Conventional Wisdom

Well, the Republican National Convention is being held this week, and by most accounts, it is going very well. I haven't seen all of the speeches, but I've heard parts of several (too busy at work to catch much of the convention - drat!). Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger have been the stars so far, in my opinion. I wish I'd been able to hear Zell Miller's speech. Mrs. Pete said it was pretty fiery, and I think that's a good thing. The Democrats need to hear, from one of their own, just how wrong they are on a multitude of issues.

I got home from work in time to hear the last half of Dick Cheney's speech. He isn't a tremendously dynamic speaker, but he is effective. He lays out his points in a straightforward way, without much rhetorical embellishment, and I think his speech was just devastating to John Kerry.

Cheney didn't say anything at all about Kerry's Vietnam record (or lack thereof), except to say the he and President Bush honored him for his service. That was it. But he then absolutely pounded Kerry's record in the Senate, and his habit of being on every side of an issue. Quoting the vice president:

And on the question of America’s role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest. History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe – yet time and again Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed “only at the directive of the United Nations.”

He went on, point by point, to demolish John Kerry's long record of voting against supporting our military, of putting America's interests last instead of first, of being wishy-washy on many of the most important issues of our generation:

•  "During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan’s major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War."
• "In 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm."
• "Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn’t appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a “more sensitive war on terror,” as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side."
• "He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America – after we have been attacked."
• "Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families."
• "Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief – and that is to support American troops in combat."
• "He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act – and against it."
• "He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement – and against it."
• "He is for the Patriot Act – and against it."

After all of this, in one of the best lines of the speech, the Vice President quipped, "Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual – America sees two John Kerrys."

Again, V.P. Cheney isn't a particularly dynamic speaker, but he is effective - to the point, serious, and articulate. His point-by-point takedown of Kerry's Senate record of flip-flopping on important issues and lack of support for our military and intelligence services at the very least had to raise doubts about John Kerry in the minds of undecided voters listening to Cheney's speech - certainly to those who take national defense seriously.

Defenseless Democrats

The Democrats, in my opinion, just aren't serious about defending our country, and it shows in the fact that they nominated John Kerry as their candidate.

Why?

Well, his service in Vietnam was, in my opinion, essentially undistinguished. The medals he received seem to me to be not very deserved, even if he is telling the truth - which I very much doubt. Leaving aside the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization's devastating testimony of Kerry's deception and outright cowardice, John Kerry was only in Vietnam for four months. In my view that hardly qualifies him as any sort of expert on military affairs. Kerry's futile attempt to capitalize on his Vietnam experience has backfired badly. He never should have made it the centerpiece of his campaign, since it has done nothing to enhance his credibility on defense - or any other issue, for that matter.

In addition, John Kerry has a long, well-documented record of being against U.S. involvement in the world, and has used his Senate vote, as V.P. Cheney pointed out, to further those views. The best predictor of a person's future behavior is his past behavior, and John Kerry's past behavior is not that of someone who believes strongly in and supports U.S. military strength. Kerry can't escape his record as an antiwar protestor nor as a weak-on-defense senator. There is no question about it. He can't accuse anyone of lying or of being Republican shills, as all of his votes are part of the public record. If you want to see what Senator Kerry said and how he voted, you can just go directly to the Congressional Record. The fact is, John Kerry's past votes show plainly that he has not been a supporter of our national defense. Here is just one example (from the Congressional Record for the 106th Congress, March 18th, 1999, pages S2972 and S2973):

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this bill calls upon the United States to take a momentous step--the deployment of a National Missile Defense system--on the basis of one, and only one criterion: technological feasibility. This bill gives no consideration to the ramifications of deploying such a system on U.S. security, political and diplomatic interests.

   It is true that missile technology is proliferating more rapidly than we could have predicted. And this is of grave concern to us all. Certainly, the proliferation of ballistic missile technology constitutes a serious threat to U.S. national security. The question before us is, Will deciding today to deploy a National Missile Defense system--as yet untested, unproven and un-paid for--advance our national security interests? The answer, in my view, is that it will not.

In this case, Kerry opposes development of a national missile defense system, even though he admits that nuclear ballistic missiles are a serious threat to our country. He would rather see us vulnerable to nuclear-armed ballistic missiles deployed by rogue states, e.g. North Korea, until we figure out all of the political nuances. It's so typical. As a resident of the West Coast, and living near military bases that could be potential targets, I think Kerry is completely wrong on this (amongst many other things).

Lately John Kerry has tried to give voters the impression that he's tough on defense. It's just rhetoric. He isn't tough on defense at all, and never has been. His record proves it. You  don't have to take V.P. Cheney's word for it; though he's a reliable witness. Just go directly to the source - the Congressional Record - and you can see what John Kerry really believes. You won't like it.

Permanent link