T Nation

liberals, kerry, and Hypocrisy

I am thoroughly enjoying this election cycle. It highlights SO MUCH HYPOCRISY INHERENT IN THE dEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!
Issue Number one: democrats highlighting kerry’s vietnam war record. I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS ONE!!! The same hippies and children of hippies who are now supporting kerry as a vietnam Veteran, are some of the same people who spit on our serviceman and called them all sorts of horrible names from 1964 on. ARE YOU GUYS KIDDING ME??? This is pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy.
As an aside, do you guys think George W. Bush will win 99.9 or 99.95% of the veteran vote? Maybe we should start a poll.
Issue number two: john kerry as a populist. MY GOD, HE IS ONE OF THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES!!! He married into BIG TIME MONEY (AKA HEINZ). He is all for the “common man.” Besides, his large staff of paid housecleaners, pedicurists, etc…, WHAT DOES THIS GUY KNOW ABOUT THE “COMMON MAN?!?” This is what we call translucent, grab-your-crotch, straight-up, HYPOCRISY!!!
Again, I am enjoying this election cycle tremedously. Good luck,
hillary in 2004!!!

let the hating begin

US=GG,
Do you have an argument? You’re just spouting your “feelings.” What are you, a liberal?

those same democrats are now criticizing george-dub because he allegedly didnt report to duty for a couple of years while he was in the service.

you make a great point. these tree hugging, hippies were completley against the war, now they are trying to use it to their advantage.

has anyone noticed that the only time you see integrity in the white house is in the movies

Your priorties are out of line. I could give a #### if my president is a vetran or not, what I do care about is how he stands on certain issues. Also, instead of feeling bad for service man who were “spit” on in the 60’s by “hippies”, how about you think about how prospective leaders plan to deal with international deplomacy, domestic issues etc. Also whats this “common man” bull****, 99 percent of poloticians are rich. I think this says more about our elective system and goverment’s organization, than anything. You are looking at things like their black and white, or a tabloid “journalist”.

p.s
also if you havent been paying attention, george is a ex coke head, spoiled, comes from the dynasty of an oil family, a draft dodger during vietnam and speaks like he’s retarded. oh yeah also my uncle was one of these service men who was “spit” on by hippies while he attended stanford university after a tour of vietnam in the special forces, and his expereince doenst change his political views.

I am thoroughly enjoying this election cycle. It highlights SO MUCH HYPOCRISY INHERENT IN THE dEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!
Issue Number one: democrats highlighting kerry’s vietnam war record. I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS ONE!!! The same hippies and children of hippies who are now supporting kerry as a vietnam Veteran, are some of the same people who spit on our serviceman and called them all sorts of horrible names from 1964 on. ARE YOU GUYS KIDDING ME??? This is pure, unadulterated, hypocrisy.
As an aside, do you guys think George W. Bush will win 99.9 or 99.95% of the veteran vote? Maybe we should start a poll.
Issue number two: john kerry as a populist. MY GOD, HE IS ONE OF THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES!!! He married into BIG TIME MONEY (AKA HEINZ). He is all for the “common man.” Besides, his large staff of paid housecleaners, pedicurists, etc…, WHAT DOES THIS GUY KNOW ABOUT THE “COMMON MAN?!?” This is what we call translucent, grab-your-crotch, straight-up, HYPOCRISY!!!
Again, I am enjoying this election cycle tremedously. Good luck,
hillary in 2004!!!

Yes, what better example of “hate” than blatant partisanship…

I think you have to chill out though, US=GG. (I guess you’d have to start by changing your email handle.) The political meaning of Vietnam in American history is such that it regards many men as great both for fighting in the war and for fighting against it. The issue may become not the justice of Vietnam (the majority of Americans do not appreciate our involvement in Southeast Asia) but the exact nature of Kerry’s criticism of the War. He cited false testimony about atrocities done by American soldiers and marched on Washington under the flags of the Viet Cong, which killed our soldiers and committed those same attrocities as a matter of POLICY. There are a lot of Vietnam Vets who don’t like him for this. I’m not aware whether Kerry has apologized for the particular way he protested the War. Also, there’s that weird issue of him not admitting he hadn’t actually thrown away his medals.

I do find it incredible that the Democrats are putting up Kerry’s Vietnam experience as military qualifications for the office of C.I.C., when this guy has been diffident and evasive on EVERY vote of war since he entered the Senate. Everyone has to support a war before Kerry will. He hasn’t shown that he has the stomach for war. Vietnam probably took it out of him, as it did for many people.

As to the rich-guy thing, that’s something Republicans always wave in the face of Democratic populism. If you fight for the poor, it doesn’t matter how much money you have. John Edwards came from a humble beginnings, won millions of dollars in lawsuits against big corporations, and suddenly he’s a “multimillionaire hypocrite” (similarly, Howard Dean criticizes Edwards for being a “Washington insider” for serving 4 years of his single Senate term). However, John Kerry was notoriously stingy before he married Teresa Heinz, and gave one year $125 to charity when he bought a +$8000 motorcyle. I think his average percent of annual income to charity was 1% before he married into the Heinz philantropy. So this issue might help show that with Kerry, political expediency trumps all.

The real hypocrisy is in Kerry’s declared war on the special interests, since he’s the worst of them on the Democratic side. This was Dean’s message and John Edwards’ also, and they would have made honest, and I think more effective (at least in Edwards’ case), representatives of this cause.

And on Bush’s side, the great hypocrisy is in domestic spending. He’s Nixon again, dropping money everywhere to keep everybody happy enough so that he can go ahead on his narrow agenda. I wonder how the Democrats are going to explain that Bush isn’t spending ENOUGH on social programs! Strange political landscape this year, thanks to Florida, 9-11 and Iraq.

haha, someone sounds worried…

I think somebody has been listening to too much “Lush Bimbaugh”.

Kerry has a Purple heart and a Silver Star and is a legitimate war hero. When he came back he was with VietNam Veterans Against the War. History has proven that Viet Nam was a huge clusterfuck that overall caused more harm than good. I can’t believe the Repugs want to talk about military records, when Bush admits he was too chicken to blast his eardrums with a shotgun, in order to get a deferrment. Instead his Congressman father bought Shrub a pass.

Hey US=GG, did you see Bush on Meet the press? He did everything but DROOL on himself. I wish I had a nickel for every time he said “Ummm…” and his voice trailed off. He looked like a deer that was caught in the headlights.

Where ya been? Tracking down those WMDs I guess…

Lumpy,
Just out of curiosity, did you skip over my post? I think you should research exactly how (and with whom) John Kerry protested the War. Many of those Vets who feel that they were sent off to fight in an unjust, or ill-considered war, don’t like Kerry for this reason.

Lumpy, I’d like to hear you explain why it should matter that Kerry was a war hero, but not that he marched alongside people who spit on his fellow war heroes and told lies about their conduct, and marched under the flag of those who maimed and butchered them. Has Kerry apologized? Has he said that Vietnam was wrong, but that he didn’t protest it in the right way?

Here’s Bush on Meet the Press. Look at how puny he looks. He has a real used-car-salesman vibe, I don’t know why people can’t see throught his guy. That is the best we can do for leadership?

Brian Smith- A lot of people were against the Viet Nam war. I was too young to be aware politically so I have no personal knowledge about those times.

The white supremacists will support Bush in this election. Should we draw any paralells between the two? What I am getting at is this: If Kerry didn’t actually spit on someone, then I don’t get your comments about spitting. I know a lot of vets have forgiven anti-war vets for their stance, so I don’t know what your hangup is.

If anyone would know the score about Viet Nam it would be John Kerry, he was actually there in the middle of the shit.

Lumpy, there were different ways to criticize the Vietnam War, different groups, different petitions, etc… A person doesn’t have to march under a VC flag to march on Washington. Let’s say I want to protest Affirmative Action program at a particular university, would it be significant if I lead a crew which raises a Confederate flag at the protest?

How a person chooses to voice his opposition says something about his character, assuming he doesn’t make amends. If a candidate says, “the U.S. committed attrocities during the war,” that’s different from saying (hypothetically), “on May 19, 1969 Divisions A and B from Battalian…killed women and children” when that particular incident never occurred, was simply made up to defame the U.S. government. John Kerry backed up such false accusations when testifying before the Senate. There’s a difference between accepting our nation’s wrongdoing and accepting blame for any FICTITIOUS event. Ask a Vietnam Vet who condemns the War whether he does not agree.

BTW, if it’s not obvious, I personally don’t approve of the Vietnam War. It was the wrong place to make the stand against Communism.

Brian Smith,
You seem like a decent person. I appreciated your posts.
I have enjoyed watching the democrats try to rally behind kerry. Have you noticed that they have “glazed over” all of their differences in their quest to unseat George Bush? The democratic party is in shambles with no message and no leadership. It’s fun watching them squirm.
You ask five democrats about Iraq, and you get five different answers. They would rather focus on how a man speaks, rather than what he says. In the mind of a democrat it’s style over substance. It’s hilarious to watch them try to back kerry. This guy has exactly zero style.
I’m beginning to think this guy will turn out to be another dukakis. Remember, how they called him, “The Duke?” Remember him smirking at George Senior? God, that was fun. Maybe even another mondale. I’ll never forget Ronald Reagan looking at him, shaking his head, and saying, “Here we go again.” That was even more fun.
This election season promises to throw into sharp focus the divisions and hypocrises in the democratic party. I look forward to pointing out some of the more glaring of them. It’s going to be a fun ride!!!

hillary/ted kennedy/nancy pelosi/algore in 2004!!!

From the NY Times editorial page no less: Kerry and Special interests (not sure, but you may need to register to read it):

Sounds like one from the Clinton playbook.

I don’t necessarily find it hypocritical for a rich man to be a populist. Is he supposed to apologize for having money? Is he supposed to burn it all, or send it off to starving kids in Bangladesh? Should he divorce his wife and marry someone poor so he can earn your respect as a “genuine” populist?

Kerry says we have a moral duty to fight poverty. If he’s going to do that once he’s in office, why should I give a fuck if he has money or not?

He may be lucky, but having money doesn’t make someone a bad person. Don’t be a player-hater.

US=GG, I just don’t share your nostalgia over Dukakis and Mondale’s resounding defeats. In those elections, I wish the Democrats had put forward better candidates (though I do have to give Reagan SOME credit in foreign policy). You write:

“Have you noticed that they [the Democrats] have “glazed over” all of their differences in their quest to unseat George Bush? The democratic party is in shambles with no message and no leadership. It’s fun watching them squirm.”

And I agree with everything here but the last sentence. I think it’s a sorry state of affairs, with cynicism and image winning over belief and substance. It would be better for the country if both parties gave us sensible and coherent leadership, albeit in distinctly different directions. Right now, as President, John Edwards I think could change our domestic priorities for the better, but it doesn’t seem that he is going to win. The Democrats are charmed by Kerry’s momentum, which was born only as a hasty option when the people in Iowa and NH got buyer’s remorse about Dean. This is not a good reason to pick someone to be President.

I know you want to reassure yourself, US=GG, but make no mistake, it’s going to be a close one. Half the country despises George W. Bush so much that they are willing to stand firmly behind John Kerry, who hasn’t proven he can stand staunchly behind anything.

Good link, ScottL.

United States=Good Guys, you know how democrats think, your a genius!

Brian Smith
I don’t exactly know what you are trying to claim… that John Kerry LIED to Congress during his testimony? Is that your claim?

Kerry said other soldiers reported atrocities to him. Who exactly is lying? I’d like to hear you get a little more specific with your accusations.

Also, you say Kerry “marched under a VC flag”. Your accusations are pretty vague. Are you saying Kerry carried a VC flag? Or that he was at a march where someone else carried a VC flag?

Since THOUSANDS of people would march on Washington to protest the war, I don’t get your point. That Kerry should have walked away from the march because somewhere in the crowd, somebody had a VC flag? If so, that is a ridiculous and laughable accusation.

Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. You actually want to condemn him for marching in a demonstration where somebody else carried a VC flag?

The proper discription is “Sandal wearing,Granola munching,Bunny hugging Liberals”

WSJ Editorial Monday, February 9, 2004

Kerry’s Medals Strategy

In case you’ve been busy making a living, the Presidential campaign is in full swing, and it’s already getting nasty. Likely Democratic nominee John Kerry set the tone for his autumn candidacy yesterday by disparaging President Bush’s military service.
“The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don’t have the answer to that question,” the Massachusetts Senator declared at a news conference while campaigning in Virginia. “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question.”
We assume Mr. Bush can defend himself on this point, since it’s been raised many times before. As he noted yesterday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” his military-service records are open and the press has combed through them going back to his first campaign for Texas governor in 1994. Mr. Bush flew jets for the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s, and while his unit was never dispatched to Vietnam, flying any fighter aircraft is not exactly a risk-free exercise.

The far more intriguing story here is why Mr. Kerry is playing this Vietnam-service card. This is the same John Kerry who declared in 1992 that Bill Clinton’s draft-avoidance record should be out of political bounds. His precise words, defending Mr. Clinton against an attack from fellow Democrat Bob Kerrey at the time, were that “We do not need to divide America over who served and how.” Why does he now want to assail Mr. Bush for service that was far more extensive than Mr. Clinton’s?

The transparent answer is that the Senator is trying to use his Vietnam biography as a political shield against his national-security voting record. Mr. Kerry has a proud record as a Navy lieutenant from that troubled war, including medals for valor and three Purple Hearts. His advisers no doubt hope to use this as a kind of political trump on the vital question of whether he should be commander-in-chief. To this end, he has draped himself on the stump with veterans and routinely invokes his own war record. As Mr. Kerry’s antiwar friends used to say during the 1960s, the personal is the political.

Especially in the wake of September 11, the commander-in-chief standard has returned in the minds of voters in a way it hasn’t been since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. That tends to be an advantage for Republicans, who every poll shows have a nearly two-to-one credibility edge over Democrats on national security. We all remember Mike Dukakis in that famous tank. Mr. Kerry (who was Mr. Dukakis’s lieutenant governor) wants voters to focus on his medals, not his voting record.
We rather doubt this gambit will work, and it shouldn’t. A candidate’s service history is one window on his character, but far more important is his judgment on the major security issues of his time. In Mr. Kerry’s case, he has taken the dovish side of nearly every foreign-policy debate since he entered public life.

After fighting in Vietnam, he returned to lead the protests against that war and urge the U.S. withdrawal that turned Indochina over to Communist rule for a generation. He was in favor of the nuclear-freeze movement in the 1980s that would have frozen the Cold War in place with a Soviet advantage. He denounced the invasion of Grenada in 1983, though he now cites it as an example of a use of force he favors. He also opposed U.S. support for anti-Communist movements in Central America in the 1980s that helped bring democracy to Nicaragua and elsewhere.
These policy instincts have held even after the Soviet collapse vindicated the Ronald Reagan strategy that Mr. Kerry opposed. The Senator voted against the first Gulf War, arguing that Saddam Hussein could be contained without force. But in 2002 he voted to give this President Bush the power to disarm Saddam, only to oppose a year later the $87 billion to finish the job. We’d argue that these votes say more about the policies and judgment of a future President Kerry than does his Navy career.

A record of military service deserves to be respected, but it shouldn’t be a kind of sovereign political immunity. Mr. Kerry in particular may want to avoid making the personal too political, because his own post-Vietnam behavior will also come under scrutiny. Throwing away someone else’s medals as if they were his own says something about character too.

All indications are that this election is going to include the most important national-security debate in a generation. September 11 exposed America’s acute vulnerability to terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, and Mr. Bush has pursued a strategy to defend against it. Senator Kerry and his fellow Democrats have every right to attack that strategy and offer better ideas for fighting global terrorism, if they can. But the debate ought to be about who has the best policies to keep America safe, not who won the most medals 30 years ago.

Updated February 9, 2004