Here is a little information about "Stolen Honor" -- the documentary the Kerry campaign doesn't want you to see. The fact that Sinclair Broadcast may run "Stolen Honor" puts the Kerry people in a difficult situation; if they complain too much, they will draw attention to the film, but on the other hand, it's a problem for them that it is going to run in swing states only a week or so before the election.
I'm looking forward to seeing it. I'm curious if Kerry comes across as he did in his Senate Foreign Relations testimony -- as someone with an odd, affected accent, very impressed with himself.
It doesn't take a lot of insight to recognize Kerry as arrogant. He reminds me a lot of Jane Austen's description of the dislikable Bingley sisters in Pride and Prejudice:
They were in fact very fine ladies; not deficient in good humour when they were pleased, nor in the power of making themselves agreeable when they chose it, but proud and conceited. They were rather handsome, had been educated in one of the first private seminaries in town, . . . were in the habit of spending more than they ought, and of associating with people of rank, and were therefore in every respect entitled to think well of themselves, and meanly of others.
Yep, except for the part about having an independent fortune, that's Kerry. Just look at two recent episodes:
(1) At the debate, discussing the tax cut, Kerry argues "Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money. And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too." (emphasis added)
What did he mean? How does he know? What about them made them look like there was no way they could be earning in excess of $200,000? Or were they just Midwestern hicks? How obnoxiously condescending -- not to mention dishonest; they were other "Washington grandees" sitting in the audience. Even Kerry's spokesmen, McCurry and Lockhart, doubtless make in excess of 200K in their private sector endeavours.
But Kerry doesn't just tend to think of himself as richer as the "ordinary people" (which is true, thanks to his wife), he's smarter, too.
(2) In last weekend's New York Times Magazine, Matt Bai wrote: "When I asked Kerry's campaign advisers about these poll numbers [showing that 57 percent of the respondents said Kerry hadn't made his plans for the country clear, and 63 percent believed he said what he thought people wanted to hear], what I heard from some of them in response was that Kerry's theories on global affairs were just too complex for the electorate . . . " (emphasis added).
All this reminds me of the repugnant elitist strain of the Democratic Party -- the famous story about some Democrat saying to Adlai Stevenson, "All thinking people support you" and Stevenson famously replying, "Yes, but I need a majority."
Why should the American people trust a "leader" who thinks they're too dumb to understand his policies, and who can't fathom that any number of ordinary people are able to earn $200,000 yearly without having to marry it?
I'm looking forward to seeing it. I'm curious if Kerry comes across as he did in his Senate Foreign Relations testimony -- as someone with an odd, affected accent, very impressed with himself.
It doesn't take a lot of insight to recognize Kerry as arrogant. He reminds me a lot of Jane Austen's description of the dislikable Bingley sisters in Pride and Prejudice:
They were in fact very fine ladies; not deficient in good humour when they were pleased, nor in the power of making themselves agreeable when they chose it, but proud and conceited. They were rather handsome, had been educated in one of the first private seminaries in town, . . . were in the habit of spending more than they ought, and of associating with people of rank, and were therefore in every respect entitled to think well of themselves, and meanly of others.
Yep, except for the part about having an independent fortune, that's Kerry. Just look at two recent episodes:
(1) At the debate, discussing the tax cut, Kerry argues "Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money. And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too." (emphasis added)
What did he mean? How does he know? What about them made them look like there was no way they could be earning in excess of $200,000? Or were they just Midwestern hicks? How obnoxiously condescending -- not to mention dishonest; they were other "Washington grandees" sitting in the audience. Even Kerry's spokesmen, McCurry and Lockhart, doubtless make in excess of 200K in their private sector endeavours.
But Kerry doesn't just tend to think of himself as richer as the "ordinary people" (which is true, thanks to his wife), he's smarter, too.
(2) In last weekend's New York Times Magazine, Matt Bai wrote: "When I asked Kerry's campaign advisers about these poll numbers [showing that 57 percent of the respondents said Kerry hadn't made his plans for the country clear, and 63 percent believed he said what he thought people wanted to hear], what I heard from some of them in response was that Kerry's theories on global affairs were just too complex for the electorate . . . " (emphasis added).
All this reminds me of the repugnant elitist strain of the Democratic Party -- the famous story about some Democrat saying to Adlai Stevenson, "All thinking people support you" and Stevenson famously replying, "Yes, but I need a majority."
Why should the American people trust a "leader" who thinks they're too dumb to understand his policies, and who can't fathom that any number of ordinary people are able to earn $200,000 yearly without having to marry it?
posted by LadybugUSA at 5:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home