"The New World Order" -- that's what Kerry wants says my friend

[beachmom]

I was talking with a friend of mine yesterday; she voted for * but is ready to vote for a Democrat in '08 (but not Hillary). She claims to be an Independent, but definitely leans Republican because of her time spent in the military (what is that place -- a Republican indoctrination place?).

She likes Mark Warner a lot. I'm troubled by his Iraq positions, so then I mentioned that I would be supporting Kerry in '08. She said "Kerry scares me, because he doesn't believe in a sovereign U.S. and wants the whole world to be as one in a New World Order". Um. That stumped me. I wasn't ready for that. I poorly rebutted; I think my best statement was that he thinks the U.S. needs to be the leader of the world but that we need to persuade other countries to follow us. For that we need credibility, something we lack when, for example, we allow torture. I also said that her statements sounded like right wing propaganda. I guess this may go back to the "global test" remark JK made in the debates that were repeated infinitely out of context afterwords. If it ever comes up again, what's a better answer? I CERTAINLY do not think JK wants to give away the sovereignty of the U.S. to the U.N. It's so preposterous. So anyone have any good responses to that?

Is this girl persuadable or a hopeless cause? I may add that her Dad is a MAJOR Democrat in her home state, so it's almost like she has rebelled against him (she used to canvas for Dems when she was 18). This only confirms my view that you DON'T try to indoctrinate your kids with your own ideology, but instead allow them to think for themselves, thereby avoiding this backlash.

Edited to add: Just for inside baseball stuff, her Dad said that Hillary would be the next pres. of the U.S. He said she completely runs the Democratic party in all of the states, and that she's unstoppable. He then added that HE didn't like her (which makes me think he will NOT be voting for her in the primary). How can all the major state Dem party people say this, while also saying they don't like her? What's going on here?

[Island Blue]

1. Is she a fan of Pat Robertson by chance?

When I read your post, for some reason it sounded like something a fundie might say. So, just for s & g's I Googled "Pat Robertson New World Order" and what do you know - the first thing that popped up was his book on Amazon.com ironically titled "The New World Order". (Who knew?)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0849933943/qid=1149679394/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1047764-4998442?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It was published in 1991 so I doubt there are many references to JK in the book, but I'm sure on his television broadcasts (especially during the '04 campaign) he equated Kerry with "The New World Order" (whatever it is exactly) many times.

[beachmom]

4. She can't stand Pat Robertson

She's not part of the religious right wing of the Repub party. She's part of the law and order, tough guy wing. Even though she says she's Independent, to me that means she likes Lieberman who in my view is not a real Democrat. This is about national security -- she still hasn't figured out that the Republicans are a failure at this.

[Mass]

2. She is repeating what she heard. I dont know her, so it is possible

that she is sincere and that she thinks that the US should do things without considering they are not the only country in the world, but belong in a "concert of nations".

Obviously, Kerry would not give away the sovereignty of the US to the UN, NOR does the UN requires that. However, he recognizes that it is better to discuss and negotiate rather than bullying.

I guess a good comparison would be like a father and his children. Of course, most parents want to decide how their children will be educated and what rules they will follow. However, parents (most at least) know that they also have to follow the rules and to leave in a greater world.

[karynnj]

9. I love your analogy and your explanation

To me, it shows how off course we are that Kerry has to defended for wanting the US to be a leader and good citizen working with other nations.

[_dynamicdems]

3. I recently found a great resource that might help you frame the debate

with your friend. She probably isn't going to respond to facts.

Watch the quick video on the site below. I think you will find it useful in influencing someone with her apparent mindset. I don't know if you have heard of linguist George Lakoff before but he has a lot of good advise on how to use language to get progressive ideas across effectively. He basically says that progressives think it is all about knowledge and ideas but that how you use language is actually what influences most people. He uses the example of how George Bush kept repeating "tax relief" over and over with much success even though few people really understood what he was actually offering. Your friend has been influnced in a similar manner to have an incorrect perception of John Kerry.

This video and site are very helpful. Maybe you can reach your friend if you frame a positive image of John Kerry to replace the negative one she has been indoctrinated with.

http://demspeak.com/ (video link is in left corner)

[ginnyinWI]

5. I read an article once,

sorry I don't know by who, and it was probably before the election, which pointed out that between Kerry and *, it is Kerry who always speaks in terms of America--what's good for America, in the context of the world stage. It's * who is the corporatist and always speaking in terms of the world alone. With * it's not "America First"--quite the opposite. His loyalty is to corporations and their profits. If anybody knows the article I'm referring to, please post the link. :)

[sandrakae]

6. What your friend described, sounds to me like what George Bush wants.

[beachmom]

7. Okay, I think I found the source for my friend's unease

This story was from Harvard, no idea if it's true, but it's from 1970. I noticed that all the usual right wing suspects picked up on this article. But I NEVER heard about it, so the * campaign didn't put it front and center. I'm bringing it here, to see if anyone has any info on it, if it's legit, or can be debunked, or is too long ago to matter.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185

He supports a volunteer Army, "if and only if we can create the controls for it. You're going to have to prepare for the possibility of a national emergency, however." Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

On other issues, Kerry wants "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care." He also favors a negative income tax and keeping unemployment at a very low level, "even if it means selective economic controls."

You know what, guys, this stuff is crazy -- I just can't believe it's true (there's other crap in the article about him "disobeying" orders to destroy a village in Vietnam -- you can't do that in the bloody military!). Not only does it not sound like Senator John Kerry, it doesn't even sound like war protester John Kerry of 1971. Here's where it came up in 2004:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=357339

The Kerry campaign, celebrating primary victories in Virginia and Tennessee last night, declined to comment on the senator’s remarks.

As a candidate for president, Kerry has said he supports the autonomy of the U.S. military and has never called for a scale-back of CIA operations.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich defended Kerry’s 1970 statements as appropriate for their time.

“In the context of the Vietnam War, those comments are completely understandable,” said Reich, who has endorsed Kerry.

But a spokesperson for President Bush’s reelection campaign said Kerry’s 1970 remarks signaled the senator’s weakness on defense.

“President Bush will never cede the best interests of the national security of the American people to anybody but the president of the United States, along with the Congress,” said the spokesperson, Kevin A. Madden.

The first article is kind of ridiculous, but this second one seems to legitimize the first one. Thoughts on this? Because I'm no spin doctor, and if those old remarks are true, then my friend's distrust of JK does have merit, albeit from remarks so long ago, and not being backed up by his voting record in the Senate. I'm not bringing this up for no reason -- I need to be able to counterattack attacks made, and do so honestly and forthrightly.

Just found this referenced in the Boston Globe article (I guess I forgot this detail):

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml

Some of Kerry's positions at the time sound naive in retrospect. He was quoted in The Harvard Crimson as saying he would like to "almost eliminate CIA activity" and wanted US troops "dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

So the MSM believed it. Okay -- what are my talking points for this, if it comes up again with this friend of mine? Because, um, I highly disagree with getting rid of the CIA and putting our military under the U.N., but I think JK today ALSO disagrees with that.

[TayTay]

8. So does Kerry

Which is why he disavowed these remarks on Meet the Press a couple of years ago. He was young and hot-headed and just back from a war in which several people he knew died.

Funny, Bush was still a drunk and a coward who didn't even complete his National Guard duty back then. This was even before the DUI's up in Maine. Does your friend hold him to the same standard of taking statements from 35+ years ago and holding them as true now?

You will never get all the people. They will use anything, even statements long since disavowed publicly and loudly, to beat up on people they don't like. Ask your friend why she knows about this but not the disavowals? Who is spinning whom here?

[beachmom]

11. Any chance anyone has the link to this MTP appearance?

No, I agree, that you can't get everyone. However, I don't like to be blindsided. So if some right winger says "oh, Kerry is only for the military to be under the U.N.", I want to say that that was disavowed, and that he was only 26 years old, and angry because his friends had died in Vietnam, and his whole sense of the world was shattered. I'll look for the link right now, but if somebody gets it before me, that would be great.

[karynnj]

10. Even if this were 100% accurate

and completely captured Kerry's thoughts 36 years ago, no one is holding anyone else to their 36 year old views. (Bush for example was "young and irresponsible and likely drunk.) Kerry was 26 years old then and it was a very different time.

The article looks like a Harvard newspaper. As one who was in college (in the more conservative midwest), those were very radical times. Kerry's view of the CIA at that point was colored by what he personally saw - we destabalized most of SE Asia. We violated Cambodia's neutrality and later extensively bombed it even though we were not at war with them. Then anger in May, 1970 when people in my dorm watched Nixon speak of his orders into Cambodia rival any reaction any of us had to Bush.

[beachmom]

12. Thanks Tay -- here we go -- this is great (from MTP)

MR. RUSSERT: And people refer back to an interview when you first ran for Congress, back with The Harvard Crimson, where you said, "Kerry said the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

SEN. KERRY: That's one of those stupid things that a 27-year-old kid says when you're fresh back from Vietnam and angry about it. I have never, ever, ever, in any vote, in any policy, in any speech, in any public statement advocated any such thing in all of the years I've been in elected office. In fact, I say the following and I say it very clearly, I will never cede the security of the United States to any institution and I will never cede our security to any other country. No country will have a veto over what we need to do to protect ourselves. But, that said, I will be a president who understands, as every president of the last century did, Tim, that multilaterism is not weakness, it is strength, and we need a president who understands how to reach out to other countries, build alliances. His father did a brilliant job of it. We
need to do the kind of alliance-building that we have done traditionally.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/