John Kerry: Unfit for President?

Chronwatch ^ | Feb. 10, 2004 | Gordon Bloyer

[FairOpinion]

“Americans for Democratic Action, the premier liberal rating organization, gives John Kerry a lifetime rating of 93 percent while Sen. Kennedy has a lifetime rating of 88 percent—five points less,” said Watson. “Who would have guessed, Ted Kennedy – the most conservative Senator from Massachusetts!”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1074215/posts

[LuigiBasco]

Super good one! I think I'll borry that un!

Luigi

[JasonC]

I don't like the hyperbole and I don't think this argument has any legs. Kerry is as qualified a candidate as the Democratic party could nominate. Yes I disagree with him on substance, especially on foreign policy, where he is too dovish. But he is too dovish because his whole party is too dovish and he faithfully represents their wrongheaded dovishness. This makes him wrong, it does not make him unqualified.

Many of the items advanced against him are such stretches they boomerang. It should not kill us to treat him as a fair opponent. The man commanded men in battle. That is more than being personally brave. He is criticized for marrying money, as though the rich are supposed to stay celibate, or as though the care of a large body of capital isn't sobering in its own right. Al Sharpton is not qualified to be President, in part because he doesn't know what the Federal Reserve even is or does, and if he did it would just be a political football to him. You can bet it is a practical thing to a hundred millionaire. He has been in the senate for a long time dealing with serious issues.

He is an opportunist. He did not discover his antiwar attitudes until he failed in a bid for the house running as a JFK clone war hero. He mimicked the activist left for the sake of popularity, because he has been politically ambitious since he was 12. He was used by people far worse than himself, which shows poor judgment. But a lot of people had poor judgment in their 20s, and a lot of people were wrong about the Vietnam war. He was not any better, sure, but this makes him a typical liberal, it does not make him "unqualified".

It is not his resume Republicans should be running against. He is a serious person tied in to serious money and long standing, powerful factions of both the Democratic party and upper crust society. He did what he thought would make him popular, and followed the positions of the leftist liberals who he lives with and represents. Those people are wrong on the major issue the country faces at present, and they would lead the country in a different direction than its present course. Which I think would be bad.

But they would lead the country. They would know how to run it. This is not Dennis or Sharpton or Nader. The entire New England intellectual "set" would be his to call on - from the press, academia, government, and party circles. He should not be underestimated and he is one of the few Democrats actually qualified to be President on his prior experience.

Attack his policies, or if you must go after past character his opportunism and his flip-flops (which largely show just that he is a pol to the bottom of his toes, which should be obvious). Calling him unqualified is a lousy argument, adn it won't fly. Average Americans do not think anyone who is a liberal is unqualified to hold public office. And that is all the charge amounts to.

[BossLady]

"Kerry had 4 months of distinguished service 30 years ago, but ever since then, he joined up with America's enemies, and don't forget he himself dihonored his own service and medals by throwing them over the fence"

This only enforces what I have always thought about Hanoi John......He has Vietnam Flashbacks/Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and needs to be on meds.... :o

[Your Nightmare]

To be fair, I think Kerry had more than 4 months service.

You're doing the same thing the other side is doing to Bush when you make statements like this. I don't like it from either side.

[FairOpinion]

He was only in Vietnam for 4 months -- that is what he is running on.

He requested to come back afterwards and had a very cushy job, while in the service the rest of the time.

[olliemb]

But Kerry wants to get the permission of UN, France and Germany to defend America. That too me, sir, is totally unqualifiable bit of information. Forget that he is a freakin liberal and condones aborting babies up to the last day prior to delivery.

[rj45mis]

"He had already begun his treasonable correspondence with Sir Henry Clinton in New York City"

Is there some omen here?

[rj45mis]

"He was not any better, sure, but this makes him a typical liberal, it does not make him "unqualified".

Perhaps the points you brought up don't in and of themselves render Kerry "unqualified." However,the fact that he is a bad "character", has no integrity and supports these truths with his continued lying does, in fact, disqualify him in my book.

[counterpunch]

By all means please do!
I don't make these things to keep all to myself. ;)

[Democratshavenobrains]

Although Kerry’s service in Vietnam is stellar, his actions since that service is less than honorable. Just because someone served in Vietnam does not make him an expert on foreign policy or even war strategy, and Kerry has proven he is not an expert on either.

The fact that this isn't obvious to most people is REALLY depressing.

[TheGrimReaper]

All I know for sure is that we NEVER see Mr. Ketchup and Mr. Ed in public at the same time....

Coincidence??
I think not.

[thesummerwind]

John Kerry: Unfit for President?

YES

[FairOpinion]

LOL!!! There is a certain similarity for sure.

But there is even more with the other end of the horse. ;)

[JasonC]

So does the entire Democratic party. Words mean things, people. Unqualified has a real meaning applied to Presidential candidates. It does not mean, "takes a position I disagree with". It doesn't even mean, "takes a position I am so ideologically opposed to, I think it is irresponsible when the whole other party takes it".

People try to run for President who have no business seeking the office. Who wouldn't know what to do when they got there, if they won. Who can't organize a national campaign involving a few thousand professionals, let alone run a superpower. Who've never run a business in their lives, or commanded men, or made important decisions. Or who have whacky, crackpot ideas that even their own side of the ideological spectrum rightly dismiss as tinfoil stuff (the Lyndon LaRouche types, etc).

This sort of thing is not Kerry's problem. Acknowledging that he does not have these sorts of problems does not amount to endorsing the man or voting for him or wanting him to be President. It is elementary fairness, and also maintaining a useful level of scrutiny and seriousness about the most important job there is. Kerry could function as a US President. He could form an administration. It would run the country - maybe in the wrong directions, but not haplessly flailing around, not knowing where any of the buttons are or who to call.

Disagree with the man's policies, criticize his record, attack his whole party's ideology - knock yourself out. I do too. But "unqualified" means something in the context of Presidential politics, and the charge does not fit here. It does not help politically, either, because it focuses attention on the wrong subject. His resume is not weak. His policies are.

[olliemb]

"Who've never run a business in their lives, or commanded men, or made important decisions"

What important decision has Kerry made that he did not waffle when confronted or backed out. Jason, Kerry may be qualified for senator, may be qualified to be a born again war hero, may be rich--but qualified to be president of the United States--I don't agree with you. How can a man whose culture is to accept abortion and yet be a catholic? How can a man be against the Vietnam war and join in with Hanoi Jane while there were POW in Vietnam be qualified to be president and run our business? How can a man who wants the UN to tell him when to use military might to defend you and me be qualified to be a president? Kerry supports Kyoto now but voted against it. Kerry lies--is a liar qualified to be a president of the USA?.

If you still think he is qualified, then perhaps you should then vote for him.

[JasonC]

He is qualified, I won't vote for him, and every charge you've made is true of the entire Democratic party. "Qualified" is not a synonym for "conservative". When the left "Borks" judges just for not being liberals, and pretends in means the bar association gave them a failing grade or something, we rightly go ape. Kerry is a liberal and I don't want a liberal as President, for all the reasons you mention and many more besides. But I don't pretend any of those are matters of "qualifications". They are partisan matters of ordinary ideology and politics.

I disagree with Kerry; I think he is wrong on many important issues. That is all. The "unqualified" charge won't stick, and slinging it to the general public will just make them read his resume. They will not react to your bill of particulars as Freepers do. They will just read them as "so he is a liberal, lots of people are, so what?" You are simply emptying the word "qualified" of meaning, when you say "unqualified" when all you mean is "liberal".

[South40]

There are foreigners who are commit suicide to kill Americans.

Well put.

Who does his proofreading...Ray Charles?

[Don Carlos]

Kerry had 4 months of distinguished service 30 years ago

I'll believe that when his records are on the table for public review - and then, only if they don't show that he was writing his own "Citation to Accompany The Award of...", or putting in for his own PH nominations.

Granted he did serve. But "Stellar", "Distinguished", "Heroic", etc.? Large grain of salt. Picture a cow-lick block!

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" He did not discover his antiwar attitudes until he failed in a bid for the house running as a JFK clone war hero."

No.Kerry delivered his first public anti war,anti American policy when he gave the Yale Class Oration in 1966. The text of his prepared,but,undelivered remarks is in the Yale yearbook.His office has been unable to find the text of his actual address.

From The Long War of John Kerry,by Joe Klein, The New Yorker,2002:

His brother in law said this of Kerry and 2 others - "There were four of us going to war in a matter of months. That tends to concentrate the mind. This may have been the first time we really seriously began to question Vietnam. It was: ‘Hey, what the hell is going on over there? What the hell are we in for?'"

"But the speech he gave, hastily rewritten at the last moment, was anything but traditional: it was a broad, passionate criticism of American foreign policy, including the war that he would soon be fighting."

"The speech was notable for its central thesis:
“The United States must . . . bring itself to understand that the policy of intervention”—against Communism—“that was right for Western Europe does not and cannot find the same application to the rest of the world.”

"In most emerging nations, the spectre of imperialist capitalism stirs as much fear and hatred as that of communism".
"Never in the last twenty years has the government of the United States been as isolated as it is today."

And after Kerry lost that election,he refused to speak for 3 days.
"He came to my home in New Hampshire that weekend," his friend George Butler, a documentary filmmaker who was then a freelance photographer, recalls. "He wouldn't say a word to anyone. He sat there Friday night and built an entire model ship from scratch. On Saturday, he and I climbed a mountain together. He still wasn't talking. ... He was the most despondent-looking human being I had ever seen."