Baby You Can Drive My Car, Or My SUV
Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" becomes "To Own or Not to Own" when it comes to vehicle ownership and Presidential hopeful John Kerry.
I am not going to criticize Senator Kerry for flipfloping political positions, at least not in this particular blog. I can certainly understand the need to change positions on major issues. What I can't understand and would love to have explained for me is the Senator's flipflopping on whether or not he owns an SUV.
This is a story that has been beat to death, but I'll regurgitate the facts here anyway, before making my point. In the Congressional Record, Senator Kerry said "My wife drives an SUV. My stepson drives an SUV. My daughter is currently driving an SUV." 3/12/2002, pS1758. At a Michigan campaign stop in February of this year, the Senator bragged of owning several SUVs. But during an April 2004 conference call to reporters discussing a jobs tour through key swing states, including Michigan, Kerry said "I don't own an SUV". Later on he modified his statement by saying "The family has it, I don't have it."
Never mind his other statement about the importance of buying American made cars which was made about 12 hours before some smart newsie pointed out that his wife drives an expensive foreign purchased Audi. I think a man who wants to sit in the Oval Office should know whether or not he, and/or his family owns a gas guzzling SUV before, not after he goes on the record about the importance of raising fuel economy standards.
Saying you don't own something after you say you own it and justifying your earlier misstatement by saying that your family owns it sounds awfully familiar. It reminded me of a claim by someone that he "...did not have sex with that woman..." a claim that later turned on the fact that he didn't define a particular act as sex. Never mind that 99.444444% of the world disagreed with his interpretation of the act of fellatio not being a sexual act, but we are talking some serious prevaricating here.
Therein lies my point in raising this issue. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other about the two stumblebums who are unfortunately the only two men who have any chance of being elected President on the first Tuesday in October. The point is that Kerry is like the last Democractic President, a serious prevaricator.
Proof of this can be found on his website. In his biography, it says "John Kerry served two tours of duty". A seemingly harmless statement, even though it is buried in the middle of a paragraph that begins by saying "As he was graduating from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam, because...". Now when you read that first line about two tours of duty following that first line, it makes it sound like he served two tours of duty in Vietnam. But he didn't. His first tour of duty was on board a ship that never got within 150 miles of combat.
However, the real prevarication here is far worse. In the aforementioned paragraph from Senator Kerry's bio on his website, it claims that he volunteered for service in Vietnam because "it was the right thing to do." The truth of the situation is much, much different. After graduating from Yale, John Kerry petitioned his draft board for a fifth student deferment. His request was to engage in post-graduate studies in Paris, France. His request for a fifth deferment was denied by his draft board. So, he joined the Naval Reserves in order to avoid ground duty, hoping that this would avoid him having to serve at all. In point of fact, his original enlistment in the USNR was in an INACTIVE status. Unfortunately for then Mr. Kerry, his reserve unit was activated.
By the way, in yet another interesting prevarication, the Democratic National Committee has omitted any reference to the fact that both John Kerry and George Bush received four student deferments during their attendance at Yale. President Bush's deferments are mentioned by the DNC in their chart, but Senator Kerry's are not. That is just plain silly.
I strongly suspect that the reason that Senator Kerry refuses to sign Standard Form 180, to allow the release of his entire military record, including his military medical records, is directly related to his prevarications about his military service record. I don't doubt for a moment his accomplishments in combat and his bravery. What I do wonder about are all the unanswered questions. Questions like why did someone who was wounded three different times, seriously enough to receive three Purple Hearts never spend the night in a military hospital in Vietnam? Why does Senator Kerry continue to allow others to attack President George W. Bush's military record when Kerry himself is on the record as saying this should not be an issue?
Wait a minute you say? How in the world can Kerry be on the record saying that Vietnam service should not be an issue? The following are excerpts taken from a speech Senator John Kerry made on the floor of the United States Senate:
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?"
"I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country"
The man who spoke those words should not let others attack the service record of George W. Bush in his stead without vehement protest. Unless of course, he was prevaricating even then, in defense of an even greater prevaricator, in the form of Bill Clinton.
For those of you who want to question or attack the military service record of George W. Bush, whether or not you yourself served, bear in mind that your attacks are on behalf of a man who refuses to take a step that the man you're attacking did. He signed SF Form 180. Kerry didn't. Ask yourself why. Ask yourself why not?
I am not going to criticize Senator Kerry for flipfloping political positions, at least not in this particular blog. I can certainly understand the need to change positions on major issues. What I can't understand and would love to have explained for me is the Senator's flipflopping on whether or not he owns an SUV.
This is a story that has been beat to death, but I'll regurgitate the facts here anyway, before making my point. In the Congressional Record, Senator Kerry said "My wife drives an SUV. My stepson drives an SUV. My daughter is currently driving an SUV." 3/12/2002, pS1758. At a Michigan campaign stop in February of this year, the Senator bragged of owning several SUVs. But during an April 2004 conference call to reporters discussing a jobs tour through key swing states, including Michigan, Kerry said "I don't own an SUV". Later on he modified his statement by saying "The family has it, I don't have it."
Never mind his other statement about the importance of buying American made cars which was made about 12 hours before some smart newsie pointed out that his wife drives an expensive foreign purchased Audi. I think a man who wants to sit in the Oval Office should know whether or not he, and/or his family owns a gas guzzling SUV before, not after he goes on the record about the importance of raising fuel economy standards.
Saying you don't own something after you say you own it and justifying your earlier misstatement by saying that your family owns it sounds awfully familiar. It reminded me of a claim by someone that he "...did not have sex with that woman..." a claim that later turned on the fact that he didn't define a particular act as sex. Never mind that 99.444444% of the world disagreed with his interpretation of the act of fellatio not being a sexual act, but we are talking some serious prevaricating here.
Therein lies my point in raising this issue. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other about the two stumblebums who are unfortunately the only two men who have any chance of being elected President on the first Tuesday in October. The point is that Kerry is like the last Democractic President, a serious prevaricator.
Proof of this can be found on his website. In his biography, it says "John Kerry served two tours of duty". A seemingly harmless statement, even though it is buried in the middle of a paragraph that begins by saying "As he was graduating from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam, because...". Now when you read that first line about two tours of duty following that first line, it makes it sound like he served two tours of duty in Vietnam. But he didn't. His first tour of duty was on board a ship that never got within 150 miles of combat.
However, the real prevarication here is far worse. In the aforementioned paragraph from Senator Kerry's bio on his website, it claims that he volunteered for service in Vietnam because "it was the right thing to do." The truth of the situation is much, much different. After graduating from Yale, John Kerry petitioned his draft board for a fifth student deferment. His request was to engage in post-graduate studies in Paris, France. His request for a fifth deferment was denied by his draft board. So, he joined the Naval Reserves in order to avoid ground duty, hoping that this would avoid him having to serve at all. In point of fact, his original enlistment in the USNR was in an INACTIVE status. Unfortunately for then Mr. Kerry, his reserve unit was activated.
By the way, in yet another interesting prevarication, the Democratic National Committee has omitted any reference to the fact that both John Kerry and George Bush received four student deferments during their attendance at Yale. President Bush's deferments are mentioned by the DNC in their chart, but Senator Kerry's are not. That is just plain silly.
I strongly suspect that the reason that Senator Kerry refuses to sign Standard Form 180, to allow the release of his entire military record, including his military medical records, is directly related to his prevarications about his military service record. I don't doubt for a moment his accomplishments in combat and his bravery. What I do wonder about are all the unanswered questions. Questions like why did someone who was wounded three different times, seriously enough to receive three Purple Hearts never spend the night in a military hospital in Vietnam? Why does Senator Kerry continue to allow others to attack President George W. Bush's military record when Kerry himself is on the record as saying this should not be an issue?
Wait a minute you say? How in the world can Kerry be on the record saying that Vietnam service should not be an issue? The following are excerpts taken from a speech Senator John Kerry made on the floor of the United States Senate:
The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?"
"I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country"
The man who spoke those words should not let others attack the service record of George W. Bush in his stead without vehement protest. Unless of course, he was prevaricating even then, in defense of an even greater prevaricator, in the form of Bill Clinton.
For those of you who want to question or attack the military service record of George W. Bush, whether or not you yourself served, bear in mind that your attacks are on behalf of a man who refuses to take a step that the man you're attacking did. He signed SF Form 180. Kerry didn't. Ask yourself why. Ask yourself why not?
posted by me at 3:24 PM
<< Home