thomas

Linda Chavez (a very smart lady) points out the futility of Kerry's
hypocrisy attempting to paint himself as a "warrior" while having
voted against the Iraq action in 1991. She also points out the
general hypocrisy of the Democrats, of which there are many, many
examples. (Thomas)

Linda Chavez (Former Labor Secretary)


Kerry's attempt to remake Dems as 'party of warriors' is failing

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | John Kerry, the junior senator from
Massachusetts who would be president, wants us to know that he's a war
hero and George W. Bush isn't. This week, Kerry formally announced his
bid for the Democratic nomination using the aircraft carrier USS
Yorktown as his backdrop.


Kerry surrounded himself with some of the men he served with in
Vietnam, where he earned a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple
Hearts. He then used the occasion to launch an all-out assault on the
integrity of the present Commander-in-Chief.


"George Bush's vision does not live up to the America I enlisted in
the Navy to defend," Kerry told the crowd of supporters gathered at
Patriot's Point, S.C. The line was meant to remind us that Bush served
in the National Guard, while Kerry was busy dodging bullets on a
gunboat in Vietnam. Kerry then went on to accuse the president of
lying to the American people and of misleading the U.S. Congress about
the war in Iraq.


The Democrats have a problem Americans aren't sure whether to trust
them when it comes to defending the United States, and with good
reason. Since the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party has become the
Peace-at-Any-Cost Party. After September 11, 2001, this position
became politically untenable, so some Democrats have tried to recast
themselves as willing to defend the United States against its enemies.
As a bona fide war hero, Kerry looked poised to assume the role as
leader of the new, more hawkish Democratic pack the party's only hope
to challenge a successful wartime president.


Bush led the country through the horrific days after September 11 with
remarkable strength and resolve. He drove the Taliban and much of
al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. He organized a worldwide effort to cut off
funds to terrorist organizations and capture terrorist leaders. And he
won the war in Iraq even if he has not yet totally secured the peace
there.

The only way the Democrats can beat this record is by convincing the
American people that: a) it didn't happen; b) if it did happen, Bush
had nothing to do with it; or c) it shouldn't have happened in the
first place. The last argument seems to be Kerry's preferred
explanation for the success of the war in Iraq.


Kerry is one of only 29 Democratic senators to vote for the latest war
in Iraq though he voted with the majority of his party against the
1991 Iraq war. "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam
Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations," Kerry told
the crowd in front of the USS Yorktown. It was an odd way of putting
it as if he voted only to threaten force, never intending to use.
What's more, he claims he only voted that way because Bush deceived
him. In effect, Kerry says he was duped.


The last time a presidential candidate claimed to have been duped on
something this important was in 1967, when Michigan Republican Gov.
George Romney said he had been "brainwashed" by the military into
supporting the war in Vietnam. The blunder took him out of contention
for the presidential nomination. Perhaps it will do the same thing for
John Kerry.


John Kerry can't have it both ways. If he wants to run as the genuine
war hero, he can't run away from his own vote to support the war. If
he wants to stand up for the soldiers who have defended this country,
he can't claim the victories they secured in Afghanistan and Iraq are
meaningless. And if he's going to accuse the Commander-in-Chief of
lying, he better not lie to make his own case.


Kerry's campaign has been faltering badly in recent months. After a
promising start, he's now behind in the polls and in fundraising. Not
even a good aircraft carrier photo-op is likely to keep his campaign
afloat. And if Kerry goes down, so does the hope that the Democrats
will finally erase their image as the party of protestors, not
warriors.

ALOHA

Reply to group
(Unsolicited e-mail is deleted unread)

barbara walker

Kerry is very French-looking, even though he claims to be "a Vietnam Vet" at
every opportunity. Apparently he must feel the American People don't
believe him when he claims to have "served in Vietnam", because he keeps
saying it over and over again, like a spoiled little child.

Which is probably what he is - he's the richest man in the Senate, and he
married into money. A veritable golddigger. Didn't earn his fortune
himself. Instead engaged in a process whereby somebody else's wealth was
transferred to someone who had not himself earned it. Come to think of it,
that's what the Democrats do all the time, isn't it - use a process (the
federal tax code) by which they transfer wealth from a person who earned it
to a person who had not earned it.

That process is called Socialism or Marxism, in fact.

alohacyberian

That is, Kerry claims he was too lazy or too stupid to make an intelligent
decision in spite of the fact he had access to the same intelligence the
president had.

Nonetheless, Kerry isn't a viable candidate for president. Winning
candidates must have charisma. Does Kerry have charisma? No. Did Gerald
Ford have Charisma? Well, a little bit, but, Jimmy Carter had more. Carter
beat Ford. In the following election, did Carter still have charisma? Yes,
but, Ronald Reagan had more. Reagan won. When Reagan ran for re-election,
did Walter Mondale have charisma? No, he had less than George McGovern and
Hubert H. Humphrey who ran against Nixon and Ford. Did Reagan's
vice-president, George H. W. Bush have charisma? Yes. Did his major
contender, George Dukakis have charisma? Yes, until the opened his mouth and
spoiled it. So Bush won. And in the next election did William Jefferson
Clinton have charisma? Yes, in spades. Did Clinton beat Bush? Yes, indeed.
Did Gore have charisma? Not much. Anyway, he lost. Now in the next
election, does Kerry have charisma? Not much. Forget him. Of the
Democrats, who has charisma? Well, John Dean. Can he win the nomination?
Yes, if the Democrats agree to sell out to the Leftwing. Will he beat Bush?
Not a chance, the country isn't about to sell out the country to a Leftwing
Liberal. So, of the 9 Democrat candidates, who else has charism? Well, ****
Gephardt. Can he beat Bush? Probably, so the question is, will the
Democrats give him the nomination? Unlikely at this time, but, things could
change. Well, what about Hillary Clinton? If she runs this time, she may
very well get the Democrat nomination. That would be the best thing for any
Republican candidate. She'll lose. Does she have charisma? Nope. So the
only 2 Democrat candidates who have a chance against Bush are Dean and
Gephardt? Yup. Does Bush have charisma? A little. More than Dean and
Gephardt? Dunno, but, the results of the next election will answer that
question. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

martin w. smith

He has negative charisma. He has charisn'tma.

Wesley Clark can win.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
http://www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email: mws@computas.com

tom aldrich

You give the word charisma the wrong meaning, charisma is something that dupes
people like a Hitler. Reagan is best example for not having charisma, what Reagan
had was "flair/style", Reagan knew how to deliever a line as well as when to
deliever a line. Reagan never held anyone spellbound per-say, but very very few
people did'nt admire Reagans delievery. When Reagan ran againest Carter, to be
blunt, Reagan made Carter a laughing stock.
I have no idea what the Democrats were thinking when they ran Mondale againest
Reagan.
Carter was an idiot who got into office based on fear and reactive of Nixon. Ford
did the right thing in pardoning Nixon and if the voters would have paid more
attention, Ford should of won.
Speaking of which, Nixon was aweful compared to Humprey, as for speech delievery
and so forth old "Buttonmouth" ran circles arround Nixon. Humprey lacked
substance.
As for McGovern vs. Nixon, McGovern was an one issue candidate and Nixon pulled
off a coup in regards to Viet-nam. Nixon just out right out manuvered McGovern
and made him a fool.
Dukaikes or what ever his name was, the man was an idiot, hands down for Bush Sr.
on that one.
Bush beat Bush vs. Clinton, if Bush had put up a half way decent fight he could
of won. But Bush seemed tired during that champaign, almost like he did'nt want
to win.
Dole just came across as to mean, Billy just basically charmed himself past that
one.
Now for Gore vs. Bush, talk about boring, Gore should of been able to pull that
election off if he had the least bit of substance of personality. Bush did'nt
beat Gore, again a case of the candidate just plain beating himself, and Gore
gave the impression that he was'nt the type you wanted arround if a criss'es did
occur.
Now as for Dean, I'll give Dean hands down on delievery, techinique and so forth
and Dean will show strong popularity at start. Then when Dean really starts to
sound like a broken record replaying the "Great Society", Bush will just plain
out-manervere him.
And that Democratic Convention that nominates Dean, let me put it this way
"ass-clown" Rene will just have a field day insulting those delegates. Be
prepared to compare Wellstones funeral to that convention. Wellstone enjoyed a
commanding lead over Cole before that fiasco and guess what happened.
And if anyone is planning on riding on what a great job Dean has done in Vermont,
just go to Vermont. Its a beautiful state and all, but some states have counties
that are more complicated to run than the whole state of Vermont.
Dean vs. Bush is an inpending disaster for the American people.

martin w. smith

The meaning is not so narrow. Charisma refers to "a personal
attractiveness that enables you to influence others."

That's what charisma does.


He won the Nobel Peace Prize. You don't win the Nobel Peace Prize by
being an idiot.


You mean criminals should be pardoned? I think they should be tried, and
if convicted, sentenced to prison. President Nixon overthrew the
government of Cambodia and then bombed Cambodia, virtually destroying
its ability to grow rice. The overthrow of the government and the
slaughter caused by the illegal bombing and the illegal invasion of
Cambodia, enabled the obscure Pol Pot to build the Khmer Rouge into a
political and military power, which went on to slaughter hundreds of
thousands of Cambodians. And we didn't stop it. We left it to the
Vietnamese to stop it, though the mess was mostly of our own making.


Except that President Kennedy's victory is quite often attributed to
Nixon's lack of TV charisma. Nixon, a great speaker? You must have been
high.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
http://www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email: mws@computas.com

barbara walker

criss'es did


forth

starts to

plain

As will I ! In fact I am already looking forward with glee to the wealth
of material the foolish Democrats are going to give us to work with. The
various Democrat delegates are going to make even bigger fools of themselves
at that convention than they already have, which is saying a lot.

Be

enjoyed a


Vermont,

counties


Only if Dean wins, which he won't.

barbara walker

It's frequently won by being a *Leftist* idiot however.

martin w. smith

Stop being so afraid you will lose.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
http://www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email: mws@computas.com

martin w. smith

No, it isn't. Even Henry Kissinger wasn't an idiot. He shouldn't have
won it, but he isn't an idiot.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
http://www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email: mws@computas.com