Posted on 02/10/2004 11:12:07 AM PST by FairOpinion
I believe that Senator John Kerry has made recent and past comments and participated in activities that make him unfit to serve as President of the United States.
He recently claimed that the threat of terrorism is being exaggerated. That statement is ridiculous. There are foreigners who are commit suicide to kill Americans. You cant exaggerate the threat of terrorism from that kind of thinking. If Senator Kerry believes that the threat is exaggerated, he either is delusional or doesnt understand the world situation. In either case, that would indicate that he is unfit to be president.
Sen. Kerry also recently said that he did not know the facts regarding statements about President Bush and his service in the Air National Guard. That statement is politically inspired. During the 1992 election, Kerry defended Bill Clinton from attacks on his non-service record. He said we should not be dividing the public by bringing that up. Now, Kerry, claims he doesnt know that President Bush got an honorable discharge. Bush could not have gotten an honorable discharge if he had been AWOL. Kerry's statement proves that he is willing to play politics with the war. He is now willing to be divisive on the matter.
Although Kerrys 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. When Kerry came back from the war, he became a war protester. He sided with ''Hanoi Jane'' Fonda and other communist sympathizers, and he has not apologized for his actions. He apparently still does not recognize that he was wrong to do this.
The war protesters think that they helped to end the war in Vietnam, but they actually extended the war at a cost of millions of innocent people their lives. The Vietnam War was only one aspect of the ''Cold War.'' We won the cold war because we opposed communism everywhere that it tried to take over. As history plays out, the important of opposition to communism in Vietnam will be recognized. We were on the right side of the cold war and we won. North Vietnam had signed a peace treaty and then we pulled out. The North Vietnamese violated the treaty and our Congress did not have the guts to fund the South Vietnamese so they could defend themselves. Millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese were murdered because we abandoned them. Kerry and the other war protesters have this blood on their hands. And this is another reason that I believe that Kerry is unfit to be president.
The Gordon Bloyer Show can be seen at http://gordonbloyershow.com/ He receives e-mail at: godon.bloyer@verizon.net. The ideas expressed in this article are those of the writer, and are not necessarily those of ChronWatch.
Lando
Actually able to carry out the responsibilities of the office. Not to my exact wishes on every policy matter, not deserving of it, not the best possible person - just plain able to carry out its actual day to day duties. If Al Sharpton were president tomorrow he'd need new pants. If Kerry were President tomorrow existing staffers leafing through existing rolodexes would smoothly transfer several thousand educated liberal academics and politicians and New England socialite cronies into each executive department, each with a policy background and position papers on every issue.
I'm not saying I'd like his policies, I wouldn't. But he would not be out of his depth, cluelessly lost level, incompetent. It would be his competence at implimenting policies I disagree with that would be the problem. Not his - not knowing what the Federal Reserve is, who to appoint to the State Department, what is to expect an intelligence briefing to consist of, who he must hear out before deciding which matters, and the like.
There is such a thing as basic qualification for the office. Kerry has it, not everyone does. Bush had it - he had been governor of Texas, run multi-million dollar businesses, seen the White House under his father and how it functioned, etc. Cheney had it - he ran the Pentagon in a major war, ran a major corporation, ran the White House as chief of staff for Ford, etc. Dennis doesn't have it, Sharpton doesn't have it, LaRouche doesn't have it, and a lot of other people who pretend they want to be President, when they really just want to be on TV.
It is a useful distinction to maintain, not something to trash for the sake of talking points in one campaign season. Kerry's problem is that he is a liberal who fully reflects the liberalism of a major political party, that is wrong on the substance of important national issues. He was wrong about the things his party was wrong about in the past, too. This amounts to saying he is a liberal democrat and liberal policies aren't good ones, particularly right now.
It does not amount to saying he is one of the clownish characters above, who are *unqualified* (ordinary English meaning of the term, which should be obvious to practically everyone regardless of party) to be President.
Kerry isn't delusional - he understands the world stage. His goal is nothing less than the total destruction of the United States of America. Why would anyone who gave aid and comfort to the enemy in the 1970s be any different now?
I know Kerry was an ass about the Vietnam war after he got back. So was a third of the country. I'm not going to vote for him, as I think I've already said a dozen times by now. But this means he is a liberal, not that he isn't "qualified". Nobody on the left back then was right about the war. And anybody who was on the right back then and has since moved left needs to have his head examined, because the country had moved the other way since and rightly so.
So your theorem simply amounts to, "no one on the left has the character to be President, because they are on the left, which was wrong about the war". Um, right better than left we grok. This is FR. Is the term that characterizes this: "qualified"? It is not. It is conservative. Kerry isn't a conservative. What a shocker. Name someone who could be nominated by the Democrats who is. Was Al Gore qualified? Didn't be "betray his country" over Chinagate money?
It becomes nothing more than a free floating denunciation. It is being used simply as a statement of dislike, or that you won't vote for him. Duh. That is simply not what the English word means. Qualified means fitted by training, skill, or ability for a special purpose.
When 10 men apply for a job you throw out the ones who obviously couldn't do it. Do you hire all the rest, or one of them at random? No. You pick the best out of the remainder, who you bother to look at. You don't even need to bother to look at the ones who clearly could not do the job and have no business applying for it.
Do you have any idea what I am trying to save here? It has nothing to do with Kerry. It has to do with a bipartisan standard of basic ability and seriousness, that I want respected by us, by the Dems, by people at large. Not just in this election, but in picking judges, in other elections, in executive appointments, etc. I don't want it trashed down to simple ideological bashing, "anybody I disagree with is unqualified", "Bork is not a qualified judge", "Miguel Estrada is not qualified".
We can disagree with Kerry and call him a strident liberal who doesn't deserve to be President and is wrong on foreign policy, without trashing the English language and basic standards of seriousness about the most important job there is. It is like moronic liberals calling Bush "dumb". They don't agree with his policies, that's all; the bare statement they actually make instead is transparent nonsense. Does this work, politically? It does not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.