Andrew Sullivan accuses Kerry of being "flatulently vapid"

[LiviaOlivia]

GOOD CHOICE. BAD SPEECH.
Talk Down
by Andrew Sullivan

Only at TNR Online
Post date: 07.07.04
It was, I think, the right decision. John Edwards will make a great running mate for Kerry. But missed in the natural brouhaha is the actual speech John Kerry gave announcing his choice. It's perhaps the first national stump speech given by Kerry now that the primaries are long over and the national campaign is beginning. And it was dreadful. It failed on almost every count. It was tedious; it was vacuous; and it was hyper-liberal. Here's my textual criticism.

Kerry:
"John Edwards is ready for this job. He is ready for this job and there is something else about John Edwards that is important in this campaign and our country at this critical time. As you know, I am determined that we reach out across party lines, that we speak the heart of America, that we speak of hope and of optimism. And John Edwards will join me in doing that. As so many as so many of you know, throughout this campaign, John talked about the great divide in America--the two Americas that exist between those who are doing very well and those who are struggling to make ends meet in our country. That concern is at the center of this campaign. It is what it is all about. It is what the 35 years of my struggle have been about and I am so proud that together John Edwards and I are now going to fight to build one America for all Americans."

This is a major statement. What it says is that the Kerry campaign is fundamentally not about the war on terror. It's about economic inequality. And the premise is that an unequal country is not truly a united country. It would be hard to find a simpler expression of paleoliberalism than that.

Kerry:
"As you know, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and also a leader in fighting bioterrorism and understanding the threats we face, he shares my unshakable commitment to having a military that is second to nobody in the world but also to restoring old and rebuilding new alliances that make America stronger."

Perhaps this paragraph is supposed to reassure those of us who worry that John Kerry's position in the war on terror is simply to call it off. Well, it doesn't. Notice the vapid formulation: Edwards wants a military that is "second to nobody" in the world. But the current U.S. military is so far ahead of all its competitors that the notion of its falling into "second place" is ludicrous. Who would overtake the hegemon? Germany? Russia? France? China? Please. Not for a very long time, if ever. So Kerry gets to sound tough on defense while saying something completely vacuous. Then the second plank: "restoring old and rebuilding new alliances." But for what? So far, the only actual mention of the Islamist enemy is another vacuous phrase: "the threats we face." Can you tell us what those threats are, senator? And shouldn't they determine to a great extent what our foreign policy should be? Nah. You get the impression that Kerry's notion of a successful foreign policy is almost defined by whether every ally supports it. It's all process and no point. In peacetime, this is a weakness. In wartime, it's a disqualifier.

Kerry:
"And there is also a great bonus--a great bonus--in having John on this ticket. He, like me, is blessed with a remarkable wife, a strong, brave woman, Elizabeth Edwards. And Teresa and I will be proud to stand with the Edwards family, with their daughter, Kate, who just graduated from college this year, and with their two little ones, Emma Claire and Jack. And anyone who knows them, and America will get to know them, knows that this is a family that loves each other and loves America. We--we are--Teresa and I have talked with John and Elizabeth this morning. We've invited them to come here to Pittsburgh tonight and we're going to spend the evening together, have a little chance to break bread, get a chance to talk. Our families will have a chance to meet and get to know each other well. And tomorrow morning, together, we all look forward to coming out and speaking to the nation for the first time as a team that will lead this country in a new and stronger direction."

Well, that's nice for you all. And Elizabeth Edwards is indeed an impressive person. But please let us know when the group hug is over.

Kerry:
"In the next 120 days John and I and Elizabeth and Teresa are going to crisscross this country and fight for the nation that all of us know that we can be. This is about fairness; it's about fundamental fairness for all Americans; it's about people being able to go to work and actually getting the ability through a week's work and a month's work and a year's work to pay their bills, to live decently, to get ahead, to be able to be fair."

This paragraph is so vapid, so empty of any meaning, it almost defies commentary. It's about "fairness." What unfairness is he describing? We don't know. But we do know that this candidate is very much in favor of people being able to go to work and pay their bills. I'm sure he's also in favor of afternoon naps, ice cream, and new cars. Then he says that his campaign is about people being "able to be fair." So now the government is not only in favor of fairness; it's in favor of fairness "ability." You can hack away at this kind of verbiage for a very long time and the weeds of blather just keep growing back.

Kerry:
"This is a fight about creating jobs in America that don't pay less than the jobs that we're losing overseas; this is about--this is about having a president who fights as hard for your job as he fights for his own job. This is about once and for all ending the shame of the United States of America being the only industrial nation on this planet--and the richest one at that--that doesn't yet understand--but it will at the end of this campaign--health care is not a privilege for the wealthy and the connected; health care is for all Americans. And we're going to fight for it."

Shrummery. But important Shrummery. Notice all the "fights" and "fighting" in this speech. And look what we're "fighting" for. The key plank of Kerry's election will be Clinton's in 1992: government-mandated universal healthcare. And the current American choice to deliver healthcare primarily through private industry is "shameful." Not wrong or misguided: shameful. Again, there's a case to be made for government-mandated universal healthcare. And it's certainly a relief to see Kerry actually say something substantive. But it also highlights that the Republican charge that Kerry is a big government, moralistic paleoliberal has a good deal of truth to it.

Kerry:
"This is this this is also a fight for common sense."

And it's about the future, and children, and the future of children and ... who writes this crap?

<snip>


http://tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=fisking&s=sullivan070704
Subscription req'd
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Personal Note: He goes on and on and on. Andrew who's flatulently vapid? You are.

PM me for a full copy for personal use only if you so desire.

[Liberal Veteran]

1. Andrew Sullivan is a self-loathing prick who cozies up to his tormentors..

....in hopes that he'll be spared from the ovens.

In the vernacular, he's a collaborator.

[ibegurpard]

2. I wonder how the Republicans, who Mr. Sullivan unabashedly supports,

feel about barebacking?

[x_y_no]

3. Hmmmm ...

"And the premise is that an unequal country is not truly a united country. It would be hard to find a simpler expression of paleoliberalism than that."

Wow ... I guess I'm a paleoliberal.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

4. Tell "Power Glutes" to go Cheney himself.

Why does anyone bother with that self-loathing, hypocritical pinhead?

[vi5]

5. So repeating "good", "evil", "freedom" and terror over and over..

is riveting speechwriting and deep thought?

Oh please.

[LiviaOlivia]

7. You got it vi5. Thank you!

LOL

[Sagan]

6. It's amusing to watch Sully twist and writhe..

He is so desperate to support Chimpy. But how can he support a party that so despises and loathes unnaturals like himself? His only hope is to so villify men like Kerry and Edwards, who incidentally have fought for Sully's rights, that he can convince himself that he's not supporting Chimpy, he's just opposed to Kerry / Edwards.

Keep trying, Log Cabin Chump!

[dolstein]

8. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

And while Sullivan may be a major-league a**hole, he's 100% spot on about Kerry. Kerry's speeches are dreadful. And yesterday's announcement speech is no exception.

[Jim Sagle]

12. Chickenshit bullshit.

[indigobusiness]

9. That is far better than being vapidly flatulent

...which has long been the knock on Sullivan.


typo

[West Coast Democrat]

11. That's funny!

[louis-t]

10. Mr. Sullivan's comments remind me of

the anti-Moore diatribes I've seen in the opinion pages lately. They all claim MM is lying and his movie is full of inaccuracies. Yet the writers don't actually mention which things they think are inaccurate or lies. They say he's a hypocrite, but their analysis doesn't show any hypocrisy. They say MM doesn't tell ALL of the facts. Wait, didn't they just say he was lying? These people are all talking in circles right now, trying to keep the rhetoric up, sounding more and more confused. Even Rush came up with a doozy today. He actually said that the right never hated Clinton. Said it was mostly "policy stuff" the Repubs were criticizing. If hundreds of talk show hosts spending 5 days a week for 10 years bashing the Clintons on everything from Hillary's pantsuits to Chelsea's looks to the Whitewater debacle isn't hatred, then I must be on the wrong planet.

edit: Rush's point was that the left hates Bush more than the right hates Clinton. Typical. He also has said that Clinton did more for Ken Lay than Bush. Sure. I'm sure that Clinton was more friendly than Bush with the Saudis, too.

[theboss]

13. I am happily voting for Kerry

But I have to admit that I would rather clean my gutters than listen to his speeches. I think Sullivan is being disingenuous in that no politician (aside from those who can't possibly win office) speaks in little more than cliches these days. But Kerry has taken this to a new level.

But at least with him you get the sense that he knows what he is talking about, unlike Bush who always sounds like he is reading something for the first time.