The John Kerry Facade
by Barbara Stock
Monday, July 26, 2004
Democratic nominee Senator John Kerry has made several sweeping statements about himself in an attempt to project the image of a man that he feels Americans will want as their leader. It’s easy to make open-ended statements about one’s past. It’s quite another issue to make yourself out to be someone you are not, never have been, and never will be.
Kerry states, ''I am a man of the people.'' What does that actually mean? Lincoln was known as a man of the people. Our sixteenth president was a man of meager means from the hills of Kentucky. Unsuccessful in his first attempt in politics, his debating skills won him respect and the interest of Republican Party leaders who approached him with the idea of running for president. Lincoln had neither money nor family status to carry him into the White House. Only his wit, and perhaps destiny ushered this great man into the annals of American history as one of our greatest presidents.
John Kerry was born into privilege and wealth. He was sent to private schools in Switzerland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. He went to Yale. Kerry yachted with the Kennedys when he was a teenager. If John Kerry has had any contact with the ''common man,'' it appears to be very limited. Even in the U.S. Navy, he was an officer--which put him above the average enlistee from middle class America. Kerry has little patience for the hired help when they get in his way. When snowboarding, a hapless secret service agent assigned to him--who may or may not have ever snowboarded in his life--inadvertently crossed his path and tripped him, and was soundly and loudly cursed-out for his mistake. Obviously, John Kerry is not used to the ''little people'' getting in his way.
Kerry professes to have a ''new vision'' for America. What’s wrong with the old vision? Is there something incorrect about studying in school, working hard, and achieving the American dream the old fashioned way--by earning it? Kerry’s philosophy seems to be to take from the evil rich--a term that he doesn’t apply to himself--and give to the government so it can decide what is best way to spend our money. John Kerry and his party feel the average American is just too stupid to handle his own money in an efficient manner. Dressing in designer jeans, a plaid shirt, and talking to cows doesn’t make a man ''one of the guys.''
People have claimed John Kerry is a ''war hero.'' Of course, he can’t say this himself, so he has his minions say it for him. People must decide for themselves what constitutes a war hero. Audie Murphy, America’s most decorated soldier, was a war hero. The men who stormed the beaches at Normandy on D-Day are heroes. John Kerry spent four months in harm's way in Viet Nam. Many veterans say that he was reckless and a loose cannon, risking the lives of his men to make a name for himself. Others say that he was a hero. A real hero doesn’t make a concentrated effort to be a hero, it just happens. Many veterans feel that he committed war crimes and was undeserving of the medals he was given. There are thousands of his fellow Viet Nam veterans who feel that he betrayed and branded them with the mark of ''baby-killer.'' That accusation has left deep scars on them that will never heal.
Skepticism about Kerry’s war record continues and probably always will. It is difficult, if not impossible, for Kerry to balance his war record with his condemnation of the men who served in the same war. How can Kerry be a hero while all the others are ''murderers''?
On May 27, 2004, John Kerry gave a speech which he titled, ''Security and Strength for a New World.'' In that speech, he made the following statement: ''We must also have the best possible intelligence capabilities. Nothing is more important than early warning and specific information when dangerous technologies are being developed or sold.'' Kerry went on to accuse George Bush of ''failing to reform our intelligence system.'' However, just after the attack on 9/11, Kerry had this to say, ''…we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area [intelligence]. So it’s going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly.'' (CBS’s ''Face the Nation,'' 9/23/01) Time is what Senator Kerry is apparently not willing to give President Bush. The damage is severe and cannot be fixed with the wave of a hand. But how did our intelligence-gathering capabilities fall into such a state of gross incompetence?
One reason is the budget-slashing done in the 1990’s in which Kerry was a leader. In 1994, Kerry proposed a bill to cut $1.5 billion from intelligence and freeze spending for two major intelligence programs--the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence Program. The bill did not make it to a vote, but the language was changed and the amount dropped to $1 billion. The bill was finally defeated because it was so radical that Kerry could not even get the support of the equally liberal Ted Kennedy.
By 1997, Kerry felt confident that there were no threats to the United States despite the constant stream of terror attacks against American interests around the world. Ignoring a man named Osama bin Laden who declared war on the United States in 1996, Kerry placed this statement in the Congressional Record: ''Now that the [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary?'' (Congressional Record, 5/1/97)
What a difference running for president after an attack on the American mainland can make. Suddenly, the walls erected, the budget cuts proposed, the ban on association with ''unsavory'' people is forgotten, and the condemnation of the beleaguered Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation is in vogue. Forget that John Kerry felt the intelligence community was unnecessary and obsolete and worked diligently to reduce their ranks, money, and capability. John Kerry needs a scapegoat. Voters are not supposed to remember how Kerry felt or hear the statements he made just a few short years ago.
It’s been said that ''Words mean things.'' Indeed they do, and Kerry has clearly shown that he is on every side of every issue. He will say whatever is politically expedient at the moment. He will tell people what he thinks they want to hear without regard to the validity or long-term effects of his statement. ''I don’t own SUV’s, my family does,'' and ''I believe life begins at conception, but I support a woman's 'right to choose,' '' are just two of Kerry’s ambiguous statements that attempt to please everyone. Kerry seems incapable of taking a stand on anything.
No one can be all things to all people. Kerry is trying to do just that and is failing miserably. In these troubled times, America needs a leader who is sure of what he believes in, not someone who can tell a good story, but keeps changing the story every time he repeats it. |
