An Interview That Has To Be Read To Be Believed
Note to Readers: This post is being repeated at the request of a reader.
John Kerry and John Edwards gave an interview to the Washington Post aboard their campaign plane during their recent multi-state tour. The interview is an exercise in hypocrisy and condescension. Kerry and Edwards stated:
President Bush has governed in a dishonest fashion, trampling values on every issue except fighting terrorism and leaving voters "clamoring for restoration of credibility and trust in the White House again," John F. Kerry and John Edwards said in an interview.
"The value of truth is one of the most central values in America, and this administration has violated" it, Kerry said in an interview with The Washington Post aboard the Democrats' campaign plane Friday. "Their values system is distorted and not based on truth."
The President and VP have, during the course of this campaign, been the target of the most vitriolic series of attacks from the Democrats, the press, and innumerable "pundits", ever seen in a Presidential campaign, and that statement by the Democratic candidates is as hate filled as any that has been made. Kerry and Edwards level a series of charges for which they must be made to provide specifics. How, specifically, has President Bush "governed in a dishonest fashion"? Specifically which values has the President "trampled"?
Kerry and Edwards then state that the President's values system is "distorted" and based on lies. This is beyond disagreeing on policies, John Kerry is questioning the President's integrity and honesty. Stating that a person's "value system" is based on lies is serious. It is serious enough that the person who makes the statement should have enough character to elaborate. President Bush is a Christian, is John Kerry saying that the values espoused by Christianity are lies? What does he mean? We do not know because the interviewers did not ask, and John Kerry did not offer examples or specifics. He was simply engaging in demogoguery of the worst kind: vicious, personal attacks with no justification and no examples to back them up.
Kerry then uses this attack to rationalize the vulgarity filled fundraiser he and Edwards had attended two nights before:
The Democratic nominee and his running mate said it was that kind of anger toward the president that prompted entertainers at Thursday's Democratic fundraising concert in New York to attack Bush as a "cheap thug" and a killer. "Obviously some performers, in my judgment and John's, stepped over a line neither of us believes appropriate, but we can't control that," Kerry said. "On the other hand, we understand the anger, we understand the frustration."
Nice try. There is no excuse for the behavior of the performers at John Kerry's fundraiser (the tape of which Kerry refuses to release) no matter how Kerry attempts to rationalize it. More incredible is John Kerry's statement that he could not have controlled the performers at his own event. Why not? If he really thought the performances were as inappropriate as he says why could he not have simply stepped onto the stage at some point to ask the performers to tone down the rhetoric? After all, it was a fundraiser being held in his behalf. Surely if the man of the hour had asked them to tone it down they would have. Kerry did not say anything during the performance for the same reason he didn't voice disagreement with the tone of the evening (as Howard Dean had done in the same circumstance) when he addressed the crowd at the end of the show: because he agrees with it. While addressing the crowd at the end of the evening, Kerry stated that "every performer tonight...conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country." Does John Kerry believe that the performances were inappropriate or does he believe that they represent the "heart and soul of America"? A man that sees fit to question the President's value system should answer that question.
Kerry again attacked the Presidents values by stating that he would campaign on his terms, not on Republicans "little political, hot-button, cultural, wedge-driven, poll-driven values." Then in a statement so hypocritical it is almost comical, John Kerry stated:
"We have not stood up and attacked our opponents in personal ways"
Unbelievable. Immediately after unleashing a series of serious personal attacks against the President, John Kerry has the audacity to state that his campaign hasn't made personal attacks against the President. This was too much even for the Washington Post reporters to take:
This week alone, Kerry has criticized Bush personally in speeches for lying, professional laziness, waiting until right before the election to indict Enron Corp.'s former chief executive, Kenneth L. Lay, lacking values and even having worse hair than the two Democrats. Some advisers are privately counseling Kerry to tone down his attacks on Bush.
The tone of that statement by the reporters indicates that even they were shocked by Kerry's flagrant hypocrisy.
After attacking the President's values for a while, the candidates talked about issues like the definition of marriage:
"Let's be very firm about it. Both John and I believe firmly and absolutely that marriage is between a man and a woman," Kerry said. "But we also believe that you don't play with the Constitution of the United States for political purposes and amend the Bill of Rights when you don't need to when states are adequately addressing this issue."
How exactly are the states handling the issue at the moment? California voters overwhemingly voted down a bill that would have allowed gay marriage, but the mayor of San Francisco, with the help of the courts, ignored the will of the voters and handed out state marriage certificates to gay couples. The Massachusetts Supreme Court also created a right to marriage by same sex couples. Apparently John Kerry's definition of a state handling a situation is that state's courts jamming its agenda down the throat of the citizens. Apparently John Kerry's idea of "being firm" is to state that you believe in something without having the will to take any action to protect it. He believed firmly enough in marriage to talk about it, but not firmly enough to actually do anything about it. By the way, Mt. Kerry, the Constitution itself allows for amendments, even if you think that is "playing' with the bill of Rights. This is the same stance that John Kerry takes on abortion. He recently stated that he believes that life begins at conception. He believes in that so much he has voted in favor of abortion every opportunity he has had, including voting no on the partial birth abortion ban. He actually stated in a primary debate that there "there is no such thing as a partial birth". He prefers to use "late term abortion". He believes in life so much as to be able to make this statement to the Massachusetts Democratic Issues Convention on June 7, 2003:
The Republicans want to criminalize the right of women to choose, take us back to the days of back alleys, gag doctors and deny families the right to plan and be aware of their choices - we Democrats want to protect the constitutional right of privacy and make clear that at the center of this struggle is our commitment to have a Supreme Court that will protect the equal rights, the civil rights, and the right to choose in this nation.
John Edwards took a different approach to answering the reporters questions regarding abortion, he simply refused to say anything:
Edwards twice did not respond when asked if he, too, believes life begins at conception.
He did not respond. Twice. Ironically, it is just after this that Kerry decides to defend John Edwards readiness to be Vice President or President:
"Don't get suckered into the how many years you've been in one job or this job" debate, Kerry said. "You've got people in [Washington] who have been in one job [for] 30 years of what you call experience, and they have done nothing, they don't stand for anything and they don't know how to fight."
John Edwards has been in the Senate five years, does not have his name on a single piece of legislation, and apparently fights for issues by not responding to questions. Unlike John Kerry who fights for issues by talking about them but doing nothing. Edwards went on in the interview to try to convince the reporters (and himself?) that he would learn more every day in preparation to assume office if elected. A Vice Presidential candidate with training wheels.
At the end of the interview John Edwards states that the President's entire career has not been reflective of American values:
"George Bush and others can say whatever they want now about what their values are, but what have they spent their life doing? Have they shown in their life experience, not just in the time they've been in politics, but in their life experience, that they have the values that Americans looked up to and respected?" Edwards asked. "It's just difficult for me to imagine anybody in my little home town in rural North Carolina looking up to and respecting someone more than John Kerry."
Well let's see, what has George Bush spent his life doing? The President spent his life in private industry succeeding and failing at different times building various businesses. Not an easy undertaking. Afterward he was elected Governor twice, and managed one of the largest states in the union. He then ran for, and was elected, President of the United States. John Edwards spent his life before his five years in the Senate making tens of millions of dollars suing American corporations. He had no interest in politics, and had in fact rarely voted, when he decided to throw millions of his own dollars (and millions more from donations of other trial lawyers) into a Senate run. Before serving one full term he realized that he would not be re-elected, so he decided to run for President, again with almost exclusive finacial support and backing support of trial attorneys. After making this decision he rarely made an appearance in the Senate to cast a vote. Apparently to John Edwards that career represents values that Americans can "look up to and respect".
Read the entire interview and pass it around to any undecided voters you know.