Politics of Reason

Do the Democrats Still Believe in Democracy? They certainly shout enough about John Ashcroft’s supposed suppression of it. But if you read about their plans to disrupt the Republican convention, you have to wonder (read about it here). I’m not talking about the all-American pastime of protesting – that right is guaranteed by our constitution and, I believe is a sign of a healthy, free democracy. I am talking about explicit attempts to disrupt or shut down the Republican convention. If you browse their websites, they seem to feel they are completely within their rights because the Republicans are evil. If you don’t believe me, check out www.democraticunderground.com and www.rncnotwelcome.org. Some will say these are just fringe groups. Fair enough, but I don’t see John Kerry denouncing their tactics. Democratic Underground is actually linked from the official Kerry Blog website.

And when it comes to registering voters the Democrats seem intent on cheating. Read
this and this Then today we have what looks like the Dean poeple sending out a fake Bush campaign e-mail here.

Here is a formula for wining the 2004 presidential election. Get all the votes of people who are against the war and many of the votes of people for the war. Sound crazy? Well in happens to be John Kerry's campaign strategy. He is counting on the fact that people tend to hear what they want to hear. In July 4 opinion piece for the Washington Post, John Kerry stated:

“Our military performed brilliantly in the war's first mission: ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. And all Americans share President Bush's desire for Iraqis to live with the blessings of democracy and security.”

It is of course followed with a “but” and goes on to argue how Kerry thinks President Bush is following the wrong policies to win in Iraq. (Interestingly Kerry, among other things says that we should send more GI's to Iraq). I disagree with Kerry’s criticism of President Bush, but am glad to see the debate on this level - how can we as Americans defeat our enemy and help our friends.

The problem is the same John Kerry recently also said:

"What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990s, the fact that we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed?"

These messages are for different audiences. The Dean fans, the MoveOn.com followers, the Michael Moore believers, in other words the angry leftist core of the Democratic Party are supposed to hear the latter message, that like under Bill Clinton, under the Kerry administration there will be no young Americans deployed for war anywhere. They will dismiss the former statement as posturing to get the middle America vote. Middle America – the swing voters who do not identify strongly with either party are supposed to hear the former message. These voters might be convinced that there is a better way to defend our country, but will never vote for someone who proposes surrender. Kerry is counting on these voters tuning out or not noticing the later message and they just might. You can fool some of the people some of the time …

But I ask any serious voter planning or considering voting for John Kerry, do you know what his real position is on the Iraq war and what he will really do? He has changed his position so many times for political expediency that I challenge anyone to make a prediction with certainty. What will he do when faced with a 9/11 type crisis which, in out dangerous world, highly likely?

Related links:

Kerry on Iraq
Kerry statements
More Kerry statements
Democrats: Throwing a Temper Tantrum
Rich Lowry puts it better than I can

The mantra of the far left and the Kerry campaign is “Bush lied”. It seems that if President Bush or Vice President Cheney state an opinion about realty that the left currently disagrees with, they call it a lie. For example the Africa/yellow cake statement in the State of the Union speech (see previous post) and that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America (which Kerry and Edwards previously agreed with). Kerry et al seem to consider it completely acceptable for one of their own to make statements that are clearly not true as long as the further the greater cause of ridding the country of George Bush. Witness the left’s embrace of Michael Moore’s conspiracy theory movie and of Move On (Bush is the same as Hitler video). John Kerry, as reported in the Washington Post recently said that he had “not stood up and attacked our opponents in personal ways” but in the same week accused Bush of lying, professional laziness, waiting until election time to indict Enron CEO Ken Lay, and lacking values.

At a fund raiser in New York the other day Whoopi Goldberg and other celebrities insulted President Bush in X-rated terms. Kerry later said, “Obviously some performers, in my judgment and John's, stepped over a line neither of us believes appropriate, but we can't control that. On the other hand, we understand the anger, we understand the frustration." Translate “To you middle America suckers, we are respectable mainstream politicians and want your vote, To you the hard core left who are our true constituency, we agree with your rants.” While Goldgerb and company vented their anger, Edwards and Kerry cheered wildly and counted the cash donated. Hopefully someone while come up with video from this event as all reports say it was extremely crude. If anyone locates such video, let us know.

Even the Washington Post ain't buying Kerry's nuances anymore.

How many times have we heard that? The most common reference is to what he said in his State of the Union speech about Saddam Hussein trying to buy yellow cake in Africa. As it turns out it is the accusers that are the liars (read here in the Washington Post and here on Blogs for Bush and here on Matt Margolis and here on sisu). Will this be on the front page of the New York Times? You will note that I am not holding my breath.

Jonathan Edwards is being proclaimed the Democratic Party's messenger to the middle class. Mr. Edwards is an eloquent speaker, but he is wrong for the middle class.

Mr. Edwards sympathizes with middle America's growing medical bills, but he is a major cause of that increase. As a trial lawyer he made a fortune bringing, I would argue, questionable medical malpractice lawsuits. Most of his winnings come from suing doctors claiming infant delivery caused cerebral palsy. According to a 2003 study by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the vast majority of cases can not be blamed on delivery trouble. With his talking skills, I can see how Mr. Edwards could sway juries despite bad science, but the end result is lots of money for him and higher medical bills for the rest of us.

Mr. Edwards also sympathizes with middle America's struggle to afford daily necessities, but he would increase those costs. During his Senate career he has been a strong proponent of trade barriers. That may help a few mill workers in North Carolina, but would cost the rest of us plenty. Instead of buying a $7 shirt made in Honduras, Mr. Edwards would have me pay $50 for the same shirt made by someone in Raleigh.

I can understand why John Kerry chose him. The wealthy trial lawyers of America will now line up to fund the Democratic campaign in hopes of a jackpot lawsuit friendly administration. Also Mr. Kerry hopes that, like those malpractice juries, Mr. Edwards can sway voters even with faulty and contradictory policies.