With mass marketed media going light on details and a growing sense that what is there can’t always be taken as gospel, Beldar tends to flesh out issues and answers with the depth and clarity one might expect from a self-confessed “trial lawyer.” Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, it’s hard to dispute his clearly and concisely presented evidence.
One recent entry deals with Kerry as compared to Eisenhower – specifically Eisenhower’s candidacy, like Kerry’s, based on “the premise that America is again in a bungled military stalemate.”
Fifty-two years later, the Democratic candidate for President is basing his campaign on the premise that America is again in a bungled military stalemate (despite the vastly shorter timeframe, one-thirty-seventh of the fatal casualties, and absence of a threat that the conflict will escalate into global nuclear war). Like Eisenhower, John Kerry asks the American public to trust him — essentially on faith — to somehow "fix things."
The questions today, then, are these: Do Americans, and does the world, think as highly of John Kerry's resolution and leadership abilities as they did of Dwight Eisenhower's in 1952? Will our friends feel the same confidence in his word? Will our enemies feel the same fear of his war-leading abilities? Has Sen. Kerry earned, by his career accomplishments, the degree of trust that Americans gave Ike to fulfill a vague and open-ended promise of such critical importance? Like Ike did, Sen. Kerry promises a change in course, without much detail. American voters were willing to accept that promise, and that lack of detail, from Eisenhower. But does John Kerry inspire that kind of blind faith, and can it be justified.
Beldar didn’t so much change my position, as he did support it with reasonable argument and opinion supported by objective fact.
A more recent post regarding Kerry’s pre-political legal career was much more revealing. I had read somewhere that Kerry was given the nickname “quick shot” for his uncanny ability to sniff out a camera and the right angle in which to position himself before same. Beldar’s critical analysis does nothing to alter that “snap shot” view.” One can reasonably draw the conclusion that Kerry never really has a “pre” political career. Interesting how his legal career and subsequent exaggerations are analogous to his military career - interesting and sad, if you ask me.
One principle I firmly believe in when it comes to electing a President is to never vote for someone who seems to have lived their entire life focused on nothing else but achieving that single goal. There’s a little too much of the power mad egomaniac in that picture for me. And I believe it tends to produce individuals who lack depth or commitment, their positions having to change to accommodate whatever is the political reality of the moment, hour or day. Also, they tend to think you can win the Presidency with the right photo op or suntan – and if they can’t even get those right, what on God’s earth is there to convince me they’d be any better at running the country?
If you’re interested in a thorough but concise evaluation of Kerry’s legal qualifications, take a look. It might be enlightening.
I ended that research having concluded that John Kerry's claims to be an accomplished trial lawyer and top prosecutor are almost certainly more overstated than his claims to have been a great war hero — and that for at least the past eight years and probably longer, he'd have been committing a crime himself if he'd actually tried to represent any client in any court.
Comments