P.J. O’Roarke suggests:
JOHN KERRY EFFECTIVELY ENDED HIS political career on February 28, 2005, during a little-noticed event at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston.
How’d he do that?
Addressing the audience of tame Democrats, Kerry explained his defeat. "There has been," he said, "a profound and negative change in the relationship of America’s media with the American people. . . . If 77 percent of the people who voted for George Bush on Election Day believed weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq–as they did–and 77 percent of the people who voted for him believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11–as they did–then something has happened in the way in which we are talking to each other and who is arbitrating the truth in American politics. . . . When fear is dominating the discussion and when there are false choices presented and there is no arbitrator, we have a problem."
America is not doctrinaire. It’s hard for an American politician to come up with an ideological position that is permanently unforgivable. Henry Wallace never quite managed, or George Wallace either. But Kerry’s done it. American free speech needs to be submitted to arbitration because Americans aren’t smart enough to have a First Amendment, and you can tell this is so, because Americans weren’t smart enough to vote for John Kerry.
(NOTE FOR FOLKS OVERSEAS AND MOST GRADUATES OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM: The First Amendment protects freedom of the press and freedom of speech, among other things.)
"We learned," Kerry continued, "that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning. But there’s a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"
“(NOTE FOR FOLKS OVERSEAS AND MOST GRADUATES OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM”
Hey, I know what the First Amendment is despite the fact that I are the praduc of the Detroit Public School Sistum.
Reminds me of a professor I had in college who argued that government regulation of the media was constitutional because the purpose of the First Amendment was to do what was best for society. (Actually, it was to protect a God-given right, but why split hairs?) Therefore, if government regulation of the press would be better for society than a free press, such regulation would be constitutional. I attempted to rebut this on an essay-format midterm, but he would have none of that.
I admit to being baffled that so many people believe that WMD were found in Iraq. Of course, large numbers of Kerry voters believe that Gore really won in 2000, that large numbers of African American voters in Florida were disenfranchised, that Bush lied to the American people about WMD, etc.
In a sense not finding WMD in Iraq is not too important after you’ve gone to war anyway. It was also only one of 23 reasons for going to war in the enabling resolution that Congress passed.
I do find the 77% number baffling though. It may reflect a profound and well deserved distrust of MSM.
I’d like to have a link to whatever poll Kerry was quoting. I find the number in itself rather hard to believe, and the fact that the exact same percentage of Bush voters also believed Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11 even harder to believe. Maybe Kerry just read it on the Democratic Underground.
“I admit to being baffled that so many people believe that WMD were found in Iraq.”
I rather doubt it’s anywhere near 77 percent of Bush voters. What gets me, though, are the number of people who seem to think that suspicion of WMDs and participation in the 9/11 attacks were the only reason we went into Iraq, when it actually was largely because of Iraq’s refusal to abide by restrictions imposed upon it resulting from its invasion of Kuwait. Iraq had been refusing to let searches go on unencumbered in Iraq, and it refused to provide proof that it had destroyed weapons and other materials that were known to have existed in Iraq previously. Moreover, it used weapons in the war that it had claimed not to have, such as SCUD missiles that it hurled at our troops.
It also surprises me how many people think that our failure to find WMDs or proof of their earlier presence is proof that the weapons were never there.
After reading the Weekly Standard article, I can’t see where Kerry called for any regulation or negation of the First Amendment. I might have glanced pass it, if so I’d appreciate it if someone could quote it here for me.
Instead, we get some snarky commentary by PJ O’Rourke. That’s O’Rourke’s style, so OK. He’s written some good books, but it seems very odd for people to condemn someone for something he doesn’t say. Let’s follow the logic:
Kerry Point #1: WMD’s were not found in Iraq.
Kerry Point #2: Many people believe WMD’s were found anyway.
Kerry Point #3: Since people are basing their votes on a false belief, this is a serious problem.
Kerry Point #4: I don’t know what should be done about this, but I think it’s important we talk about it.
The conclusion of PJ O’Rourke is that Kerry is obviously against the First Amendment because stupid people are voting the wrong way. That conclusion doesn’t follow.
How well would people like it if I posted:
“Republican Supporters say Facts not Important as long as Bush gets Re-elected”
(NOTE FOR FOLKS OVERSEAS AND MOST READERS OF JIMMYAKIN.ORG: Lying is bad.)
Insulting, isn’t it?
Instead, it seems to me that people like to accuse political opponents of beliefs they don’t hold, but makes them sound bad anyway. This type of behavior is par for the course for politicians and their hack supporters in the press, but I’m disappointed to see it propagated here.
Chris,
The very idea that Kerry thinks that Something Needs To Be Done (by the government, presumably) to reign in this pesky free press is one big red flag. The other is his apparent frustration at the fact that “there is no arbitrator”. Well, whom do you suggest, Senator? A free Press is by definition a Press that has no arbitrator.
Mr. Kerry, at the moment, gives the distinct impression that he sees the New Media (not the MSM, of course) as a “problem” that needs to be solved. He is not alone. And you don’t think that is anything to be concerned about?