The "Re-Invention" Convention
By Tom Barrett (08/04/04)
I hope my readers appreciate the sacrifices I make for them. Last Thursday night I did something none of you wanted to do, and very few of you were willing to do, in order to bring you the truth. I watched John Kerry's entire "acceptance" (read "propaganda") speech.
Before I give you my take on the convention and Kerry's speech, listen to what some major newspapers had to say. "Kerry's speech was disappointing - a missed opportunity." (Washington Post.) Even Kerry's supporters had said this was a "make or break" speech for the Democrat nominee. "He did not give any foreign policy specifics." (NY Times). This from a self-proclaimed "Foreign Policy Expert."
The Democrats had been promoting their convention as a time when they would "re-introduce" John Kerry to the nation. Why would they need to re-introduce a man who has been on the news every day for more than a year? They should have been honest and said that they planned to "Re-invent" John Kerry.
And re-invent they did. If you contrast all the time spent talking about his time in Viet Nam by Kerry, the others who gave speeches, as well as the "documentary" on his life, with the time spent talking about his career in the Senate, you can come to only one conclusion. Kerry spent most of his life in Viet Nam being a war hero, and approximately one week in the US Senate being a "foreign policy expert."
Kerry should have taken the advice of one his party's old guard, Daniel Patrick Moynihan before he planned his Re-Invention Convention: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Fact: Kerry spent only four months on his Swift Boat, while almost all other Swift Boat commanders served their entire twelve month tours (the norm at the time). He used a technicality that allowed anyone who received three purple hearts (which were handed out by the thousands) to abandon their duty early. The doctor who treated his first "wound" relates the story in the links below. In summary, the piece of metal he removed was one millimeter long, required no anesthesia to remove it, no sutures to close it, and only a Band-Aid to cover it. Although Kerry claimed he received it from small-arms fire, Kerry's crewmates related that it happened because Kerry fired a mortar at some rocks and got a tiny piece of shrapnel in his arm. The physician stated that the wound was consistent with the crew's version of the event.
Question: If Kerry was such a war hero, why do only two of the twenty-three Swift Boat commanders he served with support his candidacy? (Could it be because they KNOW him?) Why are the great majority of veterans furious at the very idea of him becoming Commander-in-Chief? He has a handful of vets that he calls his "Band of Brothers" who travel with him on the campaign trail. But there are hundreds of veterans' websites opposing Kerry.
Fact: Kerry himself REQUESTED the Purple Heart, which is seldom done. His commanding officer turned him down (see link below). Kerry re-petitioned and eventually got his first medal. One down, two to go. You see, he never intended to serve his full tour. He brought an 8-millimeter camera with him to document his heroic activities for later use in campaign ads. Once he had the footage he needed, his plan was to get out of there ASAP before he received a REAL wound.
According to the Boston Globe, Kerry's two other Purple Hearts resulted from other very minor wounds. George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer, stated, "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty." The Globe reports that Kerry has repeatedly refused to allow inspection of his medical records (see link below). But we do know that many honorable servicemen refused Purple Hearts for minor wounds like Kerry's, because their buddies were getting them for losing arms and legs. And we also know that very few took Kerry's cowardly route of going home early by using the Purple Heart loophole.
Fact: You would never know this if all your knowledge about Kerry came from the Democratic convention, but Kerry has served almost twenty years in the US Senate. Now why would they try to distract us from this fact with all this "war hero" business (more like "war coward" according to many who served with him)? Could it be that Kerry never distinguished himself in any way while in the Senate? Could it be that he never authored ONE significant piece of legislation that passed (almost unheard-of for a four-term Senator)? Could it be that he wants to draw attention away from his voting record which is the MOST LIBERAL in the US Senate? (His running mate, Edwards is ranked as the FOURTH MOST liberal.)
Kerry started his acceptance people looking like "one of the Village People" according to a TV anchor. He stepped up to the podium, gave a sloppy military salute, and smugly said, "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty." After that ridiculous beginning, the rest of his speech was all downhill. He studiously avoided mentioning anything about his Senate record, other than to say that he was a Senator. In fact, according to one of the TV newsmen who timed every aspect of the speech, he spent twice as much time talking about the American Flag on the ceiling than he did about his close to twenty years in the Senate.
During the speech, Kerry addressed President Bush, asked him not to attack Kerry, and piously promised that he would not attack the President. He then proceeded to attack the President, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft. The only key Administration officials who escaped his lying vicious attacks were Colin Powell and Dr. Condoleeza Rice, probably because there were so many blacks at the convention. But he attacked them by proxy later. A link from www.KerryEdwards.com states "Kerry Edwards Campaign - we recommend these sponsored links." One link directs visitors to a site with racist T-shirts, including one showing Bush alongside racist caricatures of Powell and Rice, and the words "My homies got my back!" Another recommended site sells buttons with the slogan, "Michael Moore - American Patriot." Although Kerry was careful not to publicly identify with the reactionary Moore during the convention, this site makes his support for Moore clear.
Kerry rather pathetically dropped names hoping that some of their credibility would rub off on him. He particularly referred to his "close friendship" with John McCain. (Thankfully it wasn't close enough for him to convince McCain to become his Vice-Presidential running mate.) He continually said "John Edwards and I feel…" this and "John Edwards and I believe…" that because he realizes that, for whatever reason, Edwards has more credibility than he does. And he must have referred to Edwards as "This son of a mill worker" at least ten times during the evening. Can someone tell me why that would make me want to vote for him? I care about who a candidate is, not who his father was.
John Edwards' speech sounded as if he had practiced it hundreds of times. That's because he had. It was the same ridiculous "Two Americas" speech he gave when he was running for Vice-President. (No, he did NOT run for President. He knew that with less than one term in the Senate he was not qualified. He was the ONLY candidate that did not attack all the others. That's because he didn't know who would get the nomination, and he wanted to be on the winner's ticket.) By the way, the "Two Americas" speech was actually stolen from the 1984 campaign speeches of Walter Mondale. (It didn't work for Mondale; how smart is Edwards to think it would work for him?)
If you had taken enough antacids to endure Edwards' "acceptance" speech, you would have gotten the impression that most Americans live in poverty, and that we were on the verge of the second Great Depression. Never mind that two-thirds of American families own their own homes. Never mind that neutral economists share the view that we are enjoying a very robust economy. If a liberal says you are living in poverty, it must be so. I'm going down to apply for food stamps tomorrow.
Kerry's speech echoed the same negative themes during this "positive and optimistic convention" we had been promised. Kerry: "Wages are falling, health care costs are rising, and our great middle class is shrinking. People are working weekends; they're working two jobs, three jobs, and they're still not getting ahead." Actually, all of that is a pack of lies. See the link "Setting the Record Straight" under the Internet Research heading to see the FACTS from Business Week on how well the economy is doing.
Here are some random thoughts on various aspects of the convention that make one wonder what in the world these people were thinking when they planned the thing.
The Democrats always portray themselves as the defenders of free speech. Yet the small area allowed for demonstrators against them was in an area where the attendees could not even see them as they entered and exited the Fleet Center. If they had taken the trouble to go to the demonstrator area, the attendees would not have been able to hear them, because there was a huge electrical generator the size of an automobile on the other side of their cage that drowned out their voices. Did I say cage? Yes, they were penned in a small area surrounded in by barbed wire-topped fencing. So much for free speech.
Of course, all this was in the name of "security." Forgive me, but why would terrorists attack the convention where their best hope for survival was being nominated? Kerry wants to turn over all authority for the war on terrorism to the UN. We all know how effective the UN is. The terrorists would LOVE that. The $50 Million wasted on security in Boston should have been saved for the Republican convention, where the guy that the terrorists DON'T want to see in office will be nominated.
"Reverend" Al Sharpton was supposed to speak for six minutes. Instead he ranted and raved for twenty four minutes! He called President Bush a racist, and did his best to increase the country's division along racial lines. He also beat the dead horse of "slave reparations" in a piercing scream for about five minutes.
One amusing note was the contradictory speeches given by Bill Clinton and John Edwards. Clinton made the statement that we can never kill all our enemies, so we need to figure out other ways to get along (probably by abandoning Israel so the terrorists won't be mad at us). Apparently he hadn't seen an advance copy of Edward's speech, because two days later John the Junior was beating his chest in a macho manner and promising to kill every last al Qaeda member in the world.
When George Bush told the world that Osama bin Laden was wanted by America, "Dead or Alive", and said that al Qaeda couldn't run far enough or hide deep enough to escape justice, the Democrats ridiculed him as a "cowboy." But when John Edwards copied him almost word for word during the convention, the far-left crowd there cheered wildly.
Teresa Heinz-Kerry was supposed to show America the "human" side of her husband when she introduced him at the convention. Instead, of the twenty paragraphs in her speech, thirteen were about herself! By the way, I watched closely every time the camera panned to Kerry's wife. Not once did she smile, even when the crowd roared its approval at Kerry's acceptance of the nomination. She actually looked bored during the entire speech (which is probably the only thing she and I will ever agree upon).
The campaign theme announced at the convention is that America is weak and no one in the world respects us. This is the "Positive Message" that we were told to expect from the Democrat convention. But what should we have expected from John Kerry, the man who invented the "Misery Index," (see link below) and shouted about it in every speech until his own advisors told him he was being too pessimistic? Now they have the audacity to name their campaign the "Believe in America Campaign." If they believe in America, why are they so negative about America?
What about the Kerry-Edwards campaign's claim that the duo is better suited to win the war on terror than Bush-Cheney? For starters, neither has a scintilla of experience at fighting terrorism. More important, there are mountains of evidence that I could give you that prove that they have little interest in fighting terror. I will give you just one piece of evidence for each of them.
Edwards was described by Kerry during the primaries as "inexperienced" and "unfit to assume the duties of the Presidency." Most thinking Americans would agree with that assessment. Of course, after picking Edwards to be the man who is "one heartbeat away from the Presidency", Kerry flip-flopped on that as he has on hundreds of other matters. But now that he is the Vice-Presidential nominee, wouldn't you think that Smiling Ed would start to take National Security seriously? Dream on. Edwards is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He has missed four of the last eight meetings of that vital Committee. Assistant Commander-in-Chief? I sure hope not!
How about the Wannabe Commander-in-Chief himself? While Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee (from 1993 to 2000), he missed 38 of the 49 hearings held, including the hearing on the report of the National Commission on Terrorism, which warned about the terrorist threat we now face. Here is a direct quote from the transcript of his appearance on the Larry King show (link below). Larry: "Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda's plans of a large-scale attack on the United States…What's your reaction to that?" Kerry: "Well, I haven't been briefed on that, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."
Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, if that doesn't make you cringe, there's something wrong with your cringer. The man who is promising to protect our country from terrorism (and who could, Heaven forbid, possibly be in that position in a few months) has been offered security briefings. And he has turned them down because, in his own words, he "hasn't had the time."
Friends, let me ask you a question. If there were even the slightest possibility that you might be faced with the awesome task of directing our nation's efforts to save itself from terrorism, would you TURN DOWN the opportunity to prepare for that task?
I think the most infuriating thing Kerry said during the four day lying marathon disguised as a convention was, "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president." As soon as he returned from his four months in combat, Kerry started his radical leftist political career by denouncing the war in Viet Nam as unjust and unfounded. He said we had no business being there, that Viet Nam was in no way a threat to the United States. If that was true, then he was NOT defending his country. Someone should tell Mr. Flip-Flop that he can't have it both ways.
I probably shouldn't even mention this, because we have come to expect it from Democrat conventions. Kerry and Edwards promised to solve every problem know to mankind, and to make the "richest Americans" pay for it. Here is a partial list of promises they made which they know they cannot possibly keep:
*End poverty.
*Increase teacher pay.
*Add forty thousand armed forces.
*Double the number of Special Forces personnel.
*Raise wages.
*Cut middle class taxes.
*Stop "exporting jobs overseas" (news flash, Kerry: the Heinz Corporation, which gave you your Billion-Dollar lifestyle, is exporting jobs every day)
*"Persuade" other nations to join us in Iraq so that we won't have to "go it alone" (just who are those forty nations that are already participating, Kerry, and how will you, an unknown, persuade any head of state to do anything?)
I'm not an economist, so I can't estimate how many billions of dollars all these lying promises would cost, but I do know one thing. They didn't make any provision for paying for all of this pie-in-the-sky except to say that "wealthy Americans" (anyone earning over $200,000) would pay for it. Let's see. The top 10% of taxpayers already pay over 50% of all income taxes. These are also the people who employ the bottom 90% of taxpayers. If we tax the wealthy Americans even more, many of them will close down their over-taxed business (or outsource more jobs overseas), unemployment will rise, and then there will be NO ONE left to pay taxes. Good move, Kerry. That will sure show the nation what a great "leader" you are.
The whole Democrat convention reminded me of the story of a white politician who gave a speech to an Indian tribe who had been forced onto a reservation. "We are your friends!" he cried. "Hoopah! Hoopah!" the Indians shouted. Pleased with the cheers, he continued, "The government will make sure you have everything you need." "Hoopah! Hoopah!" they replied. "Be assured that we have only your best interests at heart." With loud, resounding cries of "Hoopah! Hoopah!" ringing in his ears, he followed the Chief across a cow pasture. The Chief cautioned the politician, "Be careful not to step in the hoopah."
Political pundits have been predicting anywhere from a five to a fifteen point "bounce" in the polls for Kerry following the convention. It is almost unheard of for a candidate of either party NOT to see his poll numbers rise after having been show-cased at his convention. The only good news that came out of the Democrat convention was a five-point bounce in the polls - for BUSH! That's right. A CNN/Gallup poll shows that Bush benefited by five percentage points from the lies and hyperbole of the Democrat's convention! (See link below.)
Amidst all the lies, I did hear John Kerry utter one true statement. "My fellow Americans, this is the most important election of our lifetime." If this radical liberal is allowed to occupy the White House, we will lose the war on terrorism. And that will be the end of the America that all true patriots love.
INTERNET RESEARCH:
Transcript of Larry King Show in Which Kerry Admits Refusing Security Briefings
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/08/lkl.00.html
Setting the Record Straight
http://www.demsextrememakeover.com/
Kerry's First "Wound" (as told by his military doctor)
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp
Quotes from Boston Globe articles about Kerry's Purple Hearts
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/kerry_pur_hrts.htm
Kerry's First Request for Purple Heart Turned Down
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/04/27/Politics/Purple.Hearts.Three.And.Out-656749.shtml
Kerry's "Misery Index" Accentuates the Negative
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=170
Kerry & Edwards AWOL for Senate Votes
http://goodnewsamerica.us/news.php?extend.139
CNN/Gallup Poll Shows Bush UP Following Dem Convention
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/1/123616.shtml
Racially Distasteful Site Linked to By KerryEdwards.com
http://www.hellection.com/
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tom Barrett
