How Dems delude themselves

[trj911]

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


'The embattled farmers stood and fired the shot heard round the world," declared Ted Kennedy, in a moment of Revolutionary War nostalgia. Or he would have done, if he'd managed to stick to his text. But, in a strikingly erratic performance even by his standards, what actually emerged from the senator's lips was: They "fired the shirt round the world.''

That sums up better than anything what the Democratic Party's been trying to do this last week for its presidential candidate: fire the stuffed shirt round the world, put a rocket up a guy who seems weighed down by his own self-importance and project him into the stratosphere. All the star speakers through the week were the equivalents of those bits of the rocket that boost you up into space and then fall away, leaving just the little capsule up there. And, who knows, if they boosted him up high enough, maybe nobody would notice just how little there is to John Kerry's little capsule.

Well, that was the theory. "I'm John Kerry," began the candidate on Thursday night, "and I'm reporting for duty!"

Democratic Party partisans appreciate this stuff -- a stageful of Swifties, the war-wounded Max Cleland, "we band of brothers, a little older, a little grayer" -- but they appreciate it mainly as a post-modern jest, a way of sticking it to the GOP. To anybody else, including those sought-after "swing voters" in "battleground states," it's starting to sound a little weird. John Kerry says he's running on his record, but, of his four decades of adult life, he's running on his four months in Vietnam. Of the other 39 years and eight months, there's nary a word.

Take any one of the showbiz luminaries at the Dem convention -- Glenn Close, say. Imagine if she's up for a big role in a new movie and the producers say, "Well, what have you done?" And she says, "I've got a great resume. I did summer stock in Vermont in 1969. Third Indian maiden in Rose-Marie." And no, I'm not comparing Vietnam to summer stock: What I'm saying is that, whatever you were doing in 1969, it's simply unnatural to emphasize that at the expense of the subsequent 35 years. Certainly, no previous veteran -- Dole, Bush Sr., Carter, McGovern -- ever thought to do it.

Vietnam's paying diminishing returns for Kerry. The more he harps on it the more hollow seems the post-Vietnam Kerry -- i.e., Senator Kerry -- and the more he sounds like a man whose world view was frozen in the '60s. "We believed we could change the world," he said of those times. "And you know what? We did. But we're not finished."

Just what we need: more boomer self-congratulation. Amid the variously labored song titles selected for the Convention -- "We Are Family," "You've Got A Friend" -- the one that struck me as most pertinent to the Kerry campaign was "Blowin' In The Wind.'' The archetypal weathervane pol thinks he's got it figured out: The voters want tough talk -- "strong," "stronger," "strengthen" evidently all poll-test well -- but rather less action when they switch on the evening news. So Kerry's position on the war is this:

"Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."

Got that? If the Empire State Building's taken out, he'll certainly respond to it. Next time 'round, there won't be any mistakes about where the WMD are because they'll be in the middle of a big crater in Chicago.

For me that one line encapsulates the stale, dozy complacency of the supposedly complex Kerry. Others evidently feel differently. But it seems to me emblematic of the Democratic Party's problem intellectually: It's almost wholly reactionary: on national security, on Social Security. What are the Democrats for? Well, they're for getting rid of George W. Bush, but what else?

Floundering for a cause with which to rally the citizenry, the party eventually found one: itself. "Our greatness is also measured by our goodness," declared Howard Dean.

"I've seen it in the people I've met and their desire to take our country back for the American people. I saw it in a college student in Pennsylvania who sold her bicycle and sent us a check for $100 with a note that said, 'I sold my bicycle for democracy.' "

Really? John F. Kerry's bicycle cost $8,000. Why doesn't he sell his for democracy? If you throw in the designer French T-shirt and buttock-hugging lemon-hued lycra shorts, you'd probably be up around an even ten grand. When Howard Dean and John Kerry and John Edwards talk about "change," what they mean is you send these bazillionaire grandees the hundred-dollar bill and they'll keep the change.

What did that co-ed cutie get for her hundred bucks? Presumably she sent it to Governor Dean because he was anti-war. He lost to Senator Kerry, who at that time was for-and-against the war, in the same way that he's for-and-against abortion and for-and-against gay marriage. But he seems to have come down, Iraq-wise, on the "for" side of the ledger. He'll be spending a little more time ineffectually chit-chatting with Kofi and Jacques and Gerhard, but other than that his Iraq policy is sounding more like Bush's every day. That college kid ponied up her $100 and isn't getting a lot of "change." I wonder if she's missing her bicycle this summer.

There's a narcissism about the tone of this convention that cuts to the heart of the Democratic Party's difficulties: They don't believe in anything except their monopoly of goodness. That's why John Edwards' supposedly "appealing biography" is appealing only when put next to John Kerry's. Instead of marrying his money, he sued his way into it. But his message doesn't resonate with most Americans because it boils down to: If I can do it, you can't. But here's some government programs instead. On the other hand, Edwards' very condescension to the downtrodden masses confirms middle-class liberals in their sense of their own virtue.

That's the essence of this convention: a condescending media congratulating a condescending leadership for effectively communicating to their condescending activists their plans for everyone else. John F. Kerry should enjoy it while he can. It's downhill from here.

[ronin]

"That sums up better than anything what the Democratic Party's been trying to do this last week for its presidential candidate: fire the stuffed shirt round the world, put a rocket up a guy who seems weighed down by his own self-importance and project him into the stratosphere."

damn, I'm laughing so hard I think I just wet myself!

however, I also noticed (and found it quite disconcerting) that Kerry is making a huge deal out of his four month stint in Vietnam and is not speaking much on anything else

[Mulholland]

They "fired the shirt round the world.'' -- JFK

Boy if he were a Republican he would be stupid, inarticulate, fumbling his words, a drug addict, a war criminal...etc., etc., etc.

Shows the fundamental difference between DemocRATs and Republicans...We don't spend our time impugning petty mistakes for political points.

[Moneyguy1]

Does the President have an equivalent four month stint he can tell us about?

Just curious.

If so, I think he should. Really.

JFK shouldn't have all the Rah Rah fun.....

I know I have events in my life which, although short in duration, overwhelm other memories.

[ronin]

hmmm. I've been searching, but it appears G.W. doesn't have a four-month stint created for the purpose of self aggrandizement, propaganda, and the furtherance of his then-upcoming political career anywhere

looks like you got us there

[Moneyguy1]

Actually, I was trying to be serious. I would be the first to admit that Kerry has a huge hole in his resume, but so does the Prez. A head to head comparison FROM the Vietnam war to now would be interesting, dou't you think?

[ronin]

the only thing that worries me is that such a comparison might show that Kerry has a 39-year hole in his resume as opposed to GW's of four months. at least that is what the DNC leads me to believe

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by ronin
hmmm. I've been searching, but it appears G.W. doesn't have a four-month stint created for the purpose of self aggrandizement, propaganda, and the furtherance of his then-upcoming political career anywhere

looks like you got us there

Ya, I am sure the Vietnamese boat people (100,000s died), the people interned in labor camps, or forgotten MIAs/POWs, the 2 million + that died after John Kerry's pro-Vietnam propaganda play, are forever grateful to JFKerry's 4 month stunt in Vietnam.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Does the President have an equivalent four month stint he can tell us about?

I imagine the four months after the devastating 9-11 attacks as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation in the world's military ranks right up there with 4 months on a small boat in Vietnam slaughtering unarmed civilians and burning villages as a way to prepare one to lead the country.

[Moneyguy1]

But, aren't all those allegations about slaughter of innocents been proven wrong? Depends on which group you listen to.

I wasn't in "Nam..spent my time chasing drug boats and rescuing "stupid" day sailors (and pulling a few dead from the Atlantic). All I have to go on are the news reports of the times (which were bizarre and horrible in themselves with daily "body counts") and Hollywood offerings such as Full Metal Jacket, and friends of mine who came back really screwed up. The stories I was told were indeed frightening and I have no reason to dispute the word of guys who were there. One was a "tunnel rat". Had a nervous breakdown and was transferred to bagging up bodies for transport back to the states. That was a good move on the part of the brass.....Couldn't hold a job when he got back. Another, a Captain, to this day cannot go to a funeral without getting an anxiety attack. Having your sergeant hit with a mortar round in the gut that did NOT explode might just do that to you.

I am not belittleing either of the two candidates, or their life experiences. I just would like to learn more about them between the late 60s and 2000. I see them both as Americans first, politicians second. And, in different ways, both patriots.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
But, aren't all those allegations about slaughter of innocents been proven wrong? Depends on which group you listen to.

Kerry claims he did. I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Almost everyone else seems to claim they did not. I am giving them the same benefit.

Most of the things that Kerry claimed others did has been proven to be wrong...mostly accounts of folks with a political agenda that either were not in the military or not in Vietnam.

[nostatic]

I think if you look at the resumes post 1975 (let's forget the war stuff for awhile...enough slaughtered babies to go around) I think you'll see two different, yet both lame resumes. For GW, a series of failed business ventures (despite having the silver spoon shoved down his throat), and for JFK a bunch of politics as usual, although he did spend time as a DA.

They both suck, just in different ways.

I will grant you that GW seemed to be able to finally be non-idiotic immediately following 9/11. But from there he (imho) soon ventured further into the deep end of the pool without his arm floaties fully inflated. There also is the question of would another president have done as well or better under the circumstances. Of course we will never know that...such is life in the space-time continuum.