TailOverTeaKettle.com

The love-fest that is the Democratic Convention is begun in Boston. I suspect that the DNC wonders why there is limited television coverage of the conventions, but they seem to have really outlived their usefulness. What a captivating sight it was to see Ford and Reagan slugging it out for delegates for the 1976 Republican nomination. But we haven’t come to a convention for either party without a certain outcome since then. It’s almost like watching Ken take on opponents lately on Jeopardy - you know there is there is at least a technical formality of playing out the game, but the end outcome is already determined.

For a few years we made due with the speculation over who the Vice-Presidential candidates would be. We don’t even get that compelling reason to watch this time around. The announcement came early and everyone has had their photo-ops, interviews, and magazine profiles over and done already. In the days leading up to this party in Boston we’ve heard every news organization talk about the ‘bounce’ in the ratings that Kerry could expect because of the convention. But why should there be much this time? The convention is reduced to part pep-rally and part political commercial. (Also, don’t hold your breath waiting for a discussion on Bush ‘bounce’ when the Republican convention takes place!) That’s all fine, but I don’t think it would help influence any undecided voter, possibly motivate those already on board.

Anyway, the ‘big news’, at least oft-repeated press release, was that the Democrats were going to be pro-Kerry during their convention speeches, rather than focusing on solely an anti-Bush message (see NY Times: Speakers of All Stripes Make Effort to Follow Kerry’s Rule on Positive Speeches). I think that Kerry has a real problem. He won the primarys on this elusive idea that he was the most ‘electable’ candidate. (That means, not as insane as Howard Dean, and able to adopt almost daily position-changes and exaggerations, unlike Lieberman). Everything has been focused on an anti-Bush message.

Not sure if they think they have succeeded on staying ‘positive’. I won’t pick on Gore, I really feel sorry for him. Clearly Gore hasn’t forgotten about the last election, but you just have to keep hoping that he will find some peace for himself sometime in his life over this. It is so sad to see. And so frightening to see just what he’s become - this man who came so close to being President. Yes, Al, you did get more cumulative popular votes in the election. No, someone didn’t just make up the Electoral College thing just for the 2000 election. I know you find comfort in imagining that somehow there much have been some mystery voters who were denied access to the polls in Florida (although none have ever been found), or some hanging chads that might have altered the results (although every attempted recount even after the election by the newspapers showed Bush winning Florida), or perhaps the aged seniors in Florida were so confused by punch cards that they meant to vote for you but couldn’t figure out how (although they were all just fine in the decades of punch-card use before this election), or by some Bush-inspired Supreme Court trick (although they could only determine that it was you who wanted to count some votes differently to try to change the outcome). It must be devastating to know you came so close, only to be put out to pasture by the same Democratic Party who said they loved you before. I know that George W. Bush would have likewise been hurt had the election been decided in the other way. But I can’t imagine him behaving as Gore does today. I do hope he gets help.

But in the interest of being positive, it seems the speeches just refer to Bush as a failure, but don’t actually mention him by name. Not exactly sure how this shows off Kerry’s positive points, but maybe that’s saying something… Anyway, Georgia’s own Jimmy Carter delivered his speech, with the following excerpt (see Fox News: Transcript: Carter Boosts Kerry):

Today, our dominant international challenge is to restore the greatness of America — based on telling the truth, a commitment to peace, and respect for civil liberties at home and basic human rights around the world. Truth is the foundation of our global leadership, but our credibility has been shattered and we are left increasingly isolated and vulnerable in a hostile world. Without truth — without trust — America cannot flourish. Trust is at the very heart of our democracy, the sacred covenant between the president and the people.

When that trust is violated, the bonds that hold our republic together begin to weaken. After 9/11, America stood proud, wounded but determined and united. A cowardly attack on innocent civilians brought us an unprecedented level of cooperation and understanding around the world. But in just 34 months, we have watched with deep concern as all this goodwill has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations. Unilateral acts and demands have isolated the United States from the very nations we need to join us in combating terrorism.

Let us not forget that the Soviets lost the Cold War because the American people combined the exercise of power with adherence to basic principles, based on sustained bipartisan support. We understood the positive link between the defense of our own freedom and the promotion of human rights. Recent policies have cost our nation its reputation as the world’s most admired champion of freedom and justice. What a difference these few months of extremism have made!

The United States has alienated its allies, dismayed its friends, and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy of "preemptive" war. With our allies disunited, the world resenting us, and the Middle East ablaze, we need John Kerry to restore life to the global war against terrorism.

Carter starts out using the same "Bush lied!" crap, but said in a much more pleasant way. But what in heaven’s name is Carter saying about the defeat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War? Was it not Carter himself who believed that it was impossible to defeat the Soviets??? Remember, SALT? Unilateral disarmament? Kerry supported it. Carter couldn’t do more than threaten, and then back down. It was Ronald Reagan and strength that showed the way to victory in the Cold War. Bipartisanship?

But in the end, the collapse of the Soviet Union has been without some difficulties. Democracies have not flourished in every corner instantly. While Carter is correct that on balance, the collapse of the Soviet Union has brought a net positive change in human rights in the region, why can’t the same case be made for Iraq? It just boggles the mind that these people would rather have Saddam in power right now, than to be rid of him. For some of the people demonstrating out in the streets, the anti-war feelings might actually be about the 900 servicemen who have died making this happen. But for all of the talks of lies, and WMD, and international coalitions, I don’t see exactly what their plan was going to be. Other than proposing to finance the Iraq operations by taxing only the highest-income earners, what has Kerry proposed? So lets say Saddam is in power and continuing to opress his people. Terrorists are still using Iraq as a safe haven.

What would he do? Just tell us. Send more of the troops to Afganistan? (That doesn’t sound so good to the peace-niks, but so be it). Invade Iran? Send angry memos over to the UN and demand that Camaroon and Columbia to do something about it? Maybe he would have sent more aid to Iraq in order to secure Saddam’s ‘assurances’ that he wouldn’t help the terrorists (that has worked so well for Clinton with the bribes to North Korea to abandon their nuclear program. Besides, Saddam only got billons by stealing from the UN’s own Oil-for-Food program… maybe he would be greedy for even more). I don’t know what John Kerry would do, because he hasn’t said.

All I know is that he has served in Vietnam. I know we will be reminded of that thousands of times before the convention is complete. I know that service seemed to scar him so much that he sought any means possible to end that conflict. That included using ‘exagerated language’ (i.e. lies) during Senate testimony upon his return from action. I know that it so marks him that his relucance to use military force is so great, that it might be nearly impossible to meet his own internal criteria. There might never be a threat that his deemed important enought to be met by force. What does John Kerry say to this? Nothing. He just has to be absolutely sure… something that is impossible. Jimmy Carter knows a thing or two about that as well, but we won’t go there on that topic tonight.

The voting records for both Kerry and Edwards are #1 and #4 most liberal in the entire Senate. But neither wants to wear the ‘liberal’ badge. Instead we hear other words like ‘mainstream’, ‘centrist’, and even an absurd ‘conservative’ attached during these festivities. If being liberal is what he believes, why isn’t he wearing it as a badge of honor? Why isn’t he giving a compelling argument why this position is the correct one to have?

Will the real John Kerry please stand up? Come out from behind the curtain and show us your way. At least then I can respect you as a man, even if we disagree.