Thursday, November 02, 2006

The John Kerry Way: Speak In Haste, Repent In Leisure

Well, yesterday it happened. The thing that John Kerry defiantly refused to do the day before, has come to pass. After much pressure (by not only the GOP but the Dems, as well), he has apologized for his recent foot-in-mouth moment. But I am not really sure I buy it.

For one thing, it may very well be that he didn't mean to say what he said. I know all pols have said some pretty ridiculous things, from time to time. I know that we all say things that we wish we could take back. I have had my share of awkward moments over the years, just in my personal life. That's part of life. But, I have some severe doubts here.


Just so we are clear here, let me say something. It's not the gaffe that has me so upset. What irks me is the manner in which Kerry has conducted himself, since the time of the statement. It is the unbridled arrogance that insults my intelligence. It is the overly proud and haughty spirit he shows. That's what offends me. I work with some arrogant people, but many of them are geniuses in their fields and actually do something of great importance. They produce something. But what does Kerry do? What does he produce?

Think about it a minute. He has married into great wealth. This is wealth that was not created by him or his wife. His wife inherited it, he married into it, how much more proof do you need to see that neither he, nor she, have produced anything of any real value to earn it?

All he has known is politics. He has made a career out of running for something and looking like a fool after winning (and now after losing). And as I rarely do I do, I agree with Cher on her comparison of politicians, with used-car salesmen.

But, what has he produced as a career politician? Can anyone name a piece of legislation that he, himself, authored over his long career as a U.S. Senator?

But let's get back to the real issue here. Like I said earlier, it's not the gaffe, itself.

No, it was his refusal to apologize that kept this story alive and made me angry. After all, this was the Democratic Party's 2004 nominee here. He is no novice or greenhorn, but he is still a leader in the party. He may not lead anything of any real importance, but he is representative of Democratic leadership by virtue of the fact that he was picked by his party to be its nominee. And although it validates the very reasons I am glad he did not win the 04 election, it validates that there are people that will say/do anything to get elected. It demonstrates the absolutist mentality, as good as any Hohenzollern, Bourbon, or Hapsburg monarch would have.

So because of this, it is not important whether he meant to say it as it sounded, or not. The real issue at hand is, by refusing to apologize and attempting to dig himself into a foxhole, he demonstrated the true nature of his character. His behavior strongly suggests, he is not sincere in his search for atonement. He apologized, only after many in his party pressured him to do so. How can we believe that he is truly sincere, when he does it after being criticized heavily and left out to dry by many in his own party?

Did the GOP pile on? Absolutely. Would the Dems have done the same thing? You bet. But that's not the half of it. The part that is so damaging for the Dems is, it's less than a week until Election Day. And despite the fact that they have no specific or concrete plans to run the country, they were close to taking over the reins of the government, anyway. They had a real chance.

But with Kerry's affinity for tasting shoe leather at the forefront of the daily scuttle butt, they lost ground significantly. They lost the independent voters and they lost valuable time they can never regain. They have lost a whole two days, with the election less than a week away. And even though they have very little message to start with, they have wasted time dealing with this, instead of trying to convince Americans why their plan (or in this case, non-plan) will work.

Hillary may have gotten an early Christmas present, this year. I say this because, Kerry's days as a viable contender for the 2008 nod are over.

5 comments:

All_I_Can_Stands said...

The sound of Kerry extracting his foot from his mouth must be a truly nightmare inducing sound.

LASunsett said...

I hear it's secured by an airtight vacuum seal. Extrication is virtually impossible without explosives. ;)

Anonymous said...

I think, you ar ea little bit too harsh in questioning the productivity of Kerry and especially of his wife. But, I guess, one has to bear with such if he/she is in public service (and wealthy)...

My take on the issue is, the more sophisticated and better educated you are, the deeper you go when your tongue slips. Compare Kerry's situation with Bush's regular tongue slips, which are for the most part only funny. I wish people, American people in particular, chose their leaders by virtue of their politics not by virtue of their personality or values. (Values, especially as they are manifested in American politics, are nothing but divisive). It's hard to be sure that a Kerry presidency would have been worse for America or the world had he been elected in 2004 instead of the lovable, sympathic, warm, cuddly... Bush.

Also, I am not sure if the Dems lost "significant" ground due to this.

LASunsett said...

Anonymous,

//I think, you ar ea little bit too harsh in questioning the productivity of Kerry and especially of his wife. But, I guess, one has to bear with such if he/she is in public service (and wealthy)...//

I cannot agree with you on this. IMHO, Kerry is the quintessential politician. He speaks down to most people he comes across and refuses to admit when he is wrong. Unlike Bush, he presents himself as something he is not. I find him to be very hypocritical and many times he says one thing to one group and another thing to another. (He does this without realizing that in this day and age, sound bites travel quickly.) In my view, this shows a lack of wisdom. He may have a law degree, but that doesn't mean he has understanding, nor does it mean he is a man of wisdom. His judgement is poor and I cannot respect a man like that.

Agree or disagree with him, at least you see Bush coming. He is consistent and even stubborn to a fault, at times. He may be wrong on some things, but he sticks to principles, not trends or waves of public opinion.

There were better people to be President, in both 2000 and 2004. But they weren't running.

Anonymous said...

LASunsett,

Okay, I will yield to you more easily than I did on the Turkey-EU issue. It's not exactly that I feel I don't have a dog in this fight. But, I haven't been a close observer of Kerry. I had however been ticked off by his running mate's certain political ambiguity during the 2004 campaign season.