John Kerry's "San Francisco Values"

A few weeks ago, Newt Gingrich generated a great deal of criticism by suggesting that if Nancy Pelosi were to be elected Speaker of the House, she would bring "San Francisco values" to Washington DC.  Liberals automatically assumed that Newt was referring to the Golden Gate city's notorious sexual libertines and promptly hit back with reminders of his own adulterous past.

But there is another set of fundamental beliefs held by Bay Area liberals and their acolytes across the nation.  This set of beliefs was underscored by this week's verbal gaffe by John Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

In his defense, Kerry claimed that he simply fluffed a joke that was supposed to nail President Bush for being stupid and "getting us stuck in Iraq."  But the ease at which the remark rolled off Kerry's tongue, combined with his obstinate refusal to apologize for the remark, seems to hint at a deeper meaning behind Kerry's words.

Fortunately, the good citizens of San Francisco had no problem articulating that deeper meaning as they vented their frustration in comments submitted to the San Francisco Gate newspaper, which asked readers if Kerry should apologize for his gaffe.  Here is some of what they said:

Jette Swan, San Francisco
No. I spoke to a former enlisted man about this story. He's livid -- at Bush. He says there's no need to apologize to the real veterans, because that's who Kerry was talking to in the first place -- and they understand him.

Richard Brinton, Salinas
It would be a step in the right direction if Kerry would apologize for being a spineless worm when it comes to confronting the bloody war-mongers in the White House. He actually doesn't have the heart or the will to challenge Bush on his war crimes and corruption.

Marty Hogan, Hercules
Kerry stated, ""Enough is enough. We're not going to stand for this." Bravo! The time is ripe for truth and forcefulness. Democrats are finally showing spunk at the best time! This country is sick of Republican spin and divisiveness. The pendulum is swinging back and Democrats are bringing patriotic sanity. It's about time, and I am proud to see it.

Amy Altschul, Oakland
Why should a person apologize for telling the truth? The truth is, for those who are not educated, the military is one of their only outlets. This does not mean the people are stupid, it means they are uneducated. Their lack of education often means the military, which currently means Iraq. (emphasis added)

Today, The New York Sun is running a note from the Associated Press:

During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."

Ah, the truth at last.  Even though studies have repeatedly debunked the stereotype of the poor black sharecropper plucked from the cotton fields of Alabama by the Army and sent to some God-forsaken wasteland so that the son of a rich white robber baron can stay in school and earn a Harvard law degree, this ideal apparently still resonates strongly with liberals.

Although they will never admit it, many liberal elites seem to believe that most military volunteers are drawn from the poorest, least adept young minority men and women, the dregs of society who would otherwise be destined to spend most of their lives behind bars or on parole.  The evil white men who run our military then proceed to turn these helpless, at-risk youths into marauding bands of mercenaries and killers, free to rape and pillage foreign lands with impunity simply because they wear the uniform of the United States of America.

Blogger Brian Preston notes,

Liberal elitists denigrate the military because they don’t appreciate its role in protecting us and see it as the one part of government they’re always willing to slash to the bone. Think about why that last part is true. Why are liberals always ready to cut the military and boost agencies like HUD? Why? Doesn’t that say something about their attitudes, principles and priorities? I’ve seen it myself, the wince on a liberal’s face when I mention I was once in the Air Force. It’s a reflexive mistrust and hatred, a hangover from the 60s for those like Kerry, and the pabulum that the younger ones have been fed from the cradle.

At this point, I am not really worried about what Nancy Pelosi believes about gay marriage or the morning after pill.  Those "San Francisco values" aren't nearly as important to the safety and security of the United States as how she and her fellow liberal elitists view the United States military -- specifically the quality of its personnel and the seriousness of its mission.

Can liberal elites -- who view the US military (when not under their direct control) as a tool of destruction that spawns more evil than Islamic fascists, terrorists, and desperate Communist dictators combined -- be trusted to assume the authorship and oversight of the national security and foreign policy decisions of the United States?

We will decide the answer to that question next Tuesday.

(Cross-posted at Wizbang Bomb Squad.)

____________________________________________

For what it's worth, NewsBusters has noted at least two occasions where CNN correspondents have openly wished that the John Kerry story would die quickly.  They also note that Fox anchor Brit Hume noticed a conspicuous absence of mainstream newspaper headlines about the incident.

It's an interesting contrast to the media's weeks-long obsession with George Allen's "macaca" comment, or Trent Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond, isn't it?

And The Anchoress and Patterico nailed the New York Times for their biased reporting of the Kerry incident, which included an attempt to downplay the story by using a completely fictionalized, padded version of Kerry's quote.  Read it and groan.  I would normally say "unbelievable," but sadly this is what the Bush-Derangement-Syndrome afflicted New York Times has become.  *Sigh*.