RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : John Kerry Reporting for Duty

Thursday
September 2, 2004

John Kerry Reporting for Duty by Barbara Branden

For the past year, I have thought that John Kerry was both weak and a hypocrite. Recently, since information about his Vietnam "service" has come out, I realized that he also was a liar. Today, I am beginning to think that the man is demented. Either that, or he thinks that his audiences are of subnormal intelligence and have no memories. Or both. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (36 messages)

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 1:18am

Brava, Barbara! ("The Passion of Barbara Branden"!) A stronger case for not voting for Kerry I can't imagine. Your essay should be required reading for all those who say, "Ah, but he's the lesser of two evils." While there is plenty that I dislike about Bush, you've made it frighteningly clear that the alternative is unthinkable.
(Edited by Derek McGovern on 9/02, 1:22am)

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 1:35am

Thanks very much, Derek. I appreciate your reaction.

I just learned something else about Kerry that had only been a rumor before. When he returned home after his four-and-a-half months in Vietnam, he secretly flew to Paris and met with high officials of the Viet Cong. This was the equivalent of secretly meeting with Goebbels after we were at war with Germany. It could have no legitimate purpose.

Shades of Jane Fonda!

Barbara

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 2:00am

Barbara,

A stirring article! Lets hope the American people make the best choice in November. (Though I'm not a US citizen I do feel a great affection for your nation, having lived there briefly as an exchange student and being an admirer of what it has symbolised in the past.)

Btw, congratulations on what I believe is your first SOLOHQ article :-) I'm sure we're all looking forward to further contributions from you.

MH

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 2:07am

I loved that delectable Democratic southerner's contemptuous question at the Convention today: "John Kerry wants to lead the free world. Free ... for how long?" And Dick Cheney: "John Kerry sees two Americas. America sees two John Kerries." Mr. Two-faced Flip-Flop met his Waterloo today, methinks (not that the revolting twerp is worthy of such an historic analogy). Anyway, Mrs. Branden, Your Majesty, SOLO Writer-in-Residence, welcome aboard!!

Linz

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 2:39am

Another beauty from Sen. Miller of GA:

�Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending ... John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.�

J

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 3:08am

Yeah, that was fabulous. And guess what? The CNN commies who came on afterward faulted him for his "anger." That proves he was on to something!! :-)

Linz

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 8:26am

What has amazed me about this election cycle is how the Democrats, all of them, have consistently accused the Bush administration of the very things of which they are most guilty. Your article points out the most blatant example to date. Whenever Kerry speaks, I see Bill Clinton saying, "I didn't have sex with that woman".

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 10:33am

Dear Mrs. Branden,

In post 1 on this thread, you wrote: "I just learned something else about Kerry that had only been a rumor before. When he returned home after his four-and-a-half months in Vietnam, he secretly flew to Paris and met with high officials of the Viet Cong."

If he did this SECRETLY, how did you "learn" about it? Please share. Pretty please.

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 1:31pm

Ms. Branden, I appreciate your article. I have been very torn up about this election. I found Zell Miller's speech very impactful and now today, what you have written. Thank you.

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 7:54am

What a pleasure and honor to have Barbara Branden writing for SOLOHQ!

Most of what she says in her article denigrating John Kerry is undeniably true. This guy is a deep disappointment to a country desperately hungering for change. Kerry's character really does seem pretty darn low. Such is the nature of politicians today! :-( Such is the nature of the stupid, slimey American electorate.

Still, this piece is a little harsh when you consider the major alternative. Bush's egregious and corrupt draft-dodging and subsequent extensive lies and evasions thereabout are something to be considered. As for Kerry's never-ending flip-floping -- this guy is too smart for his own good! Too smart for American politics, certainly. Campaigns today are conducted in braindead, predigested, childish, insulting-to-the-intelligence sound bites on the plane of the Lowest Common Denominator -- where Bush thrives.

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 8:22am

If any of you are interested, I found listed, in the University of Toronto catalogue, two copies of Kerry's The New Soldier, along with another reference copy in the Bloor Street library. I'm not really recommending this for edification, but for hypocrisy assessment. Chances are, it's already been decided down on Lobbery Row (D.C.) that the Kerry of 1971 was and is the "real" Kerry - those people having an uncanny desire to link truth and youth almost guarantees this.

I would recommend that everyone try to find a copy of this variant of "Listen Mommy! Listen Daddy!" prose and try to guess how it would be used as a "pincher's Bible" if a Kerry Administration comes to pass.

Here's a hint to get you started: when the Latin American governments that were around back in the 1930s got wind of Franklin D. Roosevelt's financial embarrassment of the gaming table (he was bailed out of them) they responded with....

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 8:28am

I still find it difficult (or impossible) to find Bush an acceptable alternative to Kerry.

I don't mean to insult the integrity of Ms. Branden in any way, but I've not seen any evidence of *any* of the rumors, getting more nefarious by the day, of John Kerry's betrayal of the US by faking war wounds or meeting with the Viet Kong. All I've seen are assertions that they're true, which I obviously can't view as evidence in good conscience.

Also, I find it difficult to take seriously any condemnation of *anyone* in congress based on individual bills that they did or didn't vote for. (A general trend would be better but still difficult to know the truth.) I'm still suspicious of the reasons Kerry voted against that bill. Was there a rider that he didn't like? Did the Republicans deliberately attach a rider to the bill they knew he wouldn't accept for the sole purpose of using his "no" vote in the election? I don't know.

I'm not defending Kerry; I'm just trying to get to the truth of the matter. I don't trust either Republicans or Democrats to give me a valid account of their opponents' behavior; campaign PR guys (of the likes of Karl Rove, for instance) love to skew facts, insinuate, start rumors, and often tell outright lies.

To be honest, I find the implicit (and sometimes explicit) promotion of Bush among Objectivists to be somewhat disturbing. His administration promotes some of the worst social policy in decades (e.g., faith-based initiatives, "defense of marriage", etc.). He and his staff have told bald-faced lies to the world. He has signed into law draconian and near-fascist legislation in the name of national security. I simply don't understand Objectivists defending him and his administration.

If it's a choice between one evil and another, we can debate all day about which one is less evil--sure. But to say that Bush is an acceptable choice for president ... I don't get it.

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 4:48pm

I think the Republicans are scum. I think even less of the Democrats.

The Republicans give us a lot of rhetoric on believing in free enterprise but their actions are just moving us towards socialism at a slightly slower pace than the Democrats. And their attacks on personal liberty in the name of protecting us are a greater danger than the actions of any terrorists.

In my pre-objectivist days, I was a big supporter of Ronald Reagan. As presidents go, he was very much better than any we had in the 20th century. But I was continually disappointed by him. He would make his speeches and get me fired up. And then his aides would tell you what he really meant and proceed to do the opposite of what he said. And he would let them. Reagan knew what he was talking about but didn't follow through to make sure his intentions were carried out by his aides and cabinet appointments. This wasn't the way it was at the start of his presidency but was the status quo by the end of his presidency.

I believe Ayn Rand called the Republicans "apologists for capitalism". Thank you, but I'd prefer to be a "radical for capitalism" as Rand also said.

As far as voting, the odds of my one vote deciding even a local election are statistically insignificant. As such, I totally understand an individual abstaining from voting in elections. I personally vote in every election that doesn't require a sacrifice of some greater value to my efforts, even if it means picking someone by going "eney meney miney moe" as I intend to in a local non-partisan school board primary with several candidates who all give the same type of altruistic speech. I would rather pick someone by chance than leave it to who has the support of the most vested interests as it usually is in these local school board elections.

In most elections, I vote for the candidate whose political philosophy is closest to mine. Because I'm not running myself and their is no objectivist candidate on the ballot, I'll be voting for Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik. Do I agree with him on everything? Of course, not. But even if Ayn Rand herself were still alive and at the top of her game, I'm sure I would disagree with her on some issues, also.

And, yes, I realize Badnarik believes in a policy of non-intervention and is opposed to the war on terrorism. But I concur with him. I do not now nor have I ever felt threatened by Afghanistan, Iraq or any of the other tyrannies around the world. Let them self-destruct from their own evil. The better strategy would be to embrace 100% laissez faire capitalism, open our borders (remember, terrorists are homegrown, too, ala Oklahoma City) and fight the terrorists by pursuing our own individual, rationally selfish values.

Imagine if everyone on the airplanes of 9/11 had guns. The twin towers would still be standing and the lost of innocent lives would have been much smaller or nonexistent. Or imagine airlines competing as to which is providing the best protection from terrorists. It sounds more reassuring to me than relying on government bureaucrats who don't know the meaning of the word "freedom".

Yes, if my only two choices on the ballot are a Republican and a Democrat, I'll most likely vote for the Republican. But you won't hear me singing his praises.

(Edited by Bob Palin on 9/02, 5:06pm)

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 9:19pm

MH, Lindsay, Ashley,Andre, thanks for your welcome. I'm very happy to be a part of Solo. Solo people tend to be very special, and I hope to contribute to the unique atmosphere Lindsay has created here, an atmosphere of rational passion and passionate rationality. And I know that if ever I fall short, there will be no lack of Soloists to correct me -- a fact that I cherish.

Adam asked how, if Kerry's trips to Paris were secret, I found out about them. Adam, I'm not an intelligence agent, but I do know that secrets are not always indefinitely protected. My "Deep Throat"in this instance consisted of two television broadcasters speaking on national television. It's possible that they were mistaken, but in that case I'm sure the Kerry team will alert us.

Andre, you say that Kerry is too smart for "the stupid, slimey electorate." Yes,of course. It was the sheer stupidity of Americans that made this the greatest country that has ever existed on earth and that taught the rest of the world whatever it knows of freedom. Sliminess freed us from Hitler and Stalin. Lack of intelligence created our science and technology and medical marvels, our great industries, our standard of living, our wealth.

Dean and Bob, I respect your disagreements with me. I, too, dislike a great deal about Bush's domestic policy, although it's light years superior to Kerry's. But I have said before that I believe the life-and-death issue facing us today is Islamo-fascism; if we don't defeat it, nothing else is going to matter. And I see no one but Bush who is able to lead us against the new fascism, who seems to understand it, and who knows how to fight it.

Barbara

Friday, September 3, 2004 - 5:32am

Barbara,

Two television broadcasters? If they are so reliable, why not mention their names, and what stations they broadcast on? In my experience the correlation between truth and television, especially our FCC-controlled television, is reliably negative; most of it is such dreck that no reasonable man would dignify it with a denial. But I admit there are exceptions. Do let us know.

Friday, September 3, 2004 - 8:47am

Thanks for the insightful article (and responses), Ms. Branden.

I believe that the reason that the Demoncrat presidential candidates are noticeably witty and clever ("too smart for politics"?), is that they must defend something wrong in principle - Welfare Statism.

It does not "take" wit and cleverness to defend what is right (Free Market) as the truth will speak for itself. Only lies need to be vigorously defended - while the truth prevails on its own, naturally.

This is the reason that Clinton, Gore, and Kerry were the logical defenders of unreason (because they have enough brain power to fabricate elaborate public deception and manufacture great, Statist, castles-in-the-sky).

Ed

Friday, September 3, 2004 - 10:19am

Barbara Branden wrote in Post 13:

Andre, you say that Kerry is too smart for "the stupid, slimey electorate." Yes,of course. It was the sheer stupidity of Americans that made this the greatest country that has ever existed on earth and that taught the rest of the world whatever it knows of freedom. Sliminess freed us from Hitler and Stalin. Lack of intelligence created our science and technology and medical marvels, our great industries, our standard of living, our wealth.

I think the greatest country on earth was created by John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin -- not the bawling, brawling, milling, mewling masses. It's a open question (at least to me) whether "the man in the street" is a "man" -- or a "moron" or a "monster." I certainly don't like him very much.

Ayn Rand consistently praised the American "salt of the earth" type guy. I always found this curious, and wonder Do you share her view? The Founding Fathers certainly didn't. They routinely denounced "the General Publick" in scathing terms much worse than mine. They were terrified of unlimited democracy and the potential for mob rule (which see the French Revolution).

I've met a lot of politicians in my time and -- the higher-up ones especially -- almost uniformly strike me as decent, respectful, circumspect, humble, intelligent, virtuous, hard-working men. The average American, meanwhile, never tires of his lazy, sloppy, self-indulgent, arrogant, ignorant belly-aching about "da gobimint" and the "lying politicians" who "all they do is just talk" etc. The difference in personal quality between the two archetypes is stark -- almost as if we'er talking about two different species.

I truly pity any high-quality, high-integrity, high-intelligence person who, with nothing but goodness in his heart, decides to run for high office in America. What he has to say and do to get elected, and how he has to pander to the mindless, disreputable, vulgar vulgate is a thing you could write a tragedy about!

Friday, September 3, 2004 - 4:46pm

Ms. Branden,
you wrote "It was the sheer stupidity of Americans that made this the greatest country that has ever existed on earth and that taught the rest of the world whatever it knows of freedom. Sliminess freed us from Hitler and Stalin. Lack of intelligence created our science and technology and medical marvels, our great industries, our standard of living, our wealth."

Is it not a collectivist argument, Ms. Branden? Should the intelligence and hard work of *those who created* all these wonderful things be distributed to *every* American, living or dead?

Very recently, Kansas banned (or at least restricted) the teaching of evolution in schools because of religious beliefs. By your argument, wouldn't *every* American be a party in introducing that? Or, when Lance Armstrong won the Tour the sixth time, did it mean that *every* American won the Tour?

How is this fundamentally different from tribal identity?

coaltontrail

Friday, September 3, 2004 - 6:10pm

The arguments here sound like the same elitist point of view that most modern composers have toward the public: they curse the rabble for not understanding their brilliance and write music that sounds like a train wreck. I know the public's positions as revealed by polls and some election results can be frustrating to people that are more involved and principled, but I think it is more productive to raise average people up by finding commonality than by spitting on them and calling them stupid all the time.
I think average Americans have a pretty good track record, all things considered. Certainly better than American intellectuals.

Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 12:22am

James Kilbourne wrote:"I think average Americans have a pretty good track record, all things considered. Certainly better than American intellectuals."

Who is an 'intellectual', in your definition, Mr. Kilbourne?

coaltontrail