The Paradoxical World Of John F. Kerry
August 2, 2004
Now that the morbidly mundane hoopla that took place in Boston last week known as the Democratic National Convention has concluded and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) is officially the Democratic presidential nominee, it is time to closely examine something very peculiar about this man who wants to be the leader of the free world.
Kerry, for all of his efforts last week to introduce himself to voters across the country during his four-day infomercial compliments of the Democratic Party, is still largely an unknown to most people even after all the bright lights and falling balloons.
After listening to the speeches from both Kerry and his vice-presidential running mate Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), the voters are still left to guess where these two men stand on the issues that they care about the most.
Take the issue of abortion, for example.
While Kerry has said that he believes life begins at conception and that he is personally opposed to abortion, he simultaneously states that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion because he cannot push his religious beliefs on women who want to end the life of their baby.
Does anyone else see the paradoxical nature of Kerry's position on abortion?
Nevertheless, despite taking both sides on the issue of abortion, Kerry has made it very clear that he will only nominate judges who are pro-abortion if he is elected president.
However, I do not recall hearing Kerry mention anything about it during his speech last Thursday night. For a man trying to tell voters who he is, he conveniently left out one of the most passionate issues that will guide his presidency. Why is that?
And then there is Kerry's support for gay marriage.
During the mid-90s, Kerry favored a legislative effort in Massachusetts to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, but also allow same-sex couples to engage in civil unions. But then in 2002, Kerry expressed concern over having a federal constitutional amendment that would define marriage exactly as he once supported.
Once again, does anyone else see the paradoxical nature of Kerry's position on gay marriage?
Although he has been both for and against gay marriage in his career as a public servant (as he has on a myriad of other issues), Kerry has made it clear that he would support gay marriage and other homosexual "rights" if he is elected president.
You might recall a letter written by openly gay Democratic U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) in July 2002 when Kerry joined 11 other Massachusetts lawmakers in signing it in support of gay marriage. Ironically, though, when Frank wrote another letter in January this year in support of gay marriage, Kerry's signature was not on it.
Back and forth, back and forth. Does anyone know where the Democratic presidential candidate stands on the issue of gay marriage? Again, he left out what he believes about it during his speech to America last week.
Although gay rights is another one of Kerry's core values, he conveniently left it out of his acceptance speech. Why is that?
Finally, on the war in Iraq, Kerry had a lot to say about it during his speech. In fact, the presidential wannabe repeatedly emphasized how he will make a "stronger America" by making this country "respected" again around the world.
And yet, although he has said he supports the Iraqi war effort, which is the opposite position that the Democratic Party holds, Kerry voted against funding the troops and vowed in his acceptance speech to "bring the troops home" if elected president.
Is Kerry trying to have it both ways on yet another issue?
Although he is not as anti-war as left-wing lunatic zealot former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean or as supportive of the Iraqi war as comparatively conservative Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Kerry has straddled the fence somewhere in between these two positions.
And while he has heavily touted his four months of experience in the Vietnam War as evidence of his ability to lead the United States militarily as commander-in-chief against terrorists and other threats to the nation's homeland, Kerry has said very little about the past 19 years that he has served in the U.S. Senate. Why is that?
Why? Because he has been a mostly unaccomplished liberal senator from a northern liberal state standing alongside another leftist icon, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). At least Kennedy does not hide his ideological compass as an unabashed liberal with a capital "L."
Although he accuses President George W. Bush of "misleading" and "lying," it is Kerry who has done both during his run for the presidency. Why is it so hard for a Democrat to run for political office on what they really believe?
The paradoxical world of John F. Kerry should concern every American who plans to vote in November. I cannot fathom how anyone can look at this man as a potential leader for America, domestically or militarily. I wonder how many of Kerry's supporters can actually name the top issues that their candidate supports.
While Kerry and Edwards valiantly attempted to define themselves to Americans last week, all they have done is convoluted the political landscape even further.
When a politician is completely devoid of any ideas to run on and accuses his opponent of what he himself is guilty of doing, that is a campaign doomed for failure from the beginning.
And that fittingly describes the paradoxical presidential campaign of one John F. Kerry.