Lando 
Posted on 08/15/2004 12:43:23 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
John Kerry and Bruce Springsteen have one basic thing in common: They are both liars. Springsteen is organising a 'music tour' in the hope of raising $44 million for the John Kerry election campaign. (So much for Springsteen's respect for Campaign Finance Reform).
The extreme leftwing organisations ACT and MoveOn.org are the apparent principals behind Springsteen's political charade. However, standing behind these hate groups is the Bush-hating George Soros, the man who equated President George Bush with Adolph Hitler.
Springsteen tried to weasel his way out of his brazen hypocrisy by claiming that recent events politicised him and until then he had "always stayed one step away from partisan politics." Not only is Springsteen a liar he is, like John Kerry, also a moral coward.
Springsteen has always been a leftwinger, never hesitated to politicize rock. From day one of his career he supported leftist causes. In the eighties he, like John Kerry, opposed President Reagan's foreign policy, the delicious fruit of which was the collapse of the Soviet Union and the freeing of Eastern Europe.
If Leftists like Springsteen and Kerry had succeeded in stopping Reagan an aggressive, though aging, totalitarian Soviet Union would still be threatening the world. But in the "progressive" eyes of Springsteen and John Kerry it was America and not the Soviet empire that posed the real threat to world peace.
In his New York Times article (also published in the Melbourne Age) Springsteen asked: "Why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens?"
But exactly what promises have been broken and who broke them? Springsteen does not say. He evidently finds it easier to pose vague sneering questions than to produce a solidly reasoned argument.
Let's take a look at the left's attitude towards America's "weakest citizens". President George Bush supports educational voucher schemes. These would help poor people, particularly inner city blacks, to take their children out of dangerous and non-performing schools and put them in schools where academic standards are respected and discipline is maintained.
But sensitive and caring rich Democrats like Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry stridently oppose this policy. This pair not only went to very expensive private schools they also gave their own children an equally expensive education.
Nevertheless, these paragons of virtue have ardently worked to deny a similar opportunity to inner city black kids. Can we now expect Springsteen to compose a song denouncing rich politicians who use their power to severely restrict the opportunities of poor inner city kids?
Not likely. Springsteen sends his own children to an exclusive private school where they are picked up by a phalanx of bodyguards.
Springsteen's inane question was followed by "Why do we continue to find it so difficult to see beyond the veil of race?" Pardon me while I throw up. It's the Democrats who are forever exploiting the race card, not the Republicans. It was Kerry who falsely accused Bush of denying one million blacks the vote. It's the despicable NAACP that runs race-based campaigns. It's anti-Semitic scum like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who try to keep the race cauldron on the boil.
Then he pompously asks: "How do we conduct ourselves during difficult times without killing the things we hold dear?" I presume he is referring to homeland security and individual liberty. Apart from the obvious fact that Springsteen never gave a damn about the liberty of those who suffered under communism, the Taliban or Saddam, he ought to be asked how he would defend the country against terrorist infiltrators.
Unlike the rest of us, Springsteen is able to spare himself the problem of terrorist attacks on airliners by chartering his own plane. The Kerry's have done even better by buying their own jet.
He charged President Bush with having "dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited." This is a totally dishonest statement.
The timeline for overthrowing Saddam was 15 months. I fail to see how this could be interpreted as diving into war.
If the case for war had been discredited, as Springsteen falsely asserts, then so have the Democrats. Has Springsteen forgotten (did he ever know?) that the Dems, including Edwards and Kerry shared the same intelligence as Bush and agreed with it. So if Bush lied, so did they.
It's time to remind the ever so honest Mr Springsteen that Senator Edwards publicly declared in September 2001 that Saddam Hussein was "the most serious and imminent threat to our country"? It needs to be stressed that it was Edwards and President Bush who called Saddam an "imminent threat".
A simple question, Springsteen: Was Edwards refusing to "honor the United Nations, international treaties [and] the opinions of our allies" when he announced that "I don't think we should be bound by what the United Nations does"?
Did Senator Kerry also refuse to "honor" this crowd when during a debate in 1997 on CNN he called for a pre-emptive strike against Saddam? In his own words: "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians".
In the light Springsteen's claim about an "unnecessary" war what does he have to say about Kerry praising Clinton for putting US war plans against Saddam into effect, regardless of the opinions of the UN, Russia and France?
Why does Springsteen ignore the fact that John Kerry stated: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
John Kerry has now admitted that he would have still voted for war authorisation even if he knew for certain there were no WMDs. That Kerry's admission does not faze Springsteen's determination to continue his fund raising tour proves that he and integrity are genuine strangers to each other.
(At this point I think it's pertinent to remind readers that those to whom Springsteen thinks the US should kowtow to [the UN and the European Union] are threatening to punish Israel for erecting a fence to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks. He also ignores the UN oil-for-food scandal. Then there is Darfur disaster, on which Springsteen is quiet. But then the victims are blacks and perpetrators Arabs. I'm not suggesting he is a racist, only that he is an amazingly rich East Coast trendy who takes 'moral' guidance from ethically challenged newspapers like the New York Times).
Intent on demonstrating just how low he can sink, Springsteen dishonestly stated that President Bush "will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins".
This is a wicked lie.
The History News Network found that FDR never attended a single military funeral. Does that mean he dishonoured the dead? We also find that Clinton never attended any military funerals, though he, like President Bush, attended memorials.
Of course, if President Bush did attend any of these sad events Springsteen would undoubtedly accuse him of politicising the deaths of these service personnel and exploiting the suffering of their families. With these leftist bigots, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.
As for President Bush banning "photos of their flag-draped coffins", this is a vicious lie. This ban has been in place since 1991. That's why there were no photos of the "flag-draped coffins" of those troops who died in the battle of Mogadishu. In case Mr Springsteen needs reminding, this happened during the Clinton administration.
The reason for the ban was to stop terrorists exploiting these funerals to weaken American resolve. Does Springsteen really believe that allowing these murderous thugs a propaganda victory would honour their victims?
In my opinion, leftists like Springsteen would be the first to exploit the situation for political gain, no matter how much aid and comfort it would give to the enemy. I still have not forgotten how he rushed in to exploit the Amadou Diallo incident with the heavily politicized rock song American Skin. (This was the first time I ever heard of a rock singer turning into a musical ambulance chaser).
In one dazzling move, Springsteen leapt from brilliant historian and geo-political thinker to brilliant economist. Wow, what an intellect!
He accused Bush of running record deficits "and squeezing services like afterschool programs." First of all, it's not a record. The 1982 deficit was nearly 50 per cent bigger. In addition, domestic spending increased at annual rates that exceeded anything during Clinton administration.
Secondly, deficits are never a problem: the problem is government spending.
It's pretty clear that, like that other dazzling intellect Ozzie Osbourne, the brilliant Springsteen has not the slightest indication of knowing what the hell he's talking about. Osbourne at least has the excuse of having scrambled eggs for brains. What's Springsteen's excuse?
Even the lefty New York Times admitted that the main driving force behind the deficit was the huge income drop the wealthy underwent when the stock market fell. This should stress the danger of relying on a narrow income base for a disproportionate amount of tax revenue. Fortunately, since the tax cuts were implemented tax revenues have significantly increased.
If Springsteen is so concerned with fiscal discipline, why is he supporting John Kerry? The would-be president has promised to increase net spending in his first year by at least $226 billion. How in heavens name can he do that, Mr Springsteen, without increasing the deficit or massively raising taxes?
This brings us to Springsteen's snide insinuation that tax cuts were only granted to "the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of 'one nation indivisible.'"
Note how Springsteen deliberately associated the top 1 per cent of taxpayers with multimillionaires. In fact, the threshold for this bracket is only about $300,000. This is far from the fabulous multimillion dollar zone that Springsteen and his family are fortunate enough to inhabit.
He also neglected to mention that Kerry and Edwards intend to raise taxes on the top 2 per cent of tax payers. To enter this bracket one need only earn $200,000. These people are not rich. Unlike Springsteen they cannot afford New Jersey mansions, body guards and literally dozens of classic cars, not to mention highly specialised tax lawyers. No matter, Springsteen thinks it right and just that they be made to pay.
This focus on the top 2 per cent reminds me of Clinton's dishonest 1992 promise to raise taxes only on those earning $200,000 a year plus a millionaires surtax. About 12 months later he hiked taxes on those making $114,000 a year while the Democrats' super rich fat cats continued to successfully game the system.
Regardless of Springsteen bigoted opinion, the Bush tax cuts were across the board. Their effects on the economy were striking and fairly swift. Cutting capital gains taxes raised savings and spurred investment. In case Springsteen doesn't know, it's investment that raises living standards.
If Springsteen knows nothing of these things then he has no business writing about taxes and deficits. (The Washing Post slants tax report to favour John Kerry)
Moreover, his views on wealth are nothing but ignorant leftist claptrap. According to the ineluctable logic of his statement, wealth is not earned in America but expropriated. This is so self-evidently false that only a congenital idiot or leftist pop star (is there a difference?) could believe it. It certainly reveals a complete ignorance of economic history and economic theory, not to mention the history of economic thought.
According to Springsteen John Kerry and John Edwards would give Americans "an administration that places a priority on fairness, curiosity, openness…"
John Kerry is the same joker who proposed tax legislation that created a loophole designed to benefit Heinz Foods Co. and therefore his wife. When this tightwad was given a choice in Massachusetts between the state's top income tax rate of 5.8 per cent or a lower rate of 5.3 per cent, he chose the lower rate. (Teresa Heinz Kerry: You pay taxes, I don't shows that Kerry's wife manipulated the tax system to massively slash her own taxable income).
As for being "just" and "fair", as chairman of the East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee Kerry used his position to block the Vietnam Human Rights Act that passed the House by a massive 410-1 vote in 2001. Will the moralising Springsteen tell us what was "just" and "fair" about that? I doubt it.
John Edwards is just as bad as Kerry. He ruthlessly used a tax shelter to greatly minimise the government's tax take by setting up a corporation to shelter $11 million in earnings from Medicare taxes. (John Edwards — will the real one please stand up).
Now he and Kerry intend to impose heavy taxes on people who make a tiny fraction what they and Springsteen make. And this is what Springsteen calls "just" and "progressive".
Perhaps Springsteen also thinks Kerry was being "just" when he voted against bills that would have cut by 90 percent the incometaxes of a married couple on $40,000 with two children.
So in his zeal to do down the evil Bush, whom he thinks should be impeached, Springsteen is heading political carnival masquerading as a music tour that is based on brazen lies and motivated by pure hated. I guess it beats supporting US troops, which he refused to do. After all, that would be patriotic, wouldn't?
It's clear to see that Springsteen is just a moral poseur who gets his jollies from making sympathetic noises about the poor while he personally rakes in millions of dollars by politicizing his music. No wonder I have nothing but contempt for this moralising fraud.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor
Lando
Because rich a-holes like you don't give enough to charity... Suck on that.
Yep, I have no problem with entertainers and celebrities being politically active, but I want them to be honest about their politics. If they are indulging in partisanship, fine - tell the fans and the audience before they buy tickets.
$44 million sounds like a little more than $100,000 used as seed money for the Vets against Kerry. However, the dem's have demonized that $100,000 with no comment against the $44 million. Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing
This is a good rant.
Great expose of this leftist hypocrite, who I regret to say I actually once admired. These caviar communists make me sick.
Click the logo to donate to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
bttt
The sad thing is. I might actually be related to this guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
