"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Saturday, May 14, 2005

John Kerry - too stupid to be President

I know that the common wisdom in some circles is that Kerry was to "nuanced" to be President. To some, us rubes or supposedly dim-witted sneaky theocrats in the red states were not able to understand his agile (snort, chuckle, guffaw) mind. The reason I bring this up despite the elections being long past is that apparently Kerry may try running again. I'm also reading a book that reminded me of a criticism that I never made in a public forum at the time. I didn't have this blog then and I am pretty sure I didn't even mention it in the forum wars that occurred around the time of the elections.

The book I am currently reading is The Roots of American Order by Russell Kirk and is an excellent study of our heritage and should be required reading in our schools. I am at the chapter discussing the Middle Ages, specifically the development of English Parliament and how the King lost control of the purse i.e. control of financing his endeavors.

How in the world does this apply to Kerry, much less indicate his stupidity? I'm sure the reader, regardless of political affiliation, will not have forgotten Kerry's "I voted for it, before I voted against it" statement. It helps to say it in a booming yet oddly sleep-inducing manner. For all the MSM and Kerry staff and supporters trying to defend him from the attacks that followed, nothing really helped him recover from that gift of a sound bite.

I remember thinking at the time and being surprised that no one on his side thought of the following reply. He could have said that he was merely doing the very thing that the Constitution allowed for stopping the Executive branch in the use of its power. Mainly, the control of the purse was specifically left in the hands of the legislature. You can see how Kerry, if he really was so intelligent, could easily have turned this into a discussion of our Constitution and his desire to uphold it and the traditions and customs of English law that we inherited. Not a minor point, considering the reasonable criticism against the Democrats that they care not for what the Constitution actually says but rather what they and their judges can make it say, especially when this overrides the people and their representatives. He would also have the added benefit that this would also be a nod to his buddies across the ocean. Well, he would really like to kiss the French and German bureaucratic asses but at least it's in the same hemisphere and that would show some "nuance".

Instead, we have one of the explanations being about wanting to tax the rich. Smooth move exlax, the Democrats are rightly criticized for class warfare and there you go, proving the point. It seems to me that if he is at least intelligent enough to understand what he is saying; then he must really believe these things. If that is the case, is it any wonder he lost?

Granted, some, more sober-minded on the other end of the political spectrum, look at Kerry as a horrible candidate. It's unfortunate that Joe Lieberman was sidelined in the primaries. I know some think that America would never vote for a Jewish president. While I am not the type to decide the matter based on this, the democrats could have made an important point. It would be wrong to reject a candidate simply because he was of x religious faith. At the very least, that principle could have been made clear to many and possibly reduced religious bigotry. Instead, it seems such bias against religion was actually acquiesced to by the Democrat primary voters. Also consider the recent examples regarding President Bush's nominations for government positions.

From Hugh Hewitt (emphasis added):

This fundamental and irreconcilable chasm --Democrats do not believe that any nominee who can be suspected of believing in the personhood of the unborn or of other "deeply held beliefs," to quote Senator Schumer, is qualified to sit on the federal bench-- cannot be bridged, and given its importance, should not be avoided. Senators Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, Clinton and Reid have in essence imposed a prohibited "religious test" on nominees for office. (See Article VI, Section III). Senator Specter is worried about the traditions of the Senate. I think he ought to be worried about the Constitution.

Hopefully, the Democrats will get over their nasty view of religious faith and will find a better candidate next time who actually has ideas that appeal to more than the fringe element within the party. Simply using the term nuance to describe your candidate will not hide the candidate's glaring stupidity, as we have seen. But then Hillary seems to be the anointed one for the next go around. That's just to bad; she is clearly not the moderate she is now pretending to be. But it sure will be entertaining.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: