Hugh Hewitt - CALLING MARTY BARON, CALLING MARTY BARON:
Captain Ed and Powerline are keeping the focus on Kerry's Christmas-Eve-in-Cambodia lie, and Ed has a letter from John O'Neill that answers all the charges made after the swift-boat ad appeared. Even empty-headed tv-types must know that the Cambodia whopper is the weakest spot in Kerry's Vietnam narrative. First Q: Senator, did you ever state that you had been sent on an illegal mission into Cambodia on Christmas eve? Second Q: If so, did that really happen? If not: What's this speech you made on the floor of the Senate on March 27, 1986 all about?
UPDATE: John "Christmas-Eve-In-Cambodia" Kerry is getting seared --seared-- by the blogosphere, including new posts by Instapundit and Roger L. Simon, and a comprehensive one (plus great comments) at JustOneMinute. So does elite media even mention the obvious story tomorrow: "Swiftboat Critics of Kerry Bring Attention to a Kerry Lie"? Probably not, but one would think that the Boston Globe, whose reporters put out an entire book on Kerry that includes a reference to the implausible "illegal mission" to Cambodia without noticing the lie would carry a special burden to flesh out this story. Boston Globe editor Martin Baron has been known to turn a blind eye to unflattering stories about Democrats in the past, so we'll see if he assigns his troops to follow up this inviting target.
August 7, 2004
Posted at 10:20 PM, Pacific
On July 12, 2002, John Kerry, along with other members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, signed a letter to the Massachusetts state legislature that unequivocally denounced the attempt to amend the Massachusetts constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.
That letter read in part: "We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents." The letter is detailed in a USA Today story from February 11 of this year that noted that Kerry did not sign a similar letter this year when Congressman Barney Frank organized a second effort to rally Bay State Congressional support against a Massachusetts constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Kerry went further than refusing to sign a second letter. In February of this year, Kerry announced support for an amendment banning same sex marriage in Massachusetts, and this week Kerry told the Kansas City Star that he would have voted for the Missouri amendment that limited marriage to one man and one woman which passed overwhelmingly on Tuesday, 71% to 29%: "Kerry did say that he would have voted for Amendment 2, the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that passed overwhelmingly Tuesday. He said that Massachusetts passed the same type of amendment a few years agoand that he supported it." (I am unaware of what Kerry is talking about here, but it seems as though he was intent on lying to the Star reporters, who ought to have been informed by the candidate of his February 2002 letter opposing a Massachusetts amendment on the subject. Does this guy ever tell the truth, on Christmas-Eve-in-Cambodia stories or on previous positions on same-sex marriage? You can't get away with this stuff in the internet era.)
In his convention speech, Kerry tried to signal his supporters who are also supporters of same-sex marriage that he would be fine on the issue post election, but to bluntly throw in with a state amendment banning same sex marriage would ordinarily oblige a key special interest group to blister their candidate for deserting the cause.
No such criticism has erupted. Why? Because very few people actually believe that Kerry will oppose same sex marriage, and they are certain he will appoint the sort of judges that have imposed same-sex marriage on an unwilling population in Massachusetts and who are trying to do the same in Washington State. Kerry is so reliable on the judicial appointments' front, in fact, that same-sex marriage advocates really wouldn't care if Kerry gave a speech a day denouncing same-sex marriage. Since a proposed law introducing same sex marriage has never passed a a single American legislative body in 215 years, and has been roundly rejected every time a referendum on the subject is put to a vote of the people, the proponents of this radical innovation care only about the judges a candidate will appoint, not what the candidates themselves say about the issue.
Which makes political sense, though it is morally bankrupt to ignore Kerry's blatant hypocrisy in exchange for the hope that his judicial appointees would deliver the goods. The deal is implicit, not explicit. Kerry will provide the judges who will provide the decisions that impose same sex marriage on an unwilling population, and his party will prevent an amendment to the United States Constitution that would ban same sex marriage. So it doesn't matter what he says. The backers of same-sex marriage are counting on what John Kerry will certainly do. Thus far no journalist has asked Kerry if he would support an amendment to the United States Constitution if the federal Defense of Marriage Act is struck down. It is a good question, though one he would surely dodge.
I had thought that same sex marriage advocates might draw the line somewhere, but not after their silence greeted Kerry's flip-flop on voting for the Missouri amendment. And the elite media is again refusing to highlight a policy reversal as extreme and recent as any I can imagine in modern presidential politics. Two years ago he was urging Massachusetts legislators to defeat an amendment to the state constitution that would preserve traditional marriage. This week he is saying he'd vote for one. Doesn't this sort of flip merit at least a couple of questions as to when he changed his mind and why, and perhaps a follow-up on whether he will appoint judges that will respect such amendments?
Since 1980 the left in this country has campaigned on what the Republicans' appointees to the United States Supreme Court might do. I think the election of 2004 is a turning point in many ways, but it is certainly the first election in a long time where the center-right has the advantage when it comes to pointing out the path a court dominated by appointees from the other side might take. John Kerry's appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court would end marriage as it has been understood since human history began to be recorded, and will do so over the widespread and deeply felt opposition of a super-majority of Americans. The same-sex marriage lobby understands this, and so they are forgiving of Kerry's fraud on the subject. The elite media is complicit in the forwarding of that fraud. It remains to be seen if the voters are this easily duped. |
