Friday, September 10, 2004

Michael Moore Talking Points, Forgeries and Candidate Comparisons

Well, I was catching Hannity and Colmes this evening on Fox news and what did I get to see? Geraldine Ferraro and Dick Armey as guests. What were they discussing? The "Bush was AWOL" meme. I call it meme because it is right up there with whether Kerry earned his medals or not.

I've discussed this issue previously will just recap my position:

  1. All three Vietnam age candidates had deferments
  2. Both presidential candidates served in the military at that time.
  3. Dick Cheney's deferments seem reasonable based on his marriage and subsequent child
  4. Many men had deferments, including the last president
  5. Bush served his term and was discharged honorably from the National Guard
  6. Bush could have been sent at any time and, according to a reader here that reminded me, he volunteered to go when his training was complete, but was not sent because the military was scaling down it's forces
  7. Kerry served his term and was discharged honorably
  8. Kerry saw combat in Vietnam for four months and was decorated
  9. Kerry came back from Vietnam a changed man and his politics today and for the last 20 years reflect that change.

In regards to Kerry's medals, at this time, the Navy is investigating the rewarding of some of these medals. Until they clear the issue, it is up in the air for me. If it turns out that his awards documented on his website are falsified in some manner, then there will be an issue for me to discuss.

Michael Moore Talking Points, Forgeries and Candidate Comparisons are available in the inner sanctum

Candidate Comparison on the Main Issue of Security (My Beliefs)

To me, this election is about performance and agenda. Kerry has 20 years in the senate and even longer as a political activist as his back drop. The political issues here are what Kerry has supported or not supported in government for the last 20 years and the "activist" issue, in my mind, is not so much what he did in 1971, but how those experiences created the man and his stand on policies that we see today and over the last 20 years of voting and interaction.

Kerry has had a tendency to adhere to an isolationist view on the world. That no country is a threat to the United States as long as they do not attack us directly. This is based on his Vietnam experience and is backed up by his unauthorized negotiations with the North Vietnamese, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua (communist backed as well), his vote against action against Iraq in Gulf War I and, what I believe is his true stance on current affairs, his stand against the current Iraq war (regardless of his voting for authorization and then voting against funding; whatever his reasons for either).

This is what defines Kerry's future policy making potential for me. And stands on foreign policy that will effect my security is the major issue. All others are largely side shows.

I'm not sure I need to list out what I believe defines the President for me beyond some simple points: 9/11; response to 9/11; taking out terrorists around the world; taking out Saddam Hussein; not bowing down to the UN before making a decision on these important issues; the disarmament of Libyan WMD.

When you place them together like that, it just shows that the President has been willing to take action, including militarily, against known enemies. I include Saddam as a "known" enemy because of Gulf War I and his continued targeting of our planes in the "no fly zones" and his refusal to work within the UN resolutions. Kerry seems more as if he were attempting to just "keep the peace" and keep American military at home.

You know, that last statement "keep American military at home" probably doesn't sound like a bad idea. But the truth of the matter is, that there are people in other countries that are a danger to the US and the stability of certain regions which have strategic and economic importance for the US and the world.

Kerry believes we cannot be the world's policeman and many agree with him. But, it seems apparent that, even if we are not the "world's policeman" we are still the "world power" and it makes us a target for state and non-state actors. Therefore, we must be ready and willing to act against these groups with military action as a viable option. I have heard the phrase "military option as the last resort". I don't really know anyone who sees this as the first option. But I am worried about people not seeing this as "no option".

Don't get me wrong. I believe that the President, whoever he is in the future, Nov 2, 2004 or in the year 2024, will be constrained to protect the United States and use military force if a "state actor" declares war or takes any military action against the US directly or it's interests. Having said that, I believe that the current make up of the Democrat party has failed in it's vision to understand the make up of our current enemy and it's potential. It seems that they would be less willing to use military action directly and with substantial force against these people. I believe that they believe our actions should be constrained to building allies within states where these people reside and having them take action for us or by using small military or paramilitary actions against these groups.

I believe that the last issue is the sticking point. We do need allies in other countries to assist us in taking these people down. But, trying to rely on that strategy as the major tactic is slow and unreliable. The same as using small military action as one of the major tactics. I believe fully that we must be prepared to go to war with any country that is not participating with us in capturing these people, but harboring them (such as Iran or Syria) or with any country that gives us "lip service" and does not fully cooperate. I believe in the stick and carrot method, but I believe we must be seen as VERY willing to use the stick if the cooperation is not forthcoming and VERY generous with the carrot when it is.

That's where I believe that the US policy under the current administration meets my major agenda requirement.

Michael Moore Talking Points (My Continuing Disgust With My Old Party)

So, I'm watching Hannity and Colmes and Geraldine Ferraro is on. I remember way back in 1984 (I was 15) when she was the Vice Presidential candidate along with Walter Mondale. Of course, I was very young and hadn't really formed any political ideology, but I remember thinking how cool it was that we had a woman running for Vice President. As a young, smart, growing woman, I was interested in my future, what I would grow up to be and I wanted to see no limits on my potential. Up to and including being President of the United States if I wanted to.

I believe we have that today, but, what I saw in 1984 was the epitome of my dreams. We had as yet to have a woman vice president, much less president and I thought this was showing the way. And it was, but, looking at the woman, Geraldine Ferraro, from my older, more politically conscious self, I realize that she is less than an individual and more as a "party member" willing to sell herself short by picking up the new "Michael Moore" talking points of the Democrat party. I was disappointed to say the least.

They were discussing the "Bush AWOL" issue. She made some really interesting comments. Some of which will probably lead to other conversations, particularly linked with Ben Barnes statements of helping the President get into the Air National guard. She, in arguing with Dick Armey, stated emphatically that Ben Barnes statement was true because ALL congressmen and women, at sometime, if not often, helped people of their constituency while in office. And she meant, GAVE FAVORS to friends, business associates, people that could further their careers in politics, etc. Therefore, Ben Barnes claims that he assisted George Herbert Walker Bush in getting his son George Walker Bush into the National Guard must be true.

Frankly, after my review of all the parties involved and their "Vietnam service" this is really a non-issue. Hell, it may even be true. But, it is probably not wise to start throwing the brush of "political favors" too wide when you include members of your own party as having given special assistance or received special assistance, on this issue or with any other "favor". When she makes the statement that "many received such favors" regarding the Vietnam war, it opens the door REALLY wide to research into BOTH parties' candidates all over the sphere of politics. Very foolish.

Further, Dick Armey proceeded to challenge Ferraro on Barnes assertion, stating that Barnes had already disclaimed any such assistance in 2000. What does Ferraro answer back with? Michael Moore talking points from Fahrenheit 911 in order to bolster her assertions that this point is true: (paraphrasing)"How many children of Congressmen and women are in the military now serving in Iraq?"

Basically, implying that congressmen and women were able, through their power in congress, to keep each others children out of the military and, more specifically, keep them from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan. A truly foolish statement, but definitely a Michael Moore meme. Can you dig that? It's foolish for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that this is an all volunteer army and no draft is instituted so there would be no reason for current congressmen and women to exercise any power in keeping each others children from the military. Second, there has already been plenty of studies debunking the "representation" of congressional children or family in the military or in Iraq/Afghanistan as being truly equal, if not more so, than the current population of the United States.

And some of my Democrat friends wonder why I left the party? Seriously, I cannot stand Michael Moore. I couldn't stand that the party selected him and his little film as a representation of it's views on the war. And now, for whatever foolish reasons, I have heard main players in the Democrat party espouse one of his film's points for about the third or fourth time. The ones I remember them using recently include:

  1. Bush stayed in the class room for 7 mins while the US was under attack (Like this is something terrible and shows lack of character?)
  2. Bush's family has major connections to Saudi Royal family and oil interests (this has been debunked over and over, but they still used it as recently as one week ago)
  3. Congress is using it's power to keep their children out of military service

There may be others, but it's late and I can't think of all of them right this second. What I believe this shows is that the Democrat party or, more importantly, Kerry's campaign, is that they seriously lack their own ideas. Creativity in campaigning has either disappeared or been high jacked by the far left the same way they high jacked the base of the party.

I can't tell you how taken aback I was to hear item # 3 come out of her mouth. Further, I think these folks have never been through survey. When you do survey and the surveyor asks you a question, you answer it directly and do not go into a long spiel or try to defend your situation. This generally gives the surveyor more places to look, ask questions and catch you not doing something right.

By indicating that "everyone does it" or "many people got deferments/favors", Ferraro has opened up a can of worms for future review of people's (including Democrats) records of service in Vietnam or any military or any potential favors (already a hot topic) given to special interest groups or political payoffs.

Advice for the Kerry campaigners: you need to get control of your party members. You need to advice them how to speak and when to shut up. You need to get them back on the basics of your agenda because they are screwing up your message.

Of course, it may be too late and the Kerry campaign is sunk. The messenger did not define himself or his message. He allowed himself to be defined and that definition is not equating to winning this election.


I won't say much on this accept that everyone in the blogosphere had these documents debunked within hours, if not minutes, of their release.

Crushing Dissent has an excellent overview of all of the blogospheres activities concerning the forgery of the documents.
Little Green Footballs actually shows a comparison of the documents and how they match up to modern day technology as opposed to the technology of 1972/1973.
Fox News: Bush Guard memos questioned covered it Thursday on the internet, but Friday morning as I watch the early news, they are beating the hoax issue into the ground.
MSN Still has the original: Bush Guard Memos cause furor without commenting on their potential (probable) forgery. There cable news has yet to cover it. Imus in the morning talking to Patricia Cornwell
CNN: Bush Guard Records Released and in small letters underneath "authenticity questioned".

I won't go on. What we have here is what I was saying earlier. Kerry needs to get control of his campaign. The forgery will be linked (true or not) to his campaign efforts and he is going to look like an idiot. Once again, Kerry is being defined by everyone, but himself.

No comments: