BROADSIDES

July 30, 2004

General George S. Kerry
Fresh from being ignored all week at the Democratic National Convention, John Kerry showed up last night to remind delegates that he is their presidential nominee.

Kerry's acceptance speech was written (very poorly, by the way) to convince voters that because he served in the Vietnam War for a little over a month, he's more qualified than President Bush to direct the war on terrorism. So there John Kerry stood last night looking more like a desperate contestant on The Gong Show doing a bad George C. Scott-as-Patton impression than a viable commander-in-chief.

Even that salute he delivered from the podium was sloppy. (On this, I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was just sore from that noodle-arm pitch he sissied only half-way to the catcher at Fenway last Monday.)

Consider these excerpts from Kerry's dud of a speech:

Here is the reality: that [bringing the troops home] won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership — so we don't have to go it alone in the world.
Translation: America's leadership can only be restored by doing what French and German leftists want us to do. Um--yeah. So a President Kerry would abandon America's best interests if it meant going "it alone in the world." I'm curious: would a President Kerry stand for what's right even if every other country thought he was wrong? How can a president lead when he prefers to follow?

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.
This will come as a surprise to the slew of nations working with the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. If anything, America's alliances have never been more widespread; hell, most of the former Soviet bloc countries and even Mongolia are allied with us. Again, what Kerry is really calling for is appeasement of French and German leftists.

Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.
These sentences are full of outs. Kerry's intention here is to sound like a saber-rattling, bloodthirsty warrior. However, he's not threatening to unleash America's military might against the enemy. Rather, he speaks of force and a swift response in a generic context. This is hardly reassuring. To most post-McGovern Democrats, force and a swift response take the form of punishing Americans for causing so many problems in the world -- like when really awful President Jimmy Carter made American Olympic athletes pay the price for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.
But, but, but...Senator Kerry, that could possibly mean having "to go it alone in the world." Right?

And I will build a stronger American military ... To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say, help is on the way.
Considering that shortly after Kerry returned from Vietnam, he launched his political career by (knowingly) falsely accusing other servicemembers of war crimes and spent much of his Senate career attempting to gut the Department of Defense, I'm sure that our armed forces would rather not have his kind of help.

In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words.
This may be the most stunning portion of the speech. Kerry is accusing Bush of being all talk and no action. I'm sure the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, a parade of dead and captured Islamist terrorists and millions of liberated Afghans and Iraqis would strongly disagree.

That is the kind of America I will lead as President: an America where we are all in the same boat.
Stuck in the same boat with Teresa and John Kerry ...

Oh, swell.

Now we know how everyone on the S.S. Minnow felt when the Howells came aboard.

B. Sides @ 9:26 AM