9/11
Where were you 3 years ago?
posted by Sophia Post @ 2:35 PM
3 comments
PurePolitics
World politics, Bush, White House, Entertainment, political campaigns, politics, government, political news, political party, GOP, Democrat, voting, white house, election 2006, liberal, conservative, Putin, Sharon, Chirac, United Nations, NATO, Money, international, business, interviews, media, Blair, Sharon, Iraq, Israel, Middle East, Asia
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Previous Posts
3 Comments:
God Bless America
Go Home Gore. You lost.
Here is one Englishman's view of the U.S. presidential election. I've been
following them for more than half a century, always taking sides. I backed
Truman in 1948, in gratitude for his magnificent backing of Europe's
freedom, and Kennedy in 1960 because, as a Catholic, I wanted the taboo on a
Catholic in the White House broken. In recent years I've backed Republicans
simply because I feel safer with one as President and in charge of the
West's defenses. This feeling has never been stronger than it's been since
President Bush, in contrast to the careless and frivolous Bill Clinton, took
on the terrorists after 9/11 and had the courage to root them out of their
Afghanistan sanctuary and to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime, the epitome
of militant Arabism. It's been a source of great satisfaction that my friend
Tony Blair has backed Mr. Bush's efforts 100% and has made the "special
relationship" stronger than ever.
In contrast, I view Senator John Kerry with growing suspicion. As a daily
reader of Le Monde, which unconsciously reflects Jacques Chirac's
preferences, I ask myself: Why are the French so keen to see Kerry in the
White House? Does Chirac, a dedicated enemy of the U.K., hope to replace the
special relationship with a Franco-American one? It certainly looks that
way. The official French government observer at the Democratic Convention
cheerfully described Chirac's relations with Bush as "execrable," and the
French Socialist observer there said that a Bush reelection would be
"catastrophic" for him and his friends.
Revolted by Bill Clinton's lies and reassured by George Bush's straight
talk, I dread the return to a climate of White House mendacity. Yet what is
one to make of Kerry's self-presentation? He has posed as a man of
Boston-Irish background in order to garner the Catholic vote, when all along
he's known his family origins to be Austrian, and last year learned they
were also Jewish. Why the deception? And how can a man say he is a Catholic
when he repudiates his church's teaching on major issues such as abortion? I
do not admire these repeated attempts to have things both ways-indeed, all
ways.
Does This Inspire Trust?
I'm also unhappy about the financial side of the Kerry-Edwards ticket. While
calling for the votes of the poor, Kerry enjoys the advantages of his wife's
fortune, estimated to be $750 million, and travels between their five
mansions on a Gulfstream V jet. He wants to raise taxes, while his wife pays
an effective tax rate of only 15% on much of her income by using
(legitimate) tax-avoidance provisions.
Another skillful tax avoider is Kerry's running mate John Edwards, who
shelters 90% of his income from Medicare tax by means of a "Subchapter S"
corporation that enables him to take his money in dividends instead of in
salary. Much of Edwards' tax-avoidance scheming is beyond my comprehension,
but I don't like his tone or his clever monkey tricks. Nor do I relish the
fact that he has made his money and pushed himself forward by practicing the
kind of litigation we call "ambulance chasing." The kind of lawyer who makes
his way by encouraging litigants who have a real or imaginary grievance to
go for "deep pockets" is seen here as an American phenomenon we want nothing
to do with, but which, alas, is sinking deep and damaging roots in the U.K.
All in all, then, Kerry and Edwards strike me as an unsavory pair.
The People Backing This Liberal Ticket
I am one of those who resent the way in which many showbiz personalities
abuse their popularity by trying to bully voters into supporting their
left-wing views. Many of them in London seem to be in the Kerry camp. The
pop star Elton John accuses the Bush Administration of censoring music (if
only it were true), a preposterous claim typical of the abuse coming from
the greasepaint brigade.
Hollywood, too, seems lined up on Kerry's side. I haven't seen Michael
Moore's anti-Bush movie. But all I have to do is to mentally line up Moore
alongside Bush to decide whom I prefer. As Hamlet says: "Look here, upon
this picture, and on this . Hyperion to a satyr." Bush looks to be a man who
keeps himself trim through self-discipline, while Moore is a gross,
shapeless, unshaven monument to self-indulgence and gobbling.
Perhaps the most sinister Kerry ally is the international financier George
Soros, who boasts that he will devote huge chunks of his fortune to buying a
Democratic victory. Soros has always struck me as an embodiment of the
Marxist caricature of "finance-capitalism," a sinister spider figure weaving
his webs across frontiers. He has a long record of interfering in the
internal affairs of central and eastern European countries. Much of his
wealth comes from his successful efforts to devalue the pound sterling at
the time of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which inflicted significant damage
on the welfare of the British people. No other financier of modern times has
made such abusive use of his money to exercise power; I am tempted to recall
the famous saying of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, written for him by
Rudyard Kipling-that this is "Power without responsibility-the prerogative
of the harlot throughout the ages."
It seems to me, in surveying Kerry's allies, that what we have here is a
species of conspiracy by money men, showbiz celebrities and other
self-important pseudo-idealists to hijack the presidential election. I trust
that ordinary American voters will recognize what is happening and vote
accordingly.
Paul Johnson,eminent British historian and author, Lee Kuan Yew, senior
minister of Singapore, and Ernesto Zedillo,Yale Center for the Study of
Globalization, former president of Mexico, in addition to Forbes Chairman
Caspar W. Weinberger, rotate in writing this column. To see past Current
Events columns, visit our Web site at www.forbes.com/currentevents.
Post a Comment
<< Home