell, they remain what they are, blindly immersed in their rebellion from reality, the party of contempt and hatred. And Kerry remains the flip flopper, the man who goes out of his way to demonstrate that he doesn’t believe anything he says—except, of course, when what he says is mean, leftist, and anti-American. Comments
I think the Senator is still very much smarting from his loss; and with vanity being his main atribute,this time for reflection has only made him more resentful, and full of bile. He also is under the strange illusion that he is going to run again in 2008 fom what I hear from my political contacts here in New England. Posted by: j.hagan on November 20, 2004 3:53 AMSenator Kerry proposed giving the Iranians nuclear fuel to see if what they would do with it. That proposal should have been like garlic to a vampire to any reasonable person, but it didn’t register very high on the publics danger radar. Well the Senator has been rejected, but by a shockingly slim margin considering his willingness to accept what was essentially endorsements from Bin Laden and other Islamic groups. Here is what Rafsanjani, one of the highest ranking Iranian clerics had to say about nuclear weapons. http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm Posted by: Andrew on November 20, 2004 6:01 AMNot pretty. http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen051203.asp “Rafsanjani even went so far as to announce that the minute Iran had the bomb, it would be dropped on Israel, regardless of the consequences.” Rather, Rafsanjani seems to be saying that Israel will not be able to use its nukes as a deterrent anymore. Mr. Copeland, To me Rafsanjani’s comments in both articles speak for themselves. Iran simply cannot be permitted to have this potential. To allow Iran nuclear weapons in the hopes that they act responsibly is out of the question, something Israel knew 25 years ago when they destroyed their reactor the first time around. How could the Europeans and Russians have been convinced that it was in their interests to help Iran continue where it left off and who is now expected to clean up their mess? With Iran posed to successfully build an Islamic bomb, it would then join Pakistan as the second Islamic country to be nuclear armed. Iran’s leadership is clearly dangerous and no amount of mental gymnastics can convincingly argue that their intentions are benign or would not with a high degree of probability result in a nuclear exchange in the future. If Musharaff is assassinated by Iranian agents or Islamist operatives, Pakistan could quickly become the second nuclear tipped Islamist spear at Israel’s throat and the temptation to finish what the armies of three Moslem countries failed to accomplish might be too hard for them to resist. Michael Ledeen is using the same seriously flawed argument others including myself have accepted about Iraq, that is the assumption that the Iranian people are the real-deal “pro-American” Moslems in the Middle East and if liberated, will not turn on the imperial infidels, he says: “The Iranian people have shown themselves to be the most pro-American population in the Muslim world, but the Iranian regime is arguably the most anti-American on earth. Let’s support the people, and help them bag the regime.” Isn’t that the biggest blunder we made in the invasion of Iraq, that the people once liberated would embrace Western pluralism? I think if we are not careful here, the real possibility for an Islamic super-state to emerge out of Tehran spreading to Baghdad and beyond is a real possibility. Wooden Flip-Flop thinking of running in 2008. That must be the funniest joke of post election season. Posted by: Mik on November 20, 2004 11:46 AMSome readers may think that I’m overstating in my description of Kerry’s nasty portrayals of Bush during the campaign. It’s true that as the campaign went on, Kerry at times seemed more moderate and somewhat less contemptuous and dismissive of Bush, for example, in the first debate. But for me, who had observed Kerry from the beginning of the campaign, through the primaries, the impression of his total, withering attack on the administration as something outside America, as a “threat to democracy” and so on, was still vivid. So his recent remark, coming just two weeks after his conciliatory concession statement, represented a return his earlier, more openly contemptuous and vicious attacks. What an anti-Bush bigot like Kerry cannot understand is that most people do not share his bigotry. So, if most people regard the president as a decent person who, whatever his flaws, is sincerely working in the national interest, and if Kerry speaks of him and his administration as some monstrous repulsive force threatening America, most people are going to be put off by that. Bigots may be able tactically and momentarily to seem to abandon their bigotry, but they can’t really abandon it. My working definition of bigotry: the tendency always to see the disliked object in the most negative light, regardless of facts. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 20, 2004 12:01 PMThe only thing that keeps someone like Kerry civilized is the belief that he has something to lose by being not civilized. Leftists don’t believe in civilization, they think civilization is just a long stream of tyrannies that have to be undone. Being civil has no value intrinsic to itself, it has value only inasmuch as it is useful in achieving leftist goals. Kerry lost, and so has nothing more to lose, and has reverted to his true self. Where have I heard this before? http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002816.html Right, Matt. The fundamental contradiction of liberals is that they are opposed to civilization, but still want to function within it, enjoy its benefits, and gain power over it. This requires them to present themselves as supporters of civilization, i.e., it requires them to lie. But Kerry, no longer in contention, is now free to drop the lie that he is civil and return to his subversive habit of speaking of the president of the U.S. as though he were an enemy alien. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 20, 2004 12:24 PM“…something Israel knew 25 years ago when they destroyed their reactor the first time around.” Should read: “…something Israel knew 25 years ago when they destroyed _Iraq’s_ reactor the first time around.” Posted by: Andrew on November 21, 2004 5:50 AMMy comment after the Democratic National Convention: they -the Dems-have gone completely off their rockers. My assessment then is the same as now. For the life of me, I cannot understand the incredible degree of malevolence, the seething rage they have portrayed to target Bush and his administration. Then again, what can be expected from a party that features Al I’m so sick of the double standard that dominates liberal Democratic rhetoric. They can get away with almost saying almost anything, and if the mood fits them, they can “clarify” their statement if, and only if, they are caught with their proverbial pants down. Witness Teresa Heinz’ miserable comment about Laura Bush never having had a real job…and later apologizing for the statement after it was learned that Mrs. Bush was a public school teacher for several years. Can anyone recall such a vicious statement originating from the Republican side? I can’t.
|