Why I hate Kerry

A friend today asked me to explain why I hate Kerry. My choice of words. Fundamentally, his election would be a disaster for this nation when we can’t afford weak leadership. His policy weaknesses are rooted in his character weaknesses. Here’s my ranting, incohertent stab at ‘splaining a view I’ve felt strongly since the 1980s:

1. Deep down, he’s an America hater. Now G-d knows, if America sent me to an unpopular war, I might hold some bitterness at somebody, and we certainly know I have some bitterness from my service in Korea. As it happens, I direct that bitterness toward mass murderers and their apologists. I don’t believe that my country is always wise or pure, but I have kept faith with its values. John Kerry, on the other hand, drank the antiwar Kool-Aid after Vietnam, along with all the radical neurotransmitters that were slipped into the brew. This was distinct from the more honest pacifism, liberalism, or intellectually supportable arguments against the war, and there were many (I believe that Vietnam was a good cause carried out in a tragically clumsy way). For Kerry, it was bitter, emotional, and clearly mind-altering. Facts were filled in to fit hit emotions later–notably, his demonstrably false accusations of atrocities before the Senate (and more recently, his demonstrably false denials that he ever even made those accusations). Now, I wasn’t in the war, but I’ve extensively read books from all perspectives on the subject, and even went to many of the battlefields of Vietnam to see them for myself. I’ve met many Vietnam veterans who’ve described the war to me in great detail. Shockingly, not one of them said the same things Kerry said. I fully believe there were plenty of atrocities on all sides there, but they didn’t approach the scale or the particular facts of Kerry’s mendacious bit of congressional theater. For that matter, I’ve never heard these things from the many Vietnamese I’ve talked to–both those who fled the Communists and those who stayed behind (except those employed and watched by the government). But let’s return to Kerry’s take on the war. His 1970 Senate testimony set a long pattern. I’ve listened to his words as we debated 20 years of military actions, international crises, or intelligence budgets, and I’m convinced that America-hatred seeps through his pores. It’s admittedly harder to document than it is to feel. And yes, I do believe I heard somewhere that he was in combat. So what? I wasn’t, it was a sheer accident of fate, and I’m not ashamed to say I’m damn glad of it. Personal bravery says absolutely nothing about wisdom, vision, judgment, or even patriotism, for that matter.

2. He’s a loud-mouthed, arrogant, haughty grandstander who’d say anything for a vote and marry anyone for a buck. Not a charming sociopath like Clinton, just a guy who immediately flocks to the scent of a fat target. His prior positions are not mere irrelevancies like they were for Clinton; Kerry’s just clever enough to rationalize his way around any inconsistency. The problem is, no one else can follow the rationalizations.

3. Botox. It stands for the fact that he’s phoney. He never exactly denied it, did he?

4. He’s a bitter, vindictive person. See 1 above, also see how he made this the nastiest, most negative campaign in recent memory, and it’s still freaking March!! Eight more months of THIS? Allah, we beseech thee!

5. No sense of humor whatsoever. It’s a scientifically proven fact that people without humor are all mental.

6. Needs 26 pages to say something that Edwards could say in one clean sentence, or which Bush could communicate just as clearly with a drawled grunting sound followed by a smirky chortle. Ah, how a winding stream flows slowly, slowly to the sea . . . .

7. He’s a liberal, at least as most people define that term, but he doesn’t have the balls to admit it, defend it, and be proud of it. More ideological botox.

8. For the aforementioned reasons, and because he’s got the same tired old stable of leftish State Department peace-at-any-price doves in tow, he’ll end up giving Kim Jong-Il the entire store. He talks loud, but he couldn’t find two balls to fill his sack at the far end of a driving range. His position on every conflict and crisis of the last 20 years demonstrates that amply. May G-d forgive me; I’d rather have Bill Clinton back (as long as he dumped Hillary; if he did, he could have the Lincoln Harem at taxpayer expense for all I care).

In summary, of all of the serious Dem candidates, I’ve always, ALWAYS hated Kerry the most as a person, and was just gleeful when it looked like his quest for self-aggrandizement was going nowhere. Dean’s policies were the worst, but I sensed that Dean, for all his stupidity (don’t let that M.D. thing fool you) at least partially meant what he said. Plus, Dean was pretty funny, and sometimes intentionally at that. I genuinely liked Lieberman–have liked him ever since he and Dole tried to lift the Bosnia arms embargo, a classic example of gutless Eurothink that cost hundreds of thousands of lives–but let’s face it, he didn’t have the charisma. Personally, I even forgave him for running with Gore, who naturally stabbed him in the back and now looks like the asshole he truly is (G-d IS just!). Gepardt is a socialist, which makes his economics all wrong in my book, but he was a patriot. I felt bad for him. He made terrible, nasty rants about Bush but I never thought his heart was in it; someone told him he had to grab some of the angry vote. Edwards? Empty suit. Clinton light. A slick, likeable nothing.

Every election since 1984 has been a choice between the lesser of two evils, and Bush’s flaws are honest and palatable compared to his dad’s. That said, the lesser of two evils is a no-brainer this time.