Monday, September 13, 2004

Kerry's upcoming moral loss

John Kerry will lose the election.

The loss won't be so much a political loss as it will be a moral one.

It didn't have to be that way, at all. We would have all been better served if the election campaign were a real one, contrasting ideas and philosophies about the nature of government.

Healthy debate, disagreement and differing visions have always moved the country forward. Win or lose, opposing candidates from the political arena have contributed to the forward movement of our society.

This campaign is different because it isn't about ideas as much as it is about personalities.

On no occasion has John Kerry acknowledged the reality that President Bush has struck a chord with voters. At no time did John Kerry credit the President for having done anything of merit during his first four years in office. Whatever scandal/debate that surround possibly forged documents, Mr. Kerry has never acknowledged the President's service in the Air National Guard as honorable.


Had John Kerry not pandered to far left wing of his party and said, "The President is fighting a moral war in Iraq and I stand behind him," John Kerry's voice would have resonated with the population. Had he come out and said, "We will not allow the war on terror to divide our nation," Mr. Kerry would have acknowledged truths that do not escape most Americans.

Had he acknowledged those truths in a clear and uneqivical way, instead of doing a complicated two step and shuffle that fools no one and that no one other than he understands, he would have had the moral credibility to say, "Where my opponent and I differ..." or We differ on domestic issues..."

Would these things been have so difficult to say? Not really. In form or another, Mr. Kerry has said as much. Instead of being forthright however, he chose to pander to the far left, giving them what they wanted to hear, rather than the truth. Further, he chose to do it in a way that only highlighted the moral paucity of his campaign.

No right minded person really believes the President lied about WMD. At worst, he was the victim of poor intelligence. There was no intent to deceive anyone.

Mr. Kerry's supporters parrot the line that the war was about oil. It wasn't, of course. Had the war been about oil, we'd have cheaper gas prices at the pumps. Further, if it were really about oil, the US would have voted to lift sanctions on Iraq and saved 200 plus billion dollars in war costs. Mr. Kerry knows this and stays silent, implying credibility to hose false arguments.

Mr. Kerry made his service in Vietnam an issue, wanting to contrast himself with the President's Air National Guard service. As soon as the issue he raised came under scrutiny, he complained bitterly. He wants his activities as an anti war activist that lied under oath to Congress off limits to discussion. He refuses to acknowledge that those efforts were not only hurtful to veterans, but in some cases, may have extended the POW status of others. His 'moral' stand, he believes, exonerate him from any criticism. All the while of course, Mr. Bush's indiscretions as a young man are fair game for criticism to the Kerry people.

A friend of mine relayed a conversation he had with a veteran. Although anecdotal, it is telling. Veterans aren't as enamored of Mr. Kerry as he would like you to believe. As my friend was told, medals are taken seriously by service people. The men who returned as amputees and less than whole resent John Kerr's touting of his three purple hearts some of which were for injuries most would brush off.

As I said earlier, opposition is always a good thing. Mr. Kerry had the opportunity to present himself as a viable alternative had he told the truth about what he believed in. Instaed, he made a choice not to be honest. It is a huge moral flaw.

Notwithstanding the public facade, I believe John Kerry knows he's lost.

As with everything else he does, his actions are self serving. He is in damage control mode, trying to minimize the gap of the loss he knows is coming. His choice for VP is in NC, his home state- a state that Mr. Kerry will lose. Mr. Edwards is not in a battleground state, trying drum up important votes. He knows he can have no real effect there. The superb, if immoral trial lawyer that he is, John Edwards knows a loser when he sees one. There is no point in his further sullying his own name in places that don't know him. Mr. Edwards is looking ahead, strategizing for his next campaign, whatever that may be.

Mr. Kerry is hoping John Edwards will be able to narrow the gap in NC so as to make his VP choice appear as a credible one. Al Gore, who lost Tennessee, his home state, serves as a embarssing reminder of foolhardy political indifference and disconnect. It is all however, in vain.

In the end, John Kerry's and the Democrats loss will be as a direct result of the choices made on how to campaign. They were immoral and not political blunders. It was a choice to attack the messenger, not the message.

This will prove to be a wasted election cycle.

Although not a Democrat, I do hope the party learns from it's mistakes. It will serve the nation if they do.

I have to admit to being doubtful, but I am hopeful.




Wandering Mind

may not be suitable for political vegans