Who Is John Kerry?

GOPUSA ^ | 8-23-04 | Gregg Bish

[FlyLow]

One thing is certain. During a political campaign, one candidate will say just about anything about the other candidate, and most of what is said should be viewed somewhat askance. However, one can begin to form an opinion about a candidate by watching the candidate, and watching how the candidate responds to day-to-day circumstances. When the candidate is running for the highest office in the land, the candidates conduct can become telling. Very telling.

John Kerry has been stung by a broad list of accusations coming not from the Bush campaign, but from Viet Nam War veterans incensed by Kerry's treatment of his fellows following his service. The reactions that the accusations have provoked provide perhaps the most complete glimpse into the character of the man who would be president. And, when viewing John Kerry the man, one would be justified in having grave concerns about how this man, imbued with the potency of the most powerful office in the land, might use his office.

But, what has John Kerry in such a lather? Veterans that he fought with in Viet Nam claim that he is unfit for command because of his post-war conduct. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth argue that Kerry, who desires the title Commander in Chief, abused a sacred trust by broadly accusing his fellows, without providing proof, of war crimes. They accuse him of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States (a fairly literal definition of treason) by condemning his mates for fighting a war. And, they suggest that if he did, as he testified at one point to a Senate hearing on the war; himself commit war crimes and atrocities, that he should be tried as a war criminal. They suggest that if he did not, that he perjured himself before Congress and is unfit by reason of dishonesty.

But, it's not the accusations that matter, really. They carry the burden of proof, and will be proven, or dis-proven in the fullness of time. What is telling is Kerry's response. Friday, August 20 Kerry filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission to squelch the Swift Boat ads, claiming "coordination" with the Bush campaign. Previously, Kerry supporters attempted to squelch distribution of the best-selling book "Unfit for Command", by writing letters to Wal-Mart, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and other retail book outlets, asking them to voluntarily withdraw the book from the shelves. The letters, carrying barely veiled threats of litigation for slander, fraud and libel, and charging anyone that knowingly distributes the book as being a party to libel, slander and fraud, were themselves an unseemly attempt to squelch public debate of a view of the facts of Kerry's service.

Previous to the effort to squelch book sales themselves, Kerry supporters attempted to cause a stillbirth of the book by threatening television and radio outlets that dared to air advertisements for the books, or ads by the Swift Boat Veterans group. Again, rather than addressing the issues, providing proof that the charges are false, Kerry sought to oppress the opposing view.

And, this past week, Kerry surrogates launched a wholesale attack on the veracity of at least one of the veterans that signed on to the protest groups claims, charging the individual with lying and reversing his opinion. The strategy, apparently is to avoid the issue altogether and crucify the messengers.

This is a bleak picture. There is a mindset that, when confronted with a challenge, addresses it not by arguing cause and counter-cause, but by oppressing the opposing view. And for those with sufficient memory, these actions should stir memories of the Clinton Administration and Clinton Democrats who used the politics of personal destruction to push any who dared stand in their way out of view. This iron-handed suppression of opposition had its most benign persona in the attacks that pursued House Speaker Newt Gingrich from office over a book deal, and their most malevolent persona in the burning of the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas, and the shootings at Ruby Ridge. The act of oppressing opposition is a characteristic of a third-world banana republic. It is notably not a desirable characteristic for someone running for the most powerful office in the free world.

Most recently, Kerry has called for President Bush to "stand up and stop the attack ads", but it was the left that began the personal attacks. It was MoveOn.org and Hollywood based Not in My Name that initiated the negativity in the campaign. Kerry could be asked to do the same thing, by calling off his surrogates in the media and Hollywood. But suppressing the voice of the opposition is a common tactic of the left, intended to limit the public to only one side of the argument. Kerry would never abide by such a restriction. Avoiding debate by incriminating and crushing the opposing message is characteristic of the modern liberal political machine. It's how they conduct interviews, as witnessed by the Thursday night blood-letting of Michelle Malkin, author of "In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror," by Chris Mathews on Hardball. They conduct debate by suppressing evidence, shouting down the opposition so the opposing view can't be heard, or even presented. And it's how they conduct themselves when conservative ideologues come to college campuses in the United States to challenge the status-quo.

One can make a fair judgment of how power would be wielded in a Kerry administration based on no more than what is seen in this debate. One may be justifiably concerned when the administration of power includes oppression, control of the media, or the assassination of character of the opponent. Can the public trust a President that is so weak that he is unable to face clear and convincing evidence that refutes his claims?

[Chieftain]

This is the BEST "Bang for your political buck" - EVER!

Click the logo to donate to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

[MEGoody]

"Can the public trust a President that is so weak that he is unable to face clear and convincing evidence that refutes his claims?"

No.

[tkathy]

It's becoming more and more apparent with each passing day that Kerry may well be an atrocity-committing psycho with enough issues to put him in a padded cell.