« Dubya, Treebeard, and facing bullets from your country's enemies | Main | Deal lawyers and trial lawyers, revisited »
Saturday, July 31, 2004
One if by land
Today's New York Post describes the decidedly negative reaction of four Marines who were approached by Candidate Kerry yesterday in a Wendy's:
John Kerry's heavily hyped cross-country bus tour stumbled out of the blocks yesterday, as a group of Marines publicly dissed the Vietnam War hero in the middle of a crowded restaurant. Kerry was treating running mate Sen. John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, to a Wendy's lunch in Newburgh, N.Y., for their 27th wedding anniversary — an Edwards family tradition — when the candidate approached four Marines and asked them questions.
The Marines — two in uniform and two off-duty — were polite but curt while chatting with Kerry, answering most of his questions with a "yes, sir" or "no, sir."
But they turned downright nasty after the Massachusetts senator thanked them "for their service" and left.
"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]."
A sergeant with 10 years of service under his belt said, "I speak for all of us. We think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq," before saying he is to be deployed there in a few weeks and is "eager" to go and serve.
Thus does real life differ from showbiz. Those watching Kerry's convention this week might have come away with the impression that he's all for our nation's military, and it's all for him. Well, of course, some folks presently serving, or with distinguished military records from the past, indeed support him. But I believe that's the exception rather than the rule — and his party well knows it (viz. the Gore campaign's despicable and well-organized efforts to suppress military absentee votes in the 2000 election, another parallel to 1864 by the way).
So I wasn't at all surprised to read of this encounter. What actually struck me from the Post's story, however, was this snarky remark:
"Ninety-seven days [left in the campaign]; let's make it happen," Kerry told hundreds of bleary-eyed but upbeat supporters who showed up at a 7:30 a.m. rally on the shores of Boston Harbor — less than nine hours after Kerry finished his acceptance speech.
Kerry also employed Paul Revere's famed midnight run and imagery of Bunker Hill to bash President Bush over U.S. intelligence failures.
"These are the places where people dared to stand up and put their lives on the line — to take a risk — for something they believed in very deeply," Kerry said of the Boston neighborhood where he was speaking.
"One if by land, two if by sea, and the message was right. Come to think of it, they had better intelligence than we do today about what's going on," Kerry continued, drawing the loudest applause of the event.
Well, folks, there you have it! When and if our national intelligence apparatus can report that a foreign army is actually on American soil and en route to capture our political leaders and seize our means of self-defense, John Kerry will act firmly and decisively on that intelligence! I, for one, don't find this much of a comfort.
Posted by Beldar at 12:34 PM in Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to One if by land and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
Comments
(1) TP made the following comment | Aug 1, 2004 9:24:31 PM | Permalink
Beldar,
Just a point--what Gore did or did not do with respect to absentee military ballots does not establish what the Kerry campaign feels about its chances in securing votes from prior or current members of the military.
To be sure, those affiliated with the military generally vote Republican, but I think it kind of begs the question to assume as a point of departure that this will continue to be the case vis-a-vis the Kerry candidacy. The entire question is whether Kerry's military service will enable him to capture at least some of what has generally been a traditionally Republican vote--i.e., will the future resemble the past?
I don't know the answer to that question; my guess is that the so-called 'experts' don't know, either.
JMO.
(2) Beldar made the following comment | Aug 2, 2004 12:43:15 AM | Permalink
That's an entirely fair point, TP, and I'm sure the Kerry campaign genuinely hopes to take a larger percentage of the current and former military vote in 2004 than Gore did in 2000 just as it genuinely hopes to attract fiscal conservatives who've soured on the Bush Administration's and Republican-controlled Congress' free spending in the past three years.
I'm emphatically no expert, but my guess is that Kerry will have no more luck in wooing the current and former military voters than Bush will in increasing his percentage among black voters. (But cf. Sgt. Stryker vs. Hugh Hewitt.) Just as Bush is accused of wooing black voters without a high expectation that he'll actually land many, but rather in an attempt to reassure non-black voters that he's not anti-black, my cynical suspicion is that much of Kerry's motivation for seeming to court military voters is actually to reassure those who aren't, but who might be turned off if they thought Kerry wasn't making that effort or was anti-military.
Sen. Kerry's party, however, has already announced that it has lined up teams of lawyers in swing states in order to ensure rapid response to any problems that may arise. Forgive me for taking that with not just a grain, but a large block, of salt. If the election is close, I expect that those teams will pull out all the stops, and that regardless of the efforts that the campaign may have made before election day to woo military voters, we'll see more targeted attempts to disqualify military absentee ballots in 2004 just like we did in 2000. (I almost puked today when I heard Sen. Kerry assert to George Stephanopoulos on ABC News' This Week program that (quoting from memory, can't find a transcript yet), "Of course, Bush only won the 2000 election by one vote in the Supreme Court!" Shades of Michael Moore.) [edit: here's a link with the verbatim quote]
Now, it may well be that the Republican party also has a parallel plan in place to make targeted legal challenges, for example, to ballots cast by people with felony convictions in those states whose laws diqualify such people from voting. Both efforts would be hardball politics but perhaps you'll forgive me for finding it more offensive for a campaign to selectively target those who've risked their lives to defend America than those who've been convicted of violating its laws.
Nevertheless, as always, thanks for your thoughtful comments, TP!
(3) TP made the following comment | Aug 2, 2004 10:37:26 AM | Permalink
All good points, Beldar, and you could well be right all the way around. Given my deep-seeded cynicism of all things political, I am inclined to share your views on the matter.
Make no mistake: I do not like John Kerry. Then again, I do not like George Bush. Really, I don't like any of them. One of the partners in my office is appalled at my cynicism and mistrust of politics. I like to bait her a bit by telling her, 'This is one election I cannot wait to not vote in.' Drives her crazy, in a light-hearted way.
The comments to this entry are closed.



