As part of the second of three installments, so far, in his campaign to become the den mother of the political culture Jeff Jarvis says:
If I were going to talk character as an issue -- and I won't -- I'd be more concerned about a candidate who allowed or condoned dirty campaigning in the present tense than about these particular supposed sins -- by either candidate -- in the past tense.
Well if I were going to talk about suspicious double standards--and I will--I'd probably observe...
that when Moore's propagandumentary was released the issue was the right of a morbidly obese serial prevaricator to present "his truth" while receiving celebrity billing at the official presentation of Kerry's Vietnam extravaganza. Yet when the Swiftvets (whose bonafides are every bit as impressive as the mini-JFK's) present their 30 second ad spot and their public defense against an onslaught of ad hominems it's "dirty campaigning," and the issue suddenly shifts to wearing out the public's thin veneer of patience or over-burdening their rugrat-like attention span (as opposed to, say, the truth of the allegations). I mean, it's not as though Kerry ever brought up an entirely fictionalized account of his past to make the case against a current US policy or anything.
And having said that, I'd add that the next issue raised by the Swiftvets and others ought to be Kerry's refusal to release his "official records," since that's the keystone of the false moral equivalence between the Bush and Kerry campaigns at the moment, and the red flag on Kerry's molehill-versus-mountain ethical double standard. So far not a peep about it in the "mainstream media," though.
I've been trying to figure out what sort of strategy Kerry is currently using, and why. I heard some Democratic pundit the other day say that Kerry has generally relished attacks on his Vietnam record, so that he could base his campaign on the counter-attack. The details of that counter-attack are now clear: that the President is (illegally according to delegated bulldog Howard Dean) behind the Swiftvet campaign, and that he (as opposed to Kerry) is engaging in "dirty politics." I can see how such a strategy might work well, were the US a writ-large version of Massachusetts, and also why the argument might get a big ovation on the John Stewart Show (where Kerry's refusal to answer whether he was ever in Cambodia met with nervous laughter). However, I strongly suspect that as a national campaign strategy it's just not going to cut the mustard.
Kerry has an obstacle, and his attempts to deflect attention from it are simply going to call attention to it. As Glenn Reynolds observed, it could have been a molehill to an alternate Kerry, but for this Kerry it's a mountain, and there won't be any easy detour around it.
Posted by Demosophist at August 25, 2004 11:47 AM | TrackBackWhy would you write that Kerry has refused to release his official service records? They are all on his web site:
Are there more records that you know of that should be there?
It is ironic to me that you point out this criticism of Kerry when it is more appropriately aimed at President Bush. He continues to shield his image from the release of his own embarrasing service records.
I also want to point out that no reputable source has pointed to a strategic or monetary link between the Kerry campaign and any 527 or other non-DNC sanctioned Kerry advocates.
The same can not be said for the Bush campaign, which is directly linked to the Swifties.
link1
" rel="nofollow">link2
I am writing this to correct what I percieve to be inaccurate, but well-intentioned. I realize that my comments may also be just that. So, if you think I am wrong, please send more info. I am always happy to have my perceptions challenged.
Thanks,
m
Posted by: matt at August 25, 2004 05:33 PMI've edited your comment because the URLs you posted were screwing up my formatting. If you post again, learn to use html to format links, otherwise I'll just delete the post.
Why would you write that Kerry has refused to release his official service records? They are all on his web site:
This is simply obfuscation, as this post makes clear. Citations aren't "official records" because they aren't in the service records, and (as the poster indicates) it's "a matter of record" that John Kerry has refused to release his service records. The site you posted is simply evidence that Kerry seekes to delude the public about that fact, and though it might have worked in a pre-internet era, it simply won't work now. Send him an email, and urge him to "sign the 180." Simple as that.
I also want to point out that no reputable source has pointed to a strategic or monetary link between the Kerry campaign and any 527 or other non-DNC sanctioned Kerry advocates.
Well, he may be irrepressible but he's probably reputable since he's an ex-CIA officer. Ed Morrisey has has the goods on multiple links involving the Kerry campaign and the DNC to multiple 527s including, but not limitted to, MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other groups. Indeed, the DNC brags about it!
What you have is one dubious link which involved no illegal activity, and probably no coordination at all, compared to perhaps dozens of overt links and deliberate coordination with the DNC and the Kerry campaign. Well, your guys have opened this Pandora's box... so now it's a campaign issue. The Bush Campaign thanks you from the heart of its bottom (obscure reference to a line uttered by Peter Lorre from Casablanca.
I don't think the Kerry campaign will be able to keep ducking this issue indefinitely, and the obfuscations won't work because the blogosphere is on the case. All Kerry will be able to do is wade deeper into the muck.
As I said, this counter-attack strategy has always worked for Kerry in Massachesetts... but the Midwest and the South ain't New England, and the Vets and the Blogosphere have been riled, and have his number. He's in for it, now.
The same can not be said for the Bush campaign, which is directly linked to the Swifties.Posted by: Demosophist (to m) at August 25, 2004 06:25 PM
I was on active duty in Korea before going into the reserves. I was a precinct commiteeman in Democratic party and also a section leader in Multnomah county in Oregon. BUT I will not vote for John Kerry as president. I would have perhaps voted for Lieberman or another democrat.. Sorry Democrats but I am first a veteran and a retired member of USNR and a citizen of the United States of America.
There is no shame in having been a soldier, sailor, or airman in any war for USA.. However to turn on anyone who volunteered to serve, regular or reserve is abominable... John Kerry's record post service is incredible... I was an officer in the Navy Reserve and the young men assigned to my division on their return from active duty in Viet Nam were all honorable and regardles of their rank felt they did their country a service and had no stories that match the story that is given by John Kerry. I feel that John Kerry should have been court martialed for his admission to breaking the rules of warfare whether true or not.. His bragging that he is a WAR HERO is something I have not even heard Medal of Honor recipiants do.
Today it should be stated that being a reservist as was George W. Bush is not being a draft dodger or anything of the sort as many of our young men who are reservists serving honarably in Iraq today can attest to. Reservists are aware that their service may be required and they will go willingly.
I hope that the good citizens of this country can see that there is no honor left in a man who has not retracted the lies he told about our brave men and women who do serve on active duty or await the possibility, that as reservists, they may need to also serve.
If President Gearge Bush is able to stop the swift boat Veterans from telling their story that will place him as being in charge of their statements and would indicate that he is responsible. However if he is not responsible then they have a first amendment right to express their thoughts.
CWO Henry R. Dickhous USNR Retired.
Henry:
If President Gearge Bush is able to stop the swift boat Veterans from telling their story that will place him as being in charge of their statements and would indicate that he is responsible.
Thanks for the contribution. Yes, I think the President's statements on this and his coordination with John McCain are slightly disingenuous, but it does throw the Kerry counter-attack into a tizzy. The bottom line is that there's nothing illegal about what Swiftvet ads or their funding, so there isn't much the President or McCain could do about them. And I don't think the Swiftvets would pay the slightest attention to a call from Bush to "cease and disist." They aren't pro-Bush. They're anti-Kerry. I don't think they care what Bush says. And, Frankly, I don't think Moveon.org cares that much what Kerry says. The difference is that the Moveon.org ads are really stupid and do more damage to Kerry than Bush.
You know, a friend of mine who's a campaign manager once told me one of his cardinal rules for life: "Never sleep with anyone crazier than you are." In the case of Kerry, he has laid down with Moore and the Marxisants, and they're going to take from him more than they give. Just another example of his stunningly bad judgment.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 26, 2004 04:37 PMI came to your site and responded to your post. I am interested in vetting ideas.
I stopped reading your reply to my comment after reading this:
"I've edited your comment because the URLs you posted were screwing up my formatting. If you post again, learn to use html to format links, otherwise I'll just delete the post."
You should be happy that someone is reading and responding to what you write. You would do well to be more cordial.
Good luck in that job hunt. I'm sure there's something right around the corner for you.
Delete my posts. Why would I care? I am just going to move on to the next blog to see if there is someone out there interested in getting real.
Have fun singing to the choir.
Posted by: matt at August 26, 2004 11:26 PMMatt:
Having thought it over I can see why you felt I was rude not to simply ask you nicely to "html" your links from now on. But consider the spamming problem that blogs have to contend with nowadays, and the thought of receiving loads of poorly formatted comments that mess up the page for readers. Of course I would have to delete such posts. If it were your blog, you'd have to delete them too.
Of course, you don't have to use html, you can just post elsewhere until you find someone that tolerates blowing the margins wide open, or someone who's sufficiently un-saavy that they don't know what's causing their margins to blow apart so that the only way to read a post is to travel the horizontal scroll bar back and forth for every line.
Bit of a nuisance, that.
Suit yourself.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 27, 2004 02:13 AM