Kerry’s Evidence
By Gary Aldrich (08/20/04)
Deftly, the Democrats have managed to exclude hard truth from their political campaigns. The most recent presidential campaigns are the best evidence. Nowhere can we find any real evidence upon which to make our judgements.
Is this because we think presidential politics is less important than simple small claims court cases heard before Judge Judy?
I helped enforce the law for 26 years, and I worked in the White House. During that time, I helped three presidents screen their important appointees for character flaws so that the president would at least have the option to keep men and women of low character out of the White House. The process was formal, and we developed real, honest to goodness legal evidence on the road to deciding character issues.
We are a nation of laws, but in 1992, when Bill Clinton declared that he would not release his medical records to the media so that the nation would know if he suffered from some debilitating illness, the mainstream media didn’t even whimper. His claims of good health were all that was required.
Looking back at the Kennedy presidency, we knew after the fact that Jack Kennedy had terrible health and took heavy doses of serious prescription drugs. Was it fair to the nation to hide important information about his health? Perhaps after election, but before? Where is the rationale for failing to get important information from the candidates?
If a candidate fails to produce evidence of good health, shouldn’t the mainstream media take the position that his health is unknown because the candidate refuses to talk?
When Bill Clinton’s convoluted financial matters became a scandalous issue, once again, the mainstream media looked the other way. As scandal after scandal emerged, it became obvious that if the public had known about the many serious questions of his moral character, they might have chosen a different commander-in-chief.
Eight years of chaos and messy revelations were the reward for deciding that politics deserved less attention than the most routine family law case. But, who decides what the public gets to know? These days the public assumes somebody is checking, but they are dead wrong. I am always amazed when I hear somebody say that the “government” or a political party knows all about the candidate. The recent campaign in Illinois is stark evidence that candidates can hide serious secrets about their poor character.
Not convinced of that? Why not ask voters in the state of New Jersey?
There is no FBI background check conducted on candidates at any level because there is no constitutional requirement for that. So, what you know is either what the candidate tells you or what the mainstream media is able to dig up.
In the case of John Kerry, many issues swirl around his service in Vietnam and his activities after he returned and became engaged with an anti-war, anti-American group known as Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Kerry could make hard evidence available to the general public through the mainstream media by just filling out a few simple forms and submitting them to the federal government. But Senator Kerry refuses to do that.
Kerry will not release his medical records. Kerry will not release his military records. Kerry will not release records of the investigation conducted about his anti-war, anti-American activities, and Kerry will not release his IRS records which would show the source of his wealth, suggested as enormous. In short, Kerry will not produce any real evidence about his true character. He is suggesting, I suppose, that we should take his word for it. Or perhaps we should just guess.
If Judge Judy heard Kerry’s flimsy case, not only would she throw it out, she probably would fine Senator Kerry fifty dollars for annoying the court and wasting its precious time. In view of the absence of any real evidence, I think voters must assume Senator John Kerry’s true character is highly questionable.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Gary Aldrich
