Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/27/2004 12:43:00 AM (Archive Link)
Friends of Bill, Bow Down!

Ok, I’m back.  I’ve been very lazy about my little blog, but after listening to Bill Clinton speak at the Democratic National Convention, I could hardly keep pace with the jaw dropping moments.  Let’s take them point by point, but first I’ll start with Jimmy Carter whom I briefly caught speaking.  Isn’t it a little odd that he’s blaming Bush for his handling of North Korea when it was Carter that helped broker that absurd agreed framework with NK, that Kim John Il promptly broke?

• I’ll give credit where it’s due.  Bill’s a tremendous speaker.  There was a woman in the audience who was crying.  I, however, deal in arguments and not rhetoric, so let’s get moving.

• He said that the Democrats will be running a positive campaign.  He then immediately ran through a slew of negative attacks against Bush and the Republicans.

• On the tax cuts, it’s clear that he perceives tax money as belonging to the government, not the people.  Yes, the wealthiest people got the most money back.  But ya know what?  When you have a higher income, you will necessarily receive more back on a cut.  Let’s say you have three people.  The first makes $100, the second $1,000 and the third $10,000.  If you give everybody a 1% tax cut, it goes $1, $10, and $100 respecitvely.  This doesn’t even take into account that the top guy is paying a higher overall percentage of his income than the other two.  Also, while the top such and such percent received a disproportionate amount back, that percentile pays an equally disproportionate amount of overall income taxes.

• He comments on how Republicans plan on letting the assault weapon ban lapse.  He intimates that this will be dangerous as they could even fall into the hands of terrorists.  The ban is a joke.  Always has been.  It bans only certain gun models and those were chosen based merely on cosmetic details.  The ban had no impact on crime or gun deaths.

• He notes how the Republicans were sometimes mean to him.  Ah, poor Bill.  Yes, all those investigations and scandals were purely the result of mean Republicans and not the result of your own shady dealings, your own loose zipper, and your own perjury.  It was anybody’s fault but yours.

• He talks about China and says the Bush administration will be deferential towards the Chi-coms because they loan us money and because of our business dealings with them despite the fact their economic competitors.  “How can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers?  I mean, come on.”  This… this from the man who loosened trade restrictions with China.  From the man who allowed highly advanced computers and equipment to be sold to China that was previously banned due to national security concerns and some of which was still banned.  This from the man who used the federal government to actively solicit business deals with China on behalf of U.S. companies.  This from the man who took campaign contributions from Chinese government surrogates and hosted them at White House tea parties.  This from the man who on his watch had still unquantifiable damage done to U.S. intelligence and interests because of Chinese spying.

• Clinton talks continually about the economic interconnectedness and interdependence of the world as a good thing.  Then he turns around and criticizes the natural and necessary effects of a global economy and accuses the Bush administration of losing jobs to overseas.

• Speaking of the economy, one of the things that has always irked me is how the Reagan boom years were always called the Decade of Greed.  People were out there getting rich and being extravagant and being mass consumers and all this was considered an unmitigated evil.  Somehow, though, under Clinton, this same behavior, only increased and more widespread, was a universal good for which Bill’s praises were sung with unceasing rapture.  And the call to all people is that we must return to the halcyon high-economy days of Clinton.  Now this irony is bad enough.  I mean, if the 80’s was the Decade of Greed, then the 90’s should have been called the Decade of Unrestrained Avarice.  What makes it worse is that unlike Reagan, who was vilified for his economics that irrefutably led to a boom, nobody can quite point to what it was Clinton did that so stimulated the economy in the 90’s.  Indeed, his economic policies in ’93 were almost identical to those of Bush I.  The best Clinton can be credited for is staying out of the economy’s way and letting the market do its thing.  Let’s also not forget that the 90’s boom began busting under Clinton in 2000 and was well into its slide by the time Bush took office.  And yet, Bush gets the blame.  Bill will take credit wherever he can, but he will never take any blame.

• Speaking of, and ever so slightly off-topic, I was talking to my father-in-law the other day about Ronald Reagan’s funeral events.  He made the comment that Ford and Carter were probably sitting there dejectedly thinking, “This stinks… there is no way they’re gonna do all this for us.”  I responded yes, but you knew Clinton was instead thinking, “This is great!  This is exactly what they’ll do for me, only it’ll be even bigger with more eulogies and more weeping and gnashing of teeth and women throwing themselves on my 50 foot funeral pyre!”

• Back on topic… Clinton says that the Democrats’ approach to economics, foreign policy and terrorism works better than the Republicans’.  To quote: “Now, we tried it their way for 12 years. We tried it their way for 12 years. We tried it our way for eight years. Then we tried it their way for four more. But the only test that matters is whether people were better off when we finished than when we started. Our way works better.”  Good Lord!  This is the most unbelievable statement of the night!
  
  So what about Jimmy Carter?  Didn’t he get left out?  Wasn’t his way great with the dismal economy and the roaring inflation and the high interest rates and the oil embargo and the American hostages and the Soviet Union pushing us around all over the globe?  Yeah, terrific stuff.  Oh, yes, and Clinton’s way was great also.  Let’s see… he allowed Iraq to flaunt UN resolutions over and over, even allowing Saddam to kick out the inspectors and all we did was rap him on the knuckles with a few missiles.  Bill left him for the next guy to handle.  There was also the ’93 World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, Osama’s declaration of war against the U.S. and these are just the real obvious terrorist warning signs.  There was all sorts of intelligence that bad people were up to no good.  But Clinton never did much of anything.  If he did have a laser-sharp focus on bin Ladin, like he claims he did, he certainly didn’t accomplish much in that department as all the attacks demonstrated, culminating in 9/11.  Let’s keep in mind that his laser focus let bin Ladin slip away from Sudan instead of taking custody of him or that according to the 9/11 Commission, it allowed Richard Clarke to tip off the United Arab Emirates that we knew a place where bin Ladin used as a hideout, which allowed the Emiratis to tip off Al Qaeda which promptly dismantled the camp (check it out… it’s around page 137).  No, Bill just promised after each attack that the perpetrators would be brought to justice and they never were.  He just had the FBI look into them, had the CIA ask a few questions, was incredibly deferential to the governments’ in whose countries the attacks occurred, maybe threw a few missiles around and then let the clamor die down.  Then he left it for the next guy to take care of.  Yeah, the Democrats’ way was swell.  How in the hell can he possibly claim that his way works better?!

• Suddenly for Clinton, military service in Vietnam has become acutely important.  It never seemed to be relevant in the past.  Maybe he’s cutting Kerry some slack since they were both on the same anti-war side when Kerry got home and put his finger to the political winds.

• Clinton says that Kerry has some great ideas!  I wish I knew what they were since Bill hadn’t touched on any up until that point and barely touched them afterward.  Where’s that positive campaign again?

• Kerry showed bravery in Congress on how he voted on legislation and he didn’t just go with the polls (that last part almost seems like an insult coming from poll-meister Bill).  This is funny, since not even Kerry’s fellow legislators can think of any great accomplishments he made while in Congress.  Also, seeing as how Kerry’s voting record is the most liberal in the Senate, even more so than that of Ted Kennedy himself, I wouldn’t call this brave or bucking trends or being a maverick.  I call this being a dependable vote for all things liberal.

• Kerry has both conviction and common sense!  The sort of conviction that leads him to vote for a war, then deny funding and then make up a lame cover excuse for the change in opinion!  The sort of conviction that leads him to try and center himself by declaring life begins at conception but that abortion is always A-OK and then to make up a lame nonsense cover excuse about how the two positions gel with each other!

• Bill blames Bush for breaking from the Kyoto Treaty.  This is a treaty that Clinton signed but was never ratified by the Senate.  In fact, it was never even introduced to the Senate for ratification because it would have died a horrible death and Clinton knew it.  This fabled treaty is a horrible joke.  Even if its edicts were put into place, they would postpone global warming effects by a mere ten years.  That is, the effects we would see in 2100 would occur in 2110 instead.  That’s real useful.  And the majority of the countries who did adopt Kyoto have brazenly ignored  and disobeyed it because doing otherwise would have hurt their economies.  So, which is better: to have not adopted the treaty in the first place or to have adopted it for show and then ignored it?

• The big thing that everybody keeps harping on is that Kerry will rebuild our alliances with other countries after Bush destroyed them after 9/11.  I read this as Kerry having the following campaign slogan: “Vote for John Kerry – I’ll kiss France’s butt and shine Germany’s boots.”  ‘Cause that’s what it comes down to; He’ll get some very loud Europeans to support us again.  How will he do this?  Well, he doesn’t say.  Presumably, he’ll do things the Euros like, such as not allowing a soldier to be assigned to KP duty without full approval of the UN Security Council.  Essentially, he’ll make U.S. forces subject to Euro and UN considerations.  That’s the only thing that can make them happy.  I wasn’t aware that the Constitution or the oath of office entailed the President deferring to foreign powers in the use of the American military.
  
  And let’s say Kerry does rebuild European alliances.  How does this make us safer?  It’s this oft repeated anecdote that’s now a Democratic cliché but where’s the meat to it?  France and Germany have no significant military forces to deploy outside their borders nor do they have a population that would tolerate it.  Just about everywhere we would want to attack, they would balk at doing so since they have involved business interests in those places, like they did in Iraq.  They would thus not be inclined to share intelligence with us either.  So in getting back on their good side, we’ve given them the back 40 of our farm, but have gotten nothing in return.  How does that make us stronger?

• It’s highly ironic that Clinton spoke about the Civil War and civil rights being instances where the country had a choice, made the right choice, and is now stronger for it.  Ironic because it was a Republican president (the first one) who led the country through that war and who made that choice and because many more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats and it was Democrats who were standing in schoolhouse doorways and siccing dogs on protesters.  That’s right… shocking as it is, Bull Conner was a Democrat as was most every politician in the South at the time.

• Kerry = less terror, Clinton says.  Hmmm… well, let’s look at this.  Since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil, no significant attacks against American interests (I’m not counting guerilla warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan) and only a few attacks against American citizens.  Now, it’s possible there could be a devastating attack tomorrow or between now and election day.  But on the balance, I’d say we’ve done pretty darn well since 9/11.  How, then, is Kerry supposed to promise “less terror?”  Again, this comes from Clinton who saw numerous terror attacks happen on his own watch.

• I can’t stand politicians talking about “the children.”  The poor dears just get rolled out all the time and are the perfect prop: young, innocent, they don’t vote so you don’t have to directly cater to them, and they don’t make their own demands to which you would have to cater anyway.  They’re the silent constituency that can be exploited whenever one pleases.

Ah!  Now that the transcript is up, I can quote the speech. 

• “Democrats and Republicans have very different and deeply felt ideas about what choices we should make.” 
  
  I don’t care about how “deeply felt” an idea is.  A person can deeply feel that puppy-burning generators are the path to domestic energy independence, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.  I’m looking for good ideas that work.  Give me a solid argument about why I should adopt an idea, not why you feel I should.

• “Republicans in Washington believe that American should be run by the right people -- their people…” 
  
  Yes, they do, Bill.  Democrats believe the same thing.  Isn’t that why you’re speaking tonight?  To get your people running America, or at least its government?

• “They believe the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their economic, political and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on important matters like health care and retirement security.  Now, since most Americans aren't that far to the right, our friends have to portray us Democrats as simply unacceptable, lacking in strength and values.  In other words, they need a divided America.  But we don’t.” 
  
  Alright, well, most Americans aren’t as far left as Bill, either, and isn’t he standing there portraying Republicans as heartless monsters who light stogies with $100 bills while stepping over prostrate poor people?  Guess Bill needs a divided America too.

• “Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice.”  This is followed by how they squandered the good will of the world and went into Iraq, etc. 
  
  This is an interesting choice of words considering that Kerry was one of those erstwhile congressional allies who voted for action.

• “Now, now at a time when we're trying to get other people to give up nuclear and biological and chemical weapons, they are trying to develop two new nuclear weapons which they say we might use first.” 
  
  I have a beef about this sort of equivalence that I’ll get into at another time.

Most of the speech was so galling in its irony because of who it was coming from, it was thoroughly unbelievable.  Fortunately for him, Clinton has very little shame.  Otherwise, he would have choked on his words.