BUSH TRYING TO PAINT KERRY "RED?"
By Jon Christian Ryter
February 27, 2004
A front page headline in USA Today one day last week screamed: "How the Bush team will try to paint Kerry." When I saw it, my first thought was, "Hmmm, I must have missed the article about how the Kerry team was trying to paint President George W. Bush in the preceding issue of USA Today. So, I dug the paper out of the trash can to read the story I knew had to be there. It wasn't. Oh, I thought, they did Kerry first and the article on how the liberals were painting Bush would be in tomorrow's paper. Eagerly, I went through every section that issue of USA Today. It wasn't. Of course, you and I both know that I knew that all along. Trust the liberal media (and Gannett--the publisher of USA Today--is definitely part of the liberal media) to paint the conservatives with the "ugly brush" as they paint the liberals in a saintly white satin sheen).
But most of the "painting" was actually done by Gannett to make the ugly truth about Kerry look like an ugly lie foisted on the media by the Bush team.
Let's look at the report in which USA Today writer Judy Keen took an "unbiased" look at the candidates and what they were saying about each other. Was the Bush team trying to paint Kerry with the same ugly brush that USA Today used on them? Let's see.
Keen said that Republicans are already depicting Kerry as a "product of Washington." Now, that's an ugly accusation. Being a career politician is bad enough, but being a "product of Washington" is much worse. It means you've become part of the entrenched bureaucracy. Once a Congressman serves three terms, he becomes part of the establishment. Once a Senator gets through the swearing in ceremony of his third term, he's pretty much part of the furnishings in the Senate chamber. Kerry has been part of the establishment for 32 years. He is halfway through his fourth term as a Senator from Massachusetts. That means, he's already served 28 years in that chamber and four in the House of Representatives. That easily qualifies Kerry as a "product of Washington."
And that basically means John Forbes Kerry wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the nose. I guess that's why Kerry sees himself as a patriot and a national hero. He's been telling his campaign-colored Vietnam war stories for so long, he actually believes them himself. Kerry knows that a lie told enough times becomes an urban legend. There is an old adage in newspaper reporting. When a lie colors the perception of reality sufficiently, forget the truth and believe the lie. The perception that Kerry has promoted since 1970 is that he really deserved his purple hearts for three Band-Aid wounds, and that killing a wounded man who was likely already dying really did merit a Silver Star. Only a man who was a product of the inside-the-beltway mentality could believe that. Therefore Kerry, by his actions, is definitely a product of Washington.
Even though USA Today couldn't see that, both Gen. Wesley Clark and former Governor Howard Dean were both quick to recognize the fact that Kerry, as a perennial Washingtonian, was part of the problem, not the solution.
Keen noted that Clark's accusations didn't slow Kerry down at all. She was right. That's largely because the liberal media never does much to expose the fancy red underwear that the liberal hides under the traditional outer garments that make him look like the rest of us. And it amuses them when the patriotic blue collar, rank-and-file union members don't realize that the liberal icons whose banner they carry in the Labor Day parades view patriotism through a socialist prism rather than in red, white and blue.
Keen noted that the Republican assault began as soon as Kerry surprised everyone--including himself--by winning in Iowa. Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie told the media that Kerry was "out of sync" with most Americans, and that he was one of the most liberal members of the Senate. Both accusations are true. In point of fact, the mainstream media is completely "out of sync" with the rest of America so its not surprising that they didn't recognize that fact.
Kerry, like Teddy Kennedy, never saw an entitlement program he didn't like (unless it was a pay raise for the military). In fact, both of them love those welfare handouts so much, they believe it won't hurt the military to have fewer mylar bullet proof vests and helmets, less ammunition, fewer cruise missiles, fewer tanks, fewer personnel carriers, fewer aircraft and fewer ships so that the politicians will have the needed tax dollars to fund their welfare programs so that those who want to spend their days watching soap operas instead of working can nibble on potato chips as they watch TV and pick their choice of numbers for their Super Lotto tickets.
Kerry's an entitlement liberal. Gillespie was right.
Kerry's advisers, Keen said, were ready for the GOP. "Bring it on," they said. They said that only because Democratic strategists went back into their George W. Bush playbook from the gubernatorial elections of 1992 and 1996 and decided there was still some mileage in Bush's National Guard record since Kerry had the medals to prove he was a genuine action hero.
But Kerry wasn't counting on thousands of Vietnam veterans--many of whom were prisoners-of-war in Viet Cong bamboo cells--remembering how effective Lt. jg John Kerry's anti-American rhetoric proved to be from 1970 to 1972, and how many of them were made to suffer because of people like him and Jane Fonda. And, Kerry was not counting on the effectiveness of the Internet to bring that message home to America.
Both Kerry and the liberal media blamed Bush. Shocking as it may seem, few of those Vietnam veterans liked Bush either because he chose the safety of a National Guard unit designed to safeguard the children of America's elite. But Bush, at least, was not a traitor. Most Vietnam vets believe Kerry was.
And Bush has redeemed himself well in the eyes of most veterans and most of those serving in the armed forces of the United States. In their eyes, he has earned the title of "commander-in-chief." While Kerry served in harm's way, Kerry renounced the honor associated with his service.
Keen noted that Republicans claim Kerry "...has left no footprint on Capitol Hill." That's because a good thief seldom leaves a trail when he comes to your home to rob, pillage and destroy. Like most good liberals, Kerry has his hand in and out of your pocket before you even realize a new tax bill that he voted for, has passed through Congress. Howard Dean "researched" Kerry's voting history and noted that in his 32 years on the Hill, John Kerry sponsored 371 bills. Fortunately for the American people, only 9 of them were ever enacted. Six of the 9 that passed were largely ceremonial bills that renamed government buildings or landmarks, so in reality out of 371 very liberal pieces of legislation, Kerry could only get his own party to back 3 of them.
Now, I don't know how Judy Keen interprets that, but to me, its a clear indication that Kerry is both part of the Washington establishment--and he has left no indelible imprints for posterity--except perhaps his throwing "borrowed" military medals over the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and testifying, later that day, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the U.S. military ordered soldiers to commit atrocities in Vietnam That basically confirms that Kerry is generally on the wrong side of the issues that matter most to Americans.
One of the most shocking (particularly in light of John Kerry's criticizing Bush's lack of sound intelligence in confirming the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) things about John Kerry's legislative voting record is that in 1993, shortly after the first World Trade Center bombing, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from defense intelligence spending--at a time when good sense dictated that intelligence spending be increased. Kerry has voted against every defense measure and every intelligence bill for the past decade.
Finally, in defending Kerry's anti-American efforts that gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during a time of war, Judy Keen noted that 71% of the American people were against the war in Vietnam. Actually, 71% of the American people were against the way the war was being waged. The Democrats used the war in 1972 as a political tool to dethrone Richard Nixon. They hamstrung Nixon at every passe and prevented his administration from winning a war that should have been won in 1964 in 90 days. But, that argument aside, Kerry wants it both ways.
John Forbes Kerry is a socialist. As a blueblood, Kerry served when the sons of America's aristocrats were safely billeted in homebased Guard units. That was commendable. While they were minimal Band-Aid wounds, Kerry was nevertheless wounded while in the service of his nation. That is commendable. He was awarded a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. That is commendable. But, he requested early release from the military to become a vocal anti-war and anti-American protester. That is not commendable. And, his inflammatory speeches directed against the United States government and the Department of Defense, in a time of war, were inexcusable. The fact that his speeches--like Jane Fonda's--were used by the North Vietnamese to psychologically beat down American POWs is deplorable. The fact that a decorated veteran made inflammatory speeches against his nation, and the flag under which he served is despicable. Kerry's "aid and comfort" to an enemy in a time of war is treasonable because his poisonous rhetoric gave hope to North Vietnam that if they persisted--and if they inflicted enough damage on their enemy, and killed enough U.S. soldiers, America would simply quit the battlefield and go home.
And, in the end, that is exactly what happened.
Are the Bush people painting John Kerry "red?"
I don't think so. I think John
Kerry did that to himself in 1971. It was just a permanent dye that
shows through when the red, white and blue wears thin When you climb
in bed with the enemy and good men die because of it, that red stain,
rightfully, like the mark of Cain, should remain. After all, there
is no statute of limitations on treason even when treason is called
"free speech" by the left.
© 2004 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved
Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.
Today, Jon is an advertising executive with
the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com
has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders
who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his
books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.
"...Kerry's anti-American efforts that gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during a time of war, Judy Keen noted that 71% of the American people were against the war in Vietnam. Actually, 71% of the American people were against the way the war was being waged."