Last week, radio talk show host Michael Medved made a big point that all the terrorists, and their sympathizers, were supporting Kerry for president. To provoke reaction, he asked to hear from pro-Kerry listeners regarding how they felt to be lined up on the same side with our sworn enemies. It was also noted that up to that time, Kerry had not exactly disavowed the support, either.
In a flash, a phone call came in from one very upset lady. She “resented” how her support of Kerry was portrayed, and made some vague remarks about how he can’t be expected to control what third parties say about him. Beyond that, she identified herself as a 65-year-old physician, and one who had studied the issues thoroughly. Her passion inspired the obvious question from Medved: “OK, why are you supporting Kerry?” (What follows are not exact quotes, but are very close to the actual dialogue)
CALLER: “He is well-spoken, and I believe that he will prosecute the war on terror better than George W. Bush!”
MEDVED: “Do you think Kerry will put more troops into Iraq, or will he pull troops out?”
CALLER: “I don’t know.”
MEDVED: “What do YOU think we should do?”
CALLER: “I don’t know, but Kerry will do the right thing.”
MEDVED: “So, without knowing Kerry’s position, or even having one of your own, you are accepting that Kerry will do the right thing on blind faith.”
CALLER: “It’s not blind faith.”
MEDVED: “Then what would you call it?”
CALLER: –no reply–
Since there is nothing worse in radio than dead silence, Medved had to move on, so he pursued a different line with her…
MEDVED: “After 9/11, were you in favor of our attack on the Taliban?”
CALLER: “Yes, because that government was directly aiding and harboring Al Qaeda.”
MEDVED: “What about the war in Iraq?”
CALLER: “I am against it, since Saddam had no involvement with Al Qaeda.”
MEDVED: (incredulous) –Rattles off various items proving the connection–
CALLER: –dead silence, again–
What’s the “take-away” (as cool corporate presenters and facilitators would put it) from this?
Here we have a Kerry supporter, passionate enough about her candidate to be listening to an opposing talk show, and then to call in, and state her contrary view. She offers that she is of a certain age, and is obviously educated. Yet, when asked the most basic questions, she has few answers, and the one she does proffer is incorrect.
Interestingly, she becomes upset and literally speechless, when accused of having “blind faith,” even though that is precisely what she demonstrates. Why, she has been lumped in with all those mindless believers that she mocks—modern, sensible, atheist that I’d bet she is.
So, in about five minutes of radio, her insular little world has been shattered, although I seriously doubt that any of the experience will cause her to reflect for a moment, let alone change her position. After all, her world view was formed perhaps 45 years ago, and if JFK was her man back then, John Kerry would be her man now. Never mind that those two would disagree on virtually every conceivable issue, never mind that the world has changed drastically, and so has the Democratic party. Why think, even if you’re supposedly educated, when ideology is so much easier?
Now, just multiply this woman by a few million, mix in the tribal bloc voting of the Jews, Blacks, and many union members, throw in single women’s obsession with abortion, stir in some election fraud, and you’re on your way to understanding how the Dems can rack up the numbers they do even though they have no platform, and have not had a new idea since Lyndon Johnson’s era.