One of the democrats publicity schemes in the presidental election has been called "Operation Fortunate Son." Named after the Creedence Clearwater Revival, Fortunate Son, tune from the 1960's in which John Fogarty, the noted political commentator, railed against the supposed privilidge of the wealthy and upper class. The "Operation" was designed to show that George W. Bush was a "Fortunate Son," A person born into rank and privilidge that, among other things, helped him get into the Texas Air National Guard and thereby avoid actually having to fight in the Vietnam War.
Well, since the Rather & Company fiasco with the forged documents, etc., no one has heard much about "Operation Fortunate Son" lately. But I think we ought to encourage some renewed interest for the continuance of this Operation and examine a new little piece of news.
The second stanza of Fortunate Son goes as follows:
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand, Lord, don't they help themselves, oh. But when the taxman comes to the door, Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,It ain't me, it ain't me, i ain't no millionaire's son, no.
In an article in today's Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore, President of the Club for Growth, wrote the followings (as noted on Drudge at http://drudgereport.com/flash2.htm).
"According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%.... "Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one- tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%. ..."Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000." The Kerrys "have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. ... So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?"
One of the constant criticisms of liberalism is that it is a system that enjoys, in fact is founded on, spending other people's money on things that (1) they think are of vital importance; but (2) to which they are not willing to contribute towards. The revelation in the 2000 campaign of Al Gore charitable contributions compared to both President Bush and Vice President Cheney come to mind. It is reminiscent of Christ's condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:4:
And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger (NASB).
Now, to those of us who advocate a "flat tax" system, 12.8% sounds about right. Since the next debate is about ""domestic issues" a good question for the candidate would be if everyone should pay the same rate of income tax as he does. This would be a great opportunity for Kerry to demonstrate some leadership and encourage all Americans too follow his example. I, for one, would sign up right now!
Well, now it seems to be ABC's turn to explain itself as the myth of "non-partisan" and fair reporting of the news takes another large broadside. Drudge reports (http://drudgereport.com/mh.htm) today that Mark Halperin, the Political Director for ABC News sent the following memo out to the reporting staff:
Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave
I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.
The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.
This is what the ABC Web page says about Halperin:
Mark Halperin has been the Political Director of ABC News since October of 1997. As Political Director, Halperin is responsible for the planning and editorial content of all political news on the network.
Now it is notable that Halperin admits that while Kerry, "distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes [sic] all the time," this is really not "central to his effort to win." Distortions, lack of context and constant mistakes, are apparently viewed by Halperin as some sort of lesser strategic effort that really isn't part and parcel to who Kerry is. However, Bush is reallly a bad guy in this regard (according to Halperin) and the ABC reporting and interviewing staff is directed by Halperin (who again, according to the ABC web page, "is responsible for the planning and editorial content of all political news on the network.") not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
So what are we to make of this? If an ABC reporter discovers Kerry has distorted, taken out of context, or made some mistake (or would it be easier to say lying?) he may just let that go, since it is not really "central to his [Kerry's] effort." But of course in the same circumstance Bush should really be pinned to the wall. When would the facts warrant, I wonder, confronting Kerry? Would the perported facts that he himself actuallly wrote the after action reported that earned him his Navy Silver Star and lauched his political career, warrant questions or more serious inquiries? Apparently not.
So, perhaps now we have a better idea why the "Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth" and the book "Unfit for Command," and former Admirals of the United States Navy, never seemed to make the mainstream news, book reviews and interview circuit, whereas every nut case running around claiming that President Bush shirked his duties in the Texas Air National Guard is primetime news. This is because both sides should not be held "equally accountable" in terms of scrutiny.
The hegemony that the mainstream media news has enjoyed for five decades is probably de facto broken in the eyes of most Americans. That's good considering the quality of the idealogues currently running most of those outlets. However, as one who thought he might go into journalism at one point in life, it's bad because a free, independent and non-partisan press is still foundational in many ways to a free society. I don't even really mind a partisan press (those have been around forever) as long as they are honest enough to tell everyone. The myth of "Non-Partisan" News is being exposed and maybe the legacy of this election will be the rise of blogs and the internet and people doing the type of investigation that the mainstream media used to do. That is, before they found out how nice, cozy and comfortable it was to be in the mainstream.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have consistently alledged that John Kerry (1) probably didn't deserve some of the medals he won in Viet Nam, and (2) his major medal, the Silver Star (that really solidified his "hero" status and made his anti-war performances afterwards seem much more credible) was based on an after action report that Kery himself wrote. Kerry and his campaign have consistenly denied this, but in the Chicago Sun Times online article by Thomas Libscomb (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lip01.html) seems to shed a good deal of doubt on Kerry's denial of his authorship of the AA report.
There is of course some a lot of history of people using such hoaxes for self-agrandizement. I remember that after I left the Los Angeles Police Department, there was an incident in which an officer "discovered" a bomb on a school bus (I think it was near LAX). As the story went, he took the bomb off of the bus and moved it to a safe location, where it was later neutralized. I was at church that night and the pastor told me the story and I replied, based on my experience and understanding of the proper procedures that are almost inviolable in such cases, that this was impossible to believe and I said that it was far more likely that he planted the bomb himself so he could make himself a hero. Well, the pastor was really irate at me and upbraided me for being so cynical, etc., etc. In his eyes the guy was a hero and should be afforded an almost "above question" status. He even implied that I was just "jealous." Well, turns out that the next day it all came to light, and the story was pretty much how I had described it in my initial reaction. That pastor never did apologize :-)
We all want to believe in a "hero" and to undermine a "hero's" story seems to be almost un-American. But a real hero's story will pass the test of truth and made up stuff will always come to light eventually. Did Kerry write the report that really made him what he is today? Maybe Dan Rather should ask him.
During the debate last night Senator Kerry was thrown the softball question, "What is the greatest threat to US Security today?" Kerry, with the speed that made me think at first he must have known the quetion ahead of time, answered "Nuclear Proliferation."
This is the normal, and expected reaction of liberals: it is things that are bad, not people. This is simply gun control expanded to the world stage. It's these bad weapons that are the danger. In his meandering answer on this question he never mentioned the evil people, their evil religious-philosophical drive and the surpassing need to change the minds of people. This is perhaps the most destructive aspect of liberalism both politically and theologically.
Politically, liberals conversely do not really believe people are bad, but they are incapable of helping themselves so the answer is to give them things; if they have good things, they will be good (but not too many good things or then they become Republicans). But when it comes to "bad" things (SUV's, guns, nuculear devices, etc.) since they are really not bad the answer is to take these things away from people, then they will be OK. As a result liberalism always moves towards socialism, because they ultimately believe that people really "don't know" what's good for them; so government needs to decide for them. This is the bankruptcy of liberal-democratic forgein policy, they want to center on "things" not people. People need to have their minds changed, their world view changed and their attitudes changed; not, primarily have bad things taken away from them or good things given to them.
When Preident William McKinley declared war on the Spanish Empire, part of his rationale was to help "spread Christianity to the beknighted people of the world." (Can you imagine if President Bush quoted McKinley today!) He understood, where John Kerry does not, that evil systems, whether political, philosophical, or religious need to be destroyed before the people trapped in those systems can be freed and set on a new course. Ultimately radical Islamic Terrorism needs to be destroyed, then the Islamic countries need to be made to accept religious pluralism and then the message of the Gospel can ultimately change people.