SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (4595)2/29/2004 10:09:05 PM
From: calgalRespond to of 81568
 
John Kerry’s Time Warp
For the Democratic candidate, it's always 1969.
Why does Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) talk incessantly about Vietnam?
Obviously, it has given him a great political advantage in past campaigns and he hopes it will do the same in his race for the White House. But there might be another reason. Perhaps more than any other presidential candidate in recent memory, Kerry seems to be living in another time, playing a movie of Vietnam over and over in his mind.
In fact, he is often playing an actual movie of Vietnam over and over on his television. Consider this scene from a remarkable profile of Kerry published in the Boston Globe in October 1996, when Kerry was in a tough reelection battle:
Kerry told reporter Charles Sennott the oft-repeated story of the February 1969 firefight in which Kerry attacked the Viet Cong who ambushed his Swift boat. Kerry won the Silver Star, as well as a Purple Heart, for his efforts. But the story wasn't just the firefight itself. It was also Kerry's reaction to it.

The future senator was so "focused on his future ambitions," Sennott reported, that not long after the fight, he bought a Super-8 movie camera, returned to the scene, and reenacted the skirmish on film. During their interview, Kerry played the tape for Sennott.

"I'll show you where they shot from. See? That's the hole covered up with reeds," Kerry said as he ran the tape in slow motion.

Kerry told Sennott that his decision to reenact the fight on film was no big deal — "just something I did, no great meaning to it." But it's clear that the old movie is a huge deal. "Through hours of watching the films in the den of his newly renovated Beacon Hill mansion, it becomes apparent that these are memories and footage he returns to often," Sennott wrote.

"Kerry jumps repeatedly from the couch to adjust the Sony large screen TV in his home entertainment center, making sure the picture is clear, the color correct. He fast forwards, rewinds and freeze frames the footage. His running commentary — vivid, sometimes touching, sometimes self-serving — never misses a beat."

In John Kerry's home-entertainment center, it's always 1969.

It's sometimes that way in his campaign, too. Is Kerry's the only campaign to play Jimi Hendrix — specifically, "Fire" from the 1967 album Are You Experienced? — at rallies? Other candidates — like John Edwards, with his theme song, John Mellencamp's "Small Town" — aren't exactly cutting edge, but they have chosen somewhat newer stuff.

And what about the music on Kerry's bus? Before the Iowa caucuses, Washington Post reporter Ceci Connelly described the candidate hanging out on the bus with Peter Yarrow, his old friend from Peter, Paul, and Mary. "Pedro, sing us a song," Kerry ordered one day. Yarrow picked up a guitar and began to play and sing — and later waxed nostalgic about the antiwar rallies he attended way back when with Kerry and Eugene McCarthy.

Earlier, Connelly wrote, when Yarrow sang "Puff the Magic Dragon" at an event in a private home in Ames, Iowa, "Kerry lifted his fingers to his mouth for a quick toke on an imaginary joint. You can almost see his thick mane of silver hair returning to the shaggy brown do of those days."

Even Kerry's latest soundbite, the speech in Ohio Tuesday in which he described President Bush as a "walking contradiction," was apparently a reference to the old days. In this case, it was Kris Kristofferson's "The Pilgrim, Chapter 33, " from 1970, with its line, "He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction."

This man is living in a time warp. No wonder Kerry sees any conflict — Gulf War I, Afghanistan, Gulf War II — as a potential Vietnam. In Kerry's world, Vietnam is running on a continuous loop on that big screen TV — with Jimi, Kris, and Peter, Paul, and Mary singing in the background.

Some people become stuck in the time period in which they had their most intense experiences. Others, perhaps with more mental or emotional flexibility, move on. Kerry seems to be one of the former.

At 60 years old, he appears obsessed with the past in ways that the 57 year-old George W. Bush isn't. And Kerry seems far older than, say, the 71 year-old Donald Rumsfeld — a man who is always moving ahead, not inclined to lecture about the way things were 30 or 40 years ago.

Kerry's penchant for looking back would not be a good trait in a president who will have to deal with a distinctly 21st century, post-9/11 world. America faces threats that were unheard of in Kerry's formative years. While those threats build, Kerry is turning on Hendrix, toking on an imaginary joint, and telling you about Vietnam.

And just imagine the inauguration. The new president delivers his speech, waves to the crowd, and cries..."Pedro, sing us a song!"

— Byron York is also a columnist for The Hill, where a version of this first appeared.

URL:http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402270811.asp



To: calgal who wrote (4595)2/29/2004 10:09:23 PM
From: calgalRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
Kerry as President
Herbert London (archive)
February 28, 2004 | Print | Send

As unlikely as it may be, consider the possibility that John Kerry is the next president of the United States. What are the likely policy shifts should this occur? How would Kerry be different from President Bush?

Although these questions are speculative, the likely outcomes are easily predictive.

Based on Kerry’s positions expressed in the Senate and on the campaign trail his stance is known and presumably would serve to guide his policy prescriptions.

While Kerry did vote for the war in Iraq, he voted against the appropriations for that nation’s rehabilitation. During the campaign, Kerry continually noted that this nation cannot cut and run from Iraq, but he believes the situation should be “internationalized.” That is a euphemism for greater involvement of the U.N.

What Kerry does not note is the utter failure of the U.N. to play a systematic and coherent role in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East. Moreover, Germany and France, the nations Kerry contends we should have cultivated for the war effort are vehemently opposed to U.S. hegemony in the region. And if recent accounts are at all accurate, the leaders of these nations have been compromised by financial arrangements with Saddam Hussein.

Yet this position is consistent with his impulse for multilateralism in general. Kerry is persuaded the United States should be encouraging a world community of interests, one that recognizes the importance of alliances.

What he overlooks is that most western European states are eager to challenge America’s world dominance. They consider multilateralism the ropes that can subdue an American Gulliver.
Without the military means to pursue their interests, European states rely solely on diplomacy, which, as the prelude to war in Iraq indicated, has its limitations.

If one were to extend this multilateral orientation to other critical matters, Kerry would most likely have supported the Kyoto Accord, despite the fact Russia disapproves and India and China – the world’s most populous nations – are not included in the agreement.

It is also likely Kerry would be inclined to support the International Criminal Court even though some of the world’s most tyrannical states are members. What these concerns add up to is a Democratic leader inclined to consider international before national interests having bought into the proposition that global stability is more easily achieved through alliances and diplomacy.

Senator Kerry, as his background suggests, is not disinclined to support the use of the U.S. forces abroad, but like most Democrats believes that our national interests are restricted to humanitarian interests solely, what I would call “restrictive internationalism.”

Self conscious Americans unable to come to grips with U.S. dominance on the world stage, chastise President Bush for “going alone,” a largely exaggerated judgment. But what these people, including Kerry, fail to consider is that the current administration is responsible for eliminating two of the most violent and tyrannical regimes on the globe. Does anyone think this would have happened if the U.S. relied on diplomacy and our so-called allies in Europe?

Does any serious policy analyst think this would be a safer world if the U.S. acted only with the complicity and approval of our so-called European allies?

George Washington spoke disapprovingly of entangling alliances two centuries ago. Notwithstanding Kerry’s instincts, this is still good advice today. If the U.S. has to overcome any deficiency, it is the naïve belief this nation cannot act alone even when it is in our interest to do so. I doubt Kerry appreciates that matter. As president his positions – as I see it – would be catastrophic in fighting the war on terrorism and protecting U.S. interests abroad.
“President Kerry?” I hope not.

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and John M. Olin professor of humanities of the New York University, publisher of American Outlook and author of "Decade of Denial," recently published by Lexington Books. He's reachable through www.benadorassociates.com .

©2003 Herbert London



To: calgal who wrote (4595)3/1/2004 12:18:19 AM
From: ChinuSFORespond to of 81568
 
An issue that is likely to dominate the upcoming Presidential elections is the issue of inclusion and exclusion. A nuance of that is what Edwards has been saying on the stump, the two Americas. But as we saw in the NY debate today, Al Shapton extended that to several other Americas such as those based on sexual orientation. Those who are considered straight and hence can marry and those who are not straight and hence cannot marry: the two Americas. An excerpt from Boston Globe on the President making "gay marriage" an issue and thereby fanning the flames of two Americas.

...contd from boston.com

.....The civil rights movement, though often invoked, isn't completely apt as an analogy for the gay marriage struggle, in that the discrimination African-Americans suffered, particularly in the South, was both more pronounced and less avoidable than that which homosexuals endure today. Still, it should be instructive for everyone to recall the remorse the nation now feels about the way it once treated people of other races, ethnicities, and creeds.Until the 1960s -- which is to say, within the memory of many of today's adults -- large segments of America viewed interracial marriage as somehow posing a threat to the underpinnings of society. Today all but unreconstructed bigots yawn at that notion. Similarly, though of greater vintage, the ostracism that greeted the waves of Irish immigrants to Massachusetts and the prejudice that Catholics once faced here stand as reminders of the way divisions that now appear trivial were once used to rationalize exclusion.

In all those cases, claims of tradition, of the natural order, and of religion were invoked as arguments against broadening society's notion of inclusion. And in all those cases, the lessons of history are clear to those who choose to learn them.

Fears about people different from the majority were misplaced. And those who were against broader inclusion stood on the wrong side.

On an issue this heated, it's probably unrealistic to expect those with a strict religious orientation to change heartfelt views, at least in the short term.

But ours, after all, is a civil society, and the marriage right in question is that of civil marriage. Surely, people who hold public office -- that is, who have sought and accepted the role of deciding questions of fairness not only for themselves but for other citizens as well -- have a particular responsibility to look beyond current controversy and attitudes in search of a larger sense of what is just.

Can voting to amend either the state or the federal constitution -- sacred documents that belong to us all -- in a way that allows contemporary prejudice to limit the possibility of future rights ever square with that responsibility?

History's verdict is clear.