Does anyone else find it painfully ironic that John Kerry -- a man who the American people found, via the electoral system, unfit to lead -- is engaging in pointless commentary, while waging baseless claims against Sen. John McCain?
Over the weekend, Kerry called McCain "unfit to lead." Am I incorrect in my assertion that it was Kerry who approached McCain in 2004, asking him to join in the formation of a bi-partisan ticket? Here we are four years later and John "The Flapjack" Kerry is at it again, flipping and flopping faster than a speeding light (whatever that means). On CBS' Face The Nation, Kerry said:
Ironically, I am not surprised to find Kerry acting as childish and irreverent as ever. Kerry and Obama are totally fringe, but for some reason the Democrats continue to nominate their kind. They were and are two of the most liberal senators, as they stand firmly grounded on the left wing of the American political spectrum. Bipartisanship? Not from these guys. And during a time when we need nothing short of extreme collaboration and inter-party cohesiveness, the fact that the Democrats continue to nominate wing-nuts is extremely disconcerting.
In the interview, Kerry went on to bash McCain, citing the familiar "Bush's third term" diatribe. I'm not sure if the Democrats realize this yet, but that statement is tired at best. Everyone knows that there are profound differences between McCain and Bush, so continuing to drive home an invalid point is useless. Kerry then proceeds to state the following:
Aside from the fact that McCain has an energy plan that greatly differs from George W. Bush's (which is common knowledge), one wonders if Kerry has even glanced at Obama's energy plan. Allow me to pull out a snippet for him:
"Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013."
Now, let's explore ethanol in brief:
"… producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy -- most of which comes from coal. Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources. Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with major environmental harm."
And I'm not even going to touch healthcare. McCain does have a plan, but Kerry's probably too bitter over his 2004 loss to take the time and read it. And then there's Iraq. Kerry has plenty to say about McCain's judgment on the war:
"Kerry criticized McCain's continued support of the occupation, given the effect of a continuing presence of U.S. troops on the situation in Iraq and the region at large. He pointed to remarks by leaders in the Middle East who told him during a recent visit, "You, America, have served up to Iran Iraq on a platter."
And this is where Kerry loses me entirely. The surge has worked and that's something that Obama is going to have to contend with come November. Continuing to lament the war, while demanding that the troops come home immediately is nonsensical. When success is so close, why would we exit the region? Doing so would mean a total disservice to the Iraqi people. Leaving Iraq would surely "serve up to Iran Iraq on a platter." Is this not common sense?
I suppose that writing this piece has given Kerry credence he simply doesn't deserve. In the end, he's proven himself painfully irrelevant. Not much has changed since 2004.