Cut Sen. Kerry Some Slack, Why Don't You?

Continuing on the theme of manipulation of the masses, Senator John Kerry (D.-Mass) also comes to the fore of this issue. A couple of days of ago, he was caught saying a joke in a speech that seemed to "denigrate the military". The moment that he uttered the words, the President of the United States and other members of the opposing party jumped on him with the force of a "swift boat" attack. The Democrats were not left unscathed. The newscasts immediately put forth that the GOP wasn't the only ones that were "mad"; the Dems showed their wrath by slapping Kerry on the wrists for "messing up a good thing" when the polls indicate that more people in America will probably vote Democratic next week.

In light of this, it is best to give Sen. Kerry a break. During the 2004 Presidential elections, smear campaigns had painted the man as being "stone-faced", "flip-flopping" and "humorless". This seems to be a particular motif that touches the most important candidates of the Dems in every campaign and speech. Add on to the alleged "support of the terrorists" and then you get a stigma of a man who doesn't embrace any humor and is in bed with the enemy. The problem with such stigmas is that even though they aren't the least bit true, they stick in the minds of those who are easily convinced.

Such bromide is also spread around by the pundits to make sure the false persona has some legs during the length of the campaign and afterwords every time the said politician makes strides in his or her career. Such manipulating has been par for the course for the opposing party because they know that they can get away with it. No one simply has the courage (except for the lone words of Keith Olbermann) to call them out for this behavior. That is part of the "fear mongering" that has taken hold over our nation without any release.

It has gotten to the point that politicians (as well as the rest of us) have to watch what we say when we discuss politics. The loudest voices (spurred on by the pundits and the politicians who support them) taunt those who dissent against what is taken to be "appropriate" by the present Administration. This harkens back to a speech that Mr. Kerry gave earlier this year about the lack of acceptance given to those who speak against the second Iraqi war. The words of the Senator from Massachussetts conveyed the fact that people who speak out are punished for their remarks while those in lockstep continue to get praised.

This election does not divert from the idea that this still takes place. Mr. Kerry is a staid man. That is the impression that most get because he does simply say what's on his mind. However, people ought to be glad that he does attempt to have a sense of humor. Humor is not simply left to the comedians amongst us. Everyone has to crack a joke from time to time as an attempt to get people to think about the current events of the day. Attempts at laughter come easier to some than others. The problem is that humor (even the most cutting) is accepted whole-heartedly while others get raked over the coals for it.

Now, Mr. Limbaugh's words about actor Michael J. Fox was not humorous. It was straight commentary that derided the affliction the actor was going through. Mr. Bush makes jokes about himself and his politics. Who can forget his comments about the "Have and the Have mores" that came across in director Michael Moore's Farenheit 911? Let us not forget the other attempts of Mr. Bush's humor (such as the meanspirited joke that came across when he was trying to search for the Weapons of Mass Destruction). It seems that jokes--especially when they are biting--have always been spoken and not experienced any outcry. In the case of the GOP, jokes are par for the course. All a politician with this certain platform has to do is to either say that they "don't remember saying it" or "that they didn't mean what they say".

What is different in the attack on Mr. Kerry's comments?

He hardly had a chance to answer for himself. Instead, he had to witness--like the rest of us viewers--firey speeches putting him down for his words. Then, this public chastising evolved into another tactic to change the mind of some voters in the last minute before the elections. Did it work? We'll see. Was it fair? We'll also see.

However, Mr. Kerry replied with an apology that was forced out of him to settle things. Does the opposing party ever apologize for what they say?

All this conveys is that it is far different from what the politicians of the past had to go through. There had been a long line of political people who have uttered things from the most benign to the most caustic. But they were fully exercising their First Amendment Rights in saying it. What Mr. Bush and his cohorts forget is that we still have a Constitution despite the present Administration's alleged attempts to dismantle it with policies restricting the rights of the press and the populace of America.

Mr. Kerry was exercising his freedom of speech.

However, a mountain was made out of molehill when dissecting and analysing the few words he uttered. As a result, his "punishment" by trial in the press and political sphere communicates to us that we can never speak what is on our minds unless we prepare a statement of apology before we say what we mean.

The main point here is the fact that even before some could even try to explain what they mean, there are a whole bunch of people speaking for them and interpreting their words. Doesn't anyone ever stop to think to ask questions before they make mince-meat out of another's comments?

Not in Mr. Kerry's case. He just simply opens his mouth and becomes condemned. So much for freedom and liberty in America.