Kerry’s right

By Joseph Farah

I’ve been tough on John Kerry.

When I say he may be the most dangerous man ever to run seriously as a candidate for president, I mean it.

When I say he will transform America in unimaginably horrible ways if elected, I mean it.

When I say he is amoral, motivated only by ambition and probably some kind of Manchurian candidate programmed by some bygone communist power of the past, I’m semi-serious.

But when he’s right, he’s right.

And last week, John Kerry called one right.

I know – even a broken clock is right twice a day. I’m not yet ready to suggest Kerry has the batting average of a broken clock. But I had to agree with him 100 percent in something he said about the Bush campaign.

It seems White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card gave a speech to Republican delegates from Maine and Massachusetts at the convention in New York. His talk was threaded with references to President Bush’s role as protector of the country. Then he said this:

It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child … I know as a parent I would sacrifice all for my children.

What?

Kerry called the remark “condescending.”

If anything he understated the case.

It was condescending, patronizing and insulting.

Unfortunately, I fear it’s true.

Listening to the first half of President Bush’s acceptance speech at Madison Square Garden last week, I think he may very well view us as his children – helpless waifs who need a Daddy to take care of them.

His domestic agenda for the second term suggests that’s the way he sees the rest of us.

He’s going to give us more medical centers, more prescription drugs, better teachers, better schools, more job training. He’s going to do all these things for us. And all we have to do is vote for him.

While Bush paid tribute to Ronald Reagan in his speech and said the late president would always define his party, this president’s speech sounded more like a Bill Clinton script.

If Bill and Hillary want to build a Nanny State, it seems George Bush wants to create a Daddy State. I’m not sure there’s much difference.

Now I know many of my friends don’t think I should attack George Bush at all in the next two months, but I can’t help it. I need to point out some serious problems in the guiding philosophy of the Republican standard-bearer. He is in need of correction. He needs to be held accountable. He needs to be reminded we have a Constitution in this country and not a monarchy. He needs to know not all of us are looking for a Daddy. Some of us just want the government to leave us alone.

I hope Andrew Card is wrong and Bush doesn’t really see himself and the country in this light.

But it kind of makes sense given his Santa Claus approach to domestic policy in his first term and the way he plans to continue those policies in a second term.

This is bad. Americans need to be weaned from government dependency, not hooked on more of it.

If Bush wants to be a responsible Daddy, he ought to know better. It sounds like he wants to be a sugar Daddy, not a responsible, loving father.

This faux pas by Card was so obvious, even Kerry could see it. Even Kerry got it right. “Condescending,” he called it. Kerry’s right – for once.