Rotating Header Image



New Wavy Salute: John Kerry, July 29, 2004
(from original photograph, Reuters /Gary Hershorn)

The speech by John Kerry from last night in Boston, Massachusetts, has been covered and analyzed by this hour, so accept my comments to follow as a response to preposterousness, to what I read this morning in a transcript of that speech from Boston, clearer in print, without the distractions of the theatre of delivery, the sweat and licking tongue of performance.

The sweaty face bothered me, as did, does and always has the flicking tongue that is John Kerry at a podium. Particularly last night from Boston.


Part 1 – Introduction:

(from his youthful experiences in Germany):

“…I felt goose bumps as I got off a military train and heard the Army band strike up “Stars and Stripes Forever.” I learned what it meant to be America at our best. I learned the pride of our freedom. And I am determined now to restore that pride to all who look to America…”

–>> “It” is Kerry’s concept of “America at our best.” Something not defined he then moves forward without evidencing as something that needs to be “restore(d)” (but) to other people, not Americans about America — something (not defined) he speaks about restoring to others. What was lost? When was it lost? Who lost it? Why? Kerry wants to be President of the World? — which explains his intentions from earlier as to “seeking” “approval” by the United Nations for America’s defense posture.

“…My parents inspired me to serve, and when I was a junior in high school, John Kennedy called my generation to service. It was the beginning of a great journey — a time to march for civil rights, for voting rights, for the environment, for women and for peace. We believed we could change the world. And you know what? We did.”

–>> Alright, whatever it was the “world” had, has been changed by Kerry and unspecified persons. Generational, or thereabouts, although I remember the Sixties (was young, but old enough to remember the social turmoil in the latter decade) and what was taking place was that there were young to youngish people in many colleges and universities who hated what the country was at that time (the “establishment”) and from what I know about John Kerry, he was one of those people. They were responsible for denigrating American military personnel. They were responsible for social turmoil and change and a lot of it was not at all productive or even worthwhile.

Kerry makes reference to inspiration by John Kennedy — well and good — but only as to “service” — alright, generally speaking — that “changed the world.” Changed, done, accomplished, concluded, set, if you believe what Kerry is saying there, and that is that he and unnamed others “change(d) the world.”

So, for those of us who remember the Sixties and Seventies or any part of both, we know how times were, what changes happened and when and what they were. Society wasn’t flowery or fun consistently but most often gritty, traumatic even — the “Summer of Love” happiness lasted all of about three months and then humanity took a turn for the dark — politically, it verged on violence in many urban areas and college campuses, there was an explosion of teen pregnancies and teen parents, drug addictions, college dropouts and homelessness and a burgeoning of social welfare rolls because of those. Not all of it was society putting something on hapless persons, but persons losing touch with themselves. And it carried forward for decades afterward.

However, Kerry suggests a misleading picture of those times and his part in those times, and alludes to an odd legacy on his own behalf, one of heroic change. The changes over time were, yes, perhaps heroic as to some aspects of our world but certainly anything but heroic due to many unmanageable social conditions that resulted; but, in the “Kerry proportions,” as to himself as heroic in relationship to those times, it almost seems as if Kerry is writing fiction, and grandiose fiction, at that. ~Almost~.

“…We have it in our power to change the world again. But only if we’re true to our ideals — and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. That is my first pledge to you tonight. As president, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House….”

–>> Kerry thinks “the world” needs “chang(ing)…again.” Why? Was the first “change” that he brought about to the world not effective, or, effective up to and only through a point (what was that point) and when did it become apparent and why that there was another “change” for “the world” due?

–>> He’ll “restore trust and credibility to the White House…” but what about “the world”? He’s changed the world, he says he needs to change the world again, he then says he’ll “restore” (various) to the “the White House.” Leaps and bounds of nonsense and assumptions and nothing defined, specified, but very lofty, very grandiose, very disturbing, actually: the “world” “changed” and in “the White House” “restored…”

“…I ask you to judge me by my record. As a young prosecutor, I fought for victim’s rights and made prosecuting violence against women a priority. When I came to the Senate, I broke with many in my own party to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I fought to put a 100,000 cops on the street…”

–>> Not a good sign. The Democratic Party had to be “broke(n) with,” inorder to do what Kerry concludes was right action. But, judging him “by (his) record,” he apparently wants to appeal here to some Republicans, while to limit the insults to Democrats/his own party as much as possible: sneaky. He was “a prosecutor,” he parted with his own party inorder to accomplish what his party did not — as per Kerry here — so judge him by his record (party loyalists will look past the parting, compromised moderates might find interest, I suppose is what he is going for there).

“…And then I reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to find the truth about our POW’s and missing in action, and to finally make peace with Vietnam…”

–>> “Peace with Vietnam.” Kerry says he “(made) peace with Vietnam.” It’s right there, Kerry declaring credit for having “(made) peace with Vietnam.” I did not know that, that Kerry was responsible for that. Seems irrational a statement to hear from an individual so sophisticated as to be now seeking the Presidency — there’s no information available, that I am aware of, to support the fact that John Kerry “(made) peace with Vietnam.” He was there for four months, then he returned to the Mainland and apparently provided false testimony before Congress about his fellows in service, among other things. I’ve never read or heard from anyone, anywhere, that John Kerry was responsible for “(making) peace with Vietnam”.

“…I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States…”

–>> Kerry and the new DNC are supposedly in their “be uplifting, be upbeat, be nice” phase. Unfortunately, they smiled a lot but their words defiled that new process, because, what I read there is John Kerry making very lowly and scurrilous, nasty even, digs at Vice President Richard Cheney, and, President George Bush, from a variety of angles. The words are written and uttered inorder to move people from one place to another without substantiation. Dishonorable language, Mr. Kerry, nastiness. The “who actually upholds the Constitution…” line is despicably disrespectful to and about Attorney General John Ashcroft, without naming him in apparent method to hype the jibe within the “be nice”-DNC-newness. Still a very vile accusation by deflection.

“…We lifted millions out of poverty and we lifted the standard of living for the middle class. We just need to believe in ourselves — and we can do it again….”

–>> “We” don’t believe in ourselves according to Kerry. Negative campaigning at it’s best: “you need to vote for me because you’ve lost faith in yourself.”

Not attractive selling points. The “middle class” was not “lifted” in standard of living by the undefined “we” that Kerry refers to and does so often. “Lifted” describes a passive class of humanity, carried around like a new handbag by the woman-who-is-the-country, which defines Kerry’s heart.

Rather, as a matter of personal action and effort, not of being carried around — “lifted” like a passive purchase on a conveyor belt of American history — getting to, remaining in, being typified as “middle class” isn’t something that’s bestowed on people. You get there, you motivate, you do. You aren’t carried along or “lifted” into a class — affected by circumstances, yes, but it’s a case of how you deal with what you’re dealt with, not of who carries you around in their wallet or flatbed.

Class warfare, and pitiable imagery of Americans, by Kerry. Not only does he describe a passive class of Americans, he announces that they can be passively transported yet again. Free rides for everyone, he’s saying here, be elevated, and be elevated again, but be passive — be carried along and get stuff.

No reference to a strong individual, to the self responsibility of self reliance, of opportunities. Kerry’s concept of an American seems to be of someone he will take for a ride — the stoner-dialogue of “we can take you there” and also “do it again” suggests a disconnect from a leadership that recognizes independence for the individual as a significant aspect of freedom in a democracy.

“…about Teresa? She has the strongest moral compass of anyone I know…”

–>> This doesn’t mean that “Teresa” HAS a “moral compass,” just that she has “the strongest (one) (John Kerry) know(s).” It’s a relative thing, certainly, and many others have other “moral” perspectives than do John Kerry and/or Teresa Heinz-Kerry. But now we’re being asked by Kerry here to assign “moral” references to Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

We’ve just heard Kerry include on the invoice the clear-coat we didn’t want. It’s not going to retrograde from there — meaning, the campaign is not going to remove the extra candidate before the financing goes through, if they can get your signature on the application.

“…For Teresa and me, no matter what the future holds or the past has given us…”

–>> We KNOW they have billions of dollars, we KNOW that neither of them earned it, WE KNOW that they have been gifted immensely from “the past.” There is nothing quite so offensive as a billionaire who reminds you how special they are. Gratitude would have been nice there.

“…I am accompanied by an extraordinary band of brothers led by that American hero, a patriot named Max Cleland. Our band of brothers doesn’t march together because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers. We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra. We may be a little older now, we may be a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country.

“And standing with us in that fight are those who shared with me the long season of the primary campaign: Carol Moseley Braun, General Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman and Al Sharpton…”

–>> This just isn’t true. It’s salesmanship and illustrious language, but it’s just not truth. Max Cleland’s actual behavior in military service is questionable (he served, yes, but it’s possible that his wounds in service weren’t suffered during battle — doesn’t make him dishonorable but distortions about the facts does); and, everyone is familiar by now with the use and overuse of the phrase, “band of brothers”: thank you, Dreamworks, we KNOW you contribute to John Kerry’s campaign.

About the individuals Kerry names as “standing with (them) in that fight” (what “fight” IS that, by the way, specifically — is that the fight for the country of the Democrats, led by Kerry? A lot of us would like specifics here, because, they aren’t supporting fighting for the country, otherwise), it was only Clark, Gephardt and Lieberman who supported the United States going to war in Iraq, while the others have steadfastly and verbosely opposed the United States military effort in Iraq and in the case of most of them who opposed those efforts, have been among the most critical of the United States in nearly all regards, particularly as to Defense and the military — and Kerry will abandon war on terrorism from March 2004>that includes John Kerry himself. Kerry now saying that these individuals represent a cohesive bunch is irrational at best. Easier to just call it a lie, such as it is.

But, it’s the “new” DNC and they’re suddenly all together in one pot. Alright, for their convention purposes, alright, but don’t expect people to be struck dumb after years of hearing otherwise from and about that merry gang of consorts. Err, band of brothers.

And, that is only “Part 1.”

“Part 2, Military” follows — and “Part 3, 4, 5, 6”.

About that “Part 2, Military” topic, though, to just brush the surface here: John Kerry should be ashamed of his persistence in using a four month stay in Vietnam for ongoing campaign makeover — which he tried to postpone so he could spend a year in Paris instead and during which he just may have SELF INFLICTED two of his three “wounds”.

It’s despicable usery; having known and known well many people who have served in the military and suffered — some of whom have died doing so and they devoted far more of themselves to military service than four months and two self-inflicted wounds — I can’t begin to compare Kerry’s “war history” and service record (what we know about that) with that of other, realtime heroes.

(Insert: buy and read “Unfit For Command” .)

Kerry lost faith in his country during the Vietnam War. He protested his country and criticised military actions, and now he asks that we believe he’s a military hero who knows where the country should go and how. I say, he is still ashamed of the United States. If not ashamed, why the insistence that he’ll “restore” us?

It’s Kerry who needs to be restored. Because, his words as follows surely read like an enemy’s call to opposing forces, from across a field, for whom the bell will toll. As in, seems laden with doom:

“…To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say, help is on the way…”

–>> That sounds like a threat to American military, similar to that deployed by Tokyo Rose in World War II. Our military are helpless? They’re unable? That’s the message that Kerry’s mantra of “help is on the way” impresses upon others, as to the U.S. military.

“As president…we will deploy every tool in our arsenal…”

–>> That seems to indicate that Kerry has his eye on the Bomb, but, most importantly, who is his target? If friend or foe, Mr. Ready-Bomb is a questionable personality, indeed, when campaigning upon a “no war” standard — or, rather, “war” in the Mr. Ready-Bomb fashion is alright, what? What DOES Kerry represent, really? Like many Mr. Ready-Bomb personalities that our world has known over time, they are all determined to have the power to be Mr. Ready-Bomb, and damn the reasons why, but in Kerry’s case, he’s already established a huge standard of disrespect for U.S. military deployment, so, he’s reliance suddenly on “a strong defense” line and referencing “deploy(ment) of every tool in our arsenal” seems reckless, at best).

“In these dangerous days” — (more threatening language) — “…there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security(he didn’t attend a majority of the Security Council meetings that were held after 09/11)I know the reach of our power…” — (more threatening language, but, again, it’s not established by Kerry that it isn’t “America” and/or “Americans” he intends to threaten).

“…We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances…” — (the majority of those who served with Kerry during his four-month stint in Vietnam do not support him as Commader In Chief) — “…And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win…” — (oh, like THAT will make terrorists stop doing what they do).

“…Our purpose now is to reclaim democracy itself…”

–>> “…reclaim democracy” from who, by whom, and when did who lose claim to democracy, such that (unnamed identity) “is to reclaim” it?.

John Kerry, Teresa and the new DNC-Pacman Board Game, making war on America, ~with heart~.

6 C O M M E N T S

  1. -S- says:

    I’m sure Moore made the choice in paper title (“The Pentagraph”) first and then aimlessly Photoshopped whatever he could for to bang the point he imagined people would be most “emotionally” involved with.

    Something about The Pentagraph suing Moore for $1 seems sorta more involved with the problem than the solution…it looks like ~someone~ wants to add fire to the fire, is what I’m saying.

    I took a look at a few of the comments on Yahoo, associated with that story, and liberals are demeaning the significance of that one particular Moore lie (like, “is that all you Republicans can find about the film to criticize” and similar).

    I’m wondering if that’s an invitation. Reams of exposes about Moore and yet liberals still don’t appear to be able to read anything and so the ~power~ of Moore’s loony visuals and evil (because it is) voice-over remain. Remeber “Captain Howdy” from “The Exorcist”? Might be the source of Moore’s weight problem.

  2. -S- says:

    HA! That story about Moore showing his film “for free” to Fidel and Fidel to his people, ALLAH IS IN THE HOUSE wrote a funny bit about that Thursday (see July 29, 2004 entry):

    “In the worker’s paradise, all good things are free”… with the interesting choice of photo used by Reuters, the Cuban housewife with a plethora of children, watching Moore on the set in her worker’s paradise apartment…~FREE, IT’S FREE!~

  3. Envoy-ette says:

    Nice to know I’m not alone in this line of thinking. Keeping fingers crossed at the next election. Keep a good man in office!