Posted on 10/11/2004 8:59:26 PM PDT by Politicalities
Folks, I apologize for the vanity posting, but what I read in the New York Times Magazine outraged me so much, that I couldn't help but blog. And after I blogged, I still felt outraged, and I had to spread that outrage around. Read this, read what Kerry said, read what I have to say about it, then reflect that he very well might be the next Commander-in-Chief. God save us.
The Nuisance Factor
I have to opine on the topic that everyone is talking about, and that is of course Kerry's interview with the New York Times Magazine (not to be confused with the New York Times). I'm going to fisk him good, but first I will quote a large chunk of the article verbatim. I intend to demonstrate incontrovertibly that Kerry's statements demonstrate without question his unfitness to lead the nation in the War on Terrorism, and I wish to be as fair as possible to the man. Let there be no allegations of word-twisting or out-of-context-quoting. I'll quote two full extra paragraphs for context. For those who wish to get right to the meat, the direct quote from Kerry is boldfaced.
But when you listen carefully to what Bush and Kerry say, it becomes clear that the differences between them are more profound than the matter of who can be more effective in achieving the same ends. Bush casts the war on terror as a vast struggle that is likely to go on indefinitely, or at least as long as radical Islam commands fealty in regions of the world. In a rare moment of either candor or carelessness, or perhaps both, Bush told Matt Lauer on the ''Today'' show in August that he didn't think the United States could actually triumph in the war on terror in the foreseeable future. ''I don't think you can win it,'' he said -- a statement that he and his aides tried to disown but that had the ring of sincerity to it. He and other members of his administration have said that Americans should expect to be attacked again, and that the constant shadow of danger that hangs over major cities like New York and Washington is the cost of freedom. In his rhetoric, Bush suggests that terrorism for this generation of Americans is and should be an overwhelming and frightening reality.
When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''
This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry's philosophy and the president's. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us. Bush had continually cast himself as the optimist in the race, asserting that he alone saw the liberating potential of American might, and yet his dark vision of unending war suddenly seemed far less hopeful than Kerry's notion that all of this horror -- planes flying into buildings, anxiety about suicide bombers and chemicals in the subway -- could somehow be made to recede until it was barely in our thoughts.
Before proceeding to dissect Kerry, I'll make note that the "reporter's"* mention of Bush's "dark vision of unending war" leaves little to the imagination regarding where his sympathies lie... but rational people gave up on expecting objectivity from the mainstream media long ago.
* "Scare Quotes"TM are a registered trademark of Reuters. Used without permission.
Now, Kerry starts off by making a statement, then giving declaratory evidence of that statement. Let's start with the declaration.
'As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling.
These two premises are undoubtedly true, even without the gratuitous appeal to his own authority.
But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise.
Organized crime is a non sequitur here unless you assume it is related by analogy to prostitution and illegal gambling. It's surprising that he would equate these two consensual crimes to "real" organized crime. Organized criminals initiate the use of force, they routinely engage in fraud. Any libertarians still sympathetic to Kerry for his views on personal freedom?
Kerry here offers no evidence that neither prostitution, illegal gambling, nor organized crime are on the rise.
Please note that he doesn't describe as his goal the reduction of any of these societal ills. This former (direct quote) "law-enforcement person" * thinks that it's perfectly okay to keep organized crime at a tolerable level. It's not the "law-enforcement person's" job to fight crime, it's his job to control it.
*Assistant county prosecutor, elected
It isn't threatening people's lives every day,
I wasn't aware that prostitution and illegal gambling ever threatened people's lives. Organized crime and terrorism, however, have threatened people's lives and continue to threaten people's lives.
and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life
It's not threatening the fabric of your life, Senator Kerry. You have a security detail. And it's not threatening my life. I'm an upper-middle-class white suburbanite. But there are plenty of Americans for whom the fabric of life is threatened by organized crime. You arrogant, condescending prick.
It's so like your gaffe at the second debate, when you said:
Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money.
And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too.
Now, this is a really, really condescending statement. It's basically looking down your nose at the little people in the audience. I have news for you, Senator Richwife... a lot of hardworking people make $200,000 a year, and need it, too, to pay for their mortgage and their bills and their children.
I'm a gambling man, and I'd slap a C-Note on the proposition that someone else in that hall besides you, Gibson, Bush, and of course your wife makes more than $200,000 a year. And is probably not pleased about you simultaneously patronizing him and declaring your intention to raise his taxes.
But I digress.
Kerry thinks that organized crime is at an acceptable level. As long as it's at that "level where it isn't on the rise", we continue to fight it, but we don't really worry about it. Organized crime is a nuisance.
Which brings us to the statement he defended with all this garbage:
We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance
I'll get to the first ten words in a bit. Let's start with "where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." The context Kerry so generously went on to provide makes it crystal clear what he means by this. Terrorism should be a nuisance, like organized crime is a nuisance. Sure, it kills people, but most of us don't really worry about it all that much. A mob hit here, a school massacre there, eh, it happens to other people, not to us. Probably.
Disgusting.
Now, the piece de resistance, "We have to get back to the place we were." "We have to get back to the place we were." It bears repeating, "We have to get back to the place we were."
Senator Kerry, the world changed on September 11, 2001. We can't go back. Everybody knows it, it seems, except you.
Mind you, you said it did...
On September 11, 2001, your loved ones and nearly 3,000 others were living out the daily rhythm of life in a nation at peace. And on that morning, in a single moment, they were lost, and our world changed forever.
--John Kerry, September 11, 2004.
...but as anyone who's been paying attention has learned by now, what you say has only a tenuous correlation with what you believe.
I used to think that "September 10 mindset" was just a catchphrase. Now I see that not only is it a real condition, but the Democratic nominee for President suffers from it. He wants to go back, go back to the way things were, go back not to before America was attacked, but before we did anything about it. Back to before the big scary war, back to when we could happily tolerate an embassy bombing here, a car bomb there.
We can't, Senator. Try, for once, to believe the words you mouthed just one month ago, on the third anniversary of the day we woke up. The world changed, and we can't return to peaceful slumber. There's work to do.
And you are not the man to do it.
The thing that kills me is that most of us here who have deconstructed Kerry for months (and yars, in some cases) are not surprised by any of this interview, except that he was stupid enough to state his real philosophy on the record before the election. But I would bet that if the rank and file of the Democratic Party had heard this hooey during the primary season, Kerry wouldn't have come in third in Iowa or New Hampshire. They nominated a lemon, now they have to face the fact that his views are so far out that he can't win.
I wonder if the three 9/11 widows who endorsed Kerry, for whatever reason (probably $$$$), wish they had their endorsements back seeing as how their husbands died in that little annoying incident at the WTC on 9/11?
Losing your husband and the father of your children can be such a nuisance.
Local talk radio guy was mad about this Kery interview.
He said, "Yea, like prostitutes are going to break into my house and chop off my family's heads". (not verbatim, but close).
Rush went ballistic over it today. In fact his rant was so good, he replayed it just to make sure more people heard it.
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.