Skip to comments.Kerry's Real Gaffe
Posted on 10/20/2004 6:09:01 AM PDT by jhigh
Did you catch John Kerry's gaffe in the third debate?
No, not the one about Mary Cheney being born a lesbian. That abusive and cynical outburst produced gasps in living rooms around the nation and certainly cost Kerry votes.
But there was a more serious gaffe in the debate. It revealed how Kerry's vision of government is at odds not just with that of George Bush but with that of America's founders. In answer to a question about gay marriage, Kerry said: "Because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people."
"A gaffe," as columnist Michael Kinsley once wrote, "is when a politician tells the truth." In this case, Kerry's gaffe is an inadvertent statement of what he--and many on the left--believe is the truth but is actually false and dangerous.
The key phrase was "rights that we afford people." This was no mistake. He said it twice.
Kerry believes that the United States government, through the Constitution, "affords" rights to Americans. My dictionary defines "afford," in this context as "give, grant, confer." In other words, we fortunate, benighted Americans have a country, a government that grants us rights.
That's an utterly inaccurate reading of the great documents of the founding of this nation. Our government does not grant us any rights at all. On the contrary, Americans start off with rights, and it is we who grant the government certain limited powers to protect those rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Wow. What a commercial this would be.
Wow. What a commercial this would be.
Exactly. . .they are "endowed by our creator."
By god you're right. Very very good!
This has been churning for a while now between both this statement and later when he said the Constitution gives us rights. I'm really glad we're not the only ones to see it. Let's hope more people are made aware of this.
Seriously man, this should be sent right to the leaders of the Bush campaign. You know anyone with a direct line?
I in fact did notice that and it wsa discussed here briefly, but it would be good if more were made of it.
It shows that he doesn't understand the Constitution of the US.
"That's an utterly inaccurate reading of the great documents of the founding of this nation. "
What Kerry said is right on par with socialist documents though. hmmmm...
Given the current state of education in this country not too many people would understand why it's a gaffe.
Its no surprise actually.
The left has always thought that the government should control their lives.
From affirmative action to religion, the left looks to the government for support.
It is the right, the Conservatives that think we the people should lead the government, and in doing so take responsibility for our own position in life.
Maybe this is why the majority of business owners are Republicans.
Leaders look to themselves to do what is needed.
Followers look to the leaders to tell them what to do.
I'll get back to this later (I hope I remember). I have video of the entire debate.
I watched Jay Sekulow the other night on TV and he said that the whole idea behind the Constitution is that at the very begninning it acknowledges mans rights and freedoms are given to us by our Creator, something Bush has said over and over (that should make the "true conservative" and "constitutionalist conservative" crowds happy!), and that the Governments job is to "protect those rights
Then he said Kerry wants to change it so that it is the Government that supplies those right and determines them for us.
"You shall have no other Gods before me", and I think that includes the Government.
If I can find text of Sekulow's interview I will post it.
Yeah, I with TigersEye on this one. Most people are quite comfortable with the notion that the government affords them rights. Nine out of ten people will just look at you funny when you bring this up. Those musty old historical figures who wrote the Constitution just didn't understand what it would be like today, don'tcha know?
a glance into a liberals heart and brain. Government provides for US. The founders and conservatives know it is US that give government the power.
Bush emphasized several times with crowd enthusiasm that we were endowed by our Creator - not by our Government leaders in his stump speeches- apparently he caught the arrogant gaffe as well!
People like Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Fine-Swine, Barney Franks, Janet Reno and Clintons sees it as their birthrights to take it away piece by piece and to have the USA kowtowing to the like of blackman and Christian Mass Murderer Kofi Annan.
I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.
He is truly a DANGEROUS man!
"Because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people."
I think he is dumb too.
It is fair to say that we do have a right of choice.
However, when that choice involves murder, it becomes a choice that is not acceptable.
gaff = gaffe
Absolutely. I caught that when he said it and I told my wife that's exactly why I could never vote for a modern liberal. If they 'afford' me my rights, they can dis-afford them too. Any politician who fails to realize that my rights were endowed upon me by my Creator is unfit for office.
"Rights" are constantly claimed but many are bogus. Jesse Jerkson believes there is a "right" to health care, affordable housing, reparations for his brain-dead admirers, clean air, clean water, a job, the list is virtually endless.
Governments do not recognize many claimed "rights" and their proponents just keep howling at the moon.
Our Bill of Rights recognizes certain rights as fundamental the rest are just more Leftist puffery.
This is a none starter or worse since many of the moochers and leeches DO believe that they have a "right" to what is in my wallet.
To Kerry, Liberals and huge chunks of our dumbed-down electorate which were "educated" in publick sckoolz, this basic concept does not register and is in fact foreign in the extreme. To them, our rights are conferred by men, or government, and therefore may be changed or taken away by the same. Kerry speaks to, and for, them.
Kerry does not speak from ignorance but from knowing malice.
It's the basic "Conflict of Visions" that Sowell writes about in his book by that name.
The left sees certain individuals (of their ideology) as being endowed with enough wisdom, intelligence, experience, morality, and virtue to
make decisions for the rest of us better than we can for ourselves. It is a basic core belief (if there is such a thing in a person like Kerry).
See 26. This will go nowhere fast.
Good post. BTTT.
It's a simple test, really. If you claim a right that incurs an involuntary cost on another individual, it is not a right.
placemarker for later
We have rights, but they aren't given to us by the courts. He realized what he'd said and corrected himself by saying "under the Constitution."
This is deadly stuff. John F. Kerry has a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of govenment. It is very serious. He is disqualified, in my opinion, from serving as president. This needs to be trumpeted far and wide!
Thus, you believe there is a right for Gays to get married.
The Traitor must have a foot fetish because every time he opens his mouth he sticks his foot in it! LMAO
He gives a whole new meaning to the term "educated fool."
That inflicts the involuntary cost of devaluing the traditional family.
I really don't know where you jumped to the conclusion that you did...
Very true. Dennis Prager adds that while the right holds dear the traditional American value of liberty, the left is more concerned with equality.
well.....DUH....but the liberals will never understand that...they believe all rights and good things flow from the goobermint to the sheeple,..but in fact, its supposed to be the other way around. Liberals dont get this basic fact: God-People-Goobermint. the natural and real order of things.
GWB and the RNC should be made aware of this.
Such subject factors can never be considered objective.
It is easy to claim that increased expenditures on health increases productivity and therefore economic activity which benefits everyone.
Almost everything imposes "involutary costs" on someone which is one of the reasons government grows as the societies become more complex.
There was a reason the BoR listed specific rights.
and your interpretation is specifically why the founders balked at a listing of rights.
They were concerned that those rights listed would be considered to be the only rights that the government couldn't infringe on - Kerry's view.
In reality, people hold ALL rights, and the government is only allowed to infringe on those rights in the areas that it is specifically authorized to.
What about when JF'nK said somenting about (paraphrase from memory)"...interpert the Constitution according to law..."
The reason the BoR was explicit was because those were the only ones they could agree on. It is true that Hamilton and Madison did not want a BoR for the reason you stated. But to secure the support of the ideologues (generally nutcases) for the Constitution they promised to pass the BoR as soon as possible.
I place little concern for nebulous lists of "rights" since there is no universal agreement on many as my initial list demonstrates. Most of those who do seem to be ideologues to me.
I remembered that so I went looking for it. Is this the one?
From the second debate (1st paragraph for some context):
KERRY: Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected?
These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.
Oooh. Good catch!
But just as an aside: "rights that we afford people" is too complicated a phrase for the average Dumbocrat to absorb anyway. Even if it is said very slowly.