I’ve been watching the Kerry/Swift Boat Vets hoo-hah with some interest – mostly because it’s actually interesting to me to watch major-league hardball be played by people who are good at it on both sides.
I don’t clutch my chest and swoon over the moral outrageousness of it – either the claimed acts by Kerry or the attacks – because (I always seem to be referring to stuff I’ve already written – does that annoy people?) I’ve covered my position in some detail already:
It’s not a matter of doubt to me that Kerry – as much or more than Bush – used privilege, probably connections, and his knowledge and ability to manipulate the system to get himself what he wanted; possibly, in my estimation, to get his ticket punched so that, like his hero John Kennedy, he could campaign as a warrior.
Why does this matter? Not because I’m making a ‘Kerry is as bad as Bush’ argument (although I reserve the right to make it later). But it matters, because in truth if you look closely at the resumes of the thousand people in the country who could plausibly run for President, what percentage of them do you think have gamed portions of their careers?
I think that Kerry has a strong case in the form of his supportive crew. I think that the Swift Boat Vets have a strong case, given the specificity of their claims and the willingness of their witnesses to stand behind their claims with their names and honor.
Does this sway me on the election? Actually, the answer may surprise you. Yes, it does – but not because of what Kerry (and his troops) did thirty-five years ago. But because of what they’re doing today.
The stunning ineptitude of the Kerry campaign in dealing with this issue, in my mind, calls into question their ability to lead the country.
One of the first things a competent person does when they decide to run for office is to sit down and list the bases that their opponents will use to attack them. I’ve done it, and believe me, I’ll never be running for anything…but the stories I could tell!
Every one of Kerry’s Vietnam-era vulnerabilities was something I was aware of, and with ten minutes of Google research, I bet I can find a dozen national-level commentators who were aware of them as well.
The Swift Boat Vets have been unhappy with him for decades. His service in Vietnam, on it’s face, needs an explanation (four months, three Purple Hearts, no days off duty from injuries). His behavior after the war (Winter Soldier, VVAW, medals across the White House Gate) needs an explanation.
I don’t think that explanations would be that hard to make. If I have time tonight, I’ll try and mirror Noah Millman and draft the Vietnam speech Kerry should have given when he announced his candidacy.
He hasn’t made that speech.
He shows no signs of making that speech.
His handlers and spokesmen are reduced to fits of incoherence when confronted by the claims made about his service. What will they do in October when the claims – and video – of his VVAW speeches and activities are broadcast?
There are three major qualifications to lead this country. You have to have some idea where you want us to go. You have to make us believe you can take us there. And you have to be able to communicate, not only to articulate your vision and show your character but to respond to challenges and convince us that you have the capability to do so.
I’m not seeing it.
I’d like to.
Well, unlike you, I do “clutch my chest and swoon over the moral outrageousness of it”, in regards to the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry. Perhaps I’m naive.
I’ll say why I get so outraged at the end of this comment, but since you are illustrating a different point:
Why didn’t Kerry and company have a better explanation of this?
Naivete? Doubtful. The particular shape of this smear/political attack/political hardball has been coming on now for 4 or 5 months, when there was a brief flurry of stories on this in February/March.
Trust in the media? This media is always interested in character gossip, on both sides. A fault of media, that hits democrats harder because of the bias at Fox News, but still. A know quantity.
Simply didn’t pay enough attention?
This was the case with me – I thought it was ludicrous that this would go anywhere, and the news cycle distracted me from giving much thought to this. Until suddenly all of these reports are popping up, and Kerry is being called cowardly and a killer in every Hannity broadcast.
Of course, I’m just a news/blog political reader/follower. I’m not paid to counteract these things.
But for the folks whose job it is to counteract this stuff, I suppose it might be the same thing. A lack of attention to detail, and a simple judgement that this “meme” had died a few months ago – and there are other fish to fry, and other important matters to pay attention to. Especially if you sincerely believe there is no “there” there.
That is the most likely explanation.
The other dynamic to marvel at is the way these “stories of the week” explode and grow on the scene.
You know – never mind me explaining why I am outraged. I can leave that for another thread. This thread will get hijacked from the point you are making anyway, to a discussion of the merits of the Swift Boats/Kerry case – I’m going to exercise discipline, and simply stay on-topic..
His “supportive crew” seems to be deserting him, reporting they consider him unfit for the office.
How are we to read this, do you suppose?
OK JC,
Let’s just address AL’s points beginning with:
“You have to make us believe you can take us there.”
What, within Sen. Kerry’s 30 years of public service provides evidence of competence of his ability to “take us there”. What program has he designed (through legislation) carried forward and seen successfully implemented? You can include fetching home money for the Big Dig if you’d like. He’s been a pol for a long time so there may be many items that you wish to advance. Perhaps the top five would be easier for all to examine.
And then, what evidence of executive ability are you aware of that would suggest that Sen. Kerry is competent to carry out the office of President?
There are three major qualifications to lead this country. You have to have some idea where you want us to go. You have to make us believe you can take us there. And you have to be able to communicate, not only to articulate your vision and show your character but to respond to challenges and convince us that you have the capability to do so.
Unfortunately, neither of the candidates have all three of these qualities. I believe that GWB has an idea of where he wants us to go. But a substantial proportion of the electorate just does not believe he can take us there (whether they want to go where he want to lead is another question entirely). And even his most ardent supporters really must acknowledge that many of the greatest flops of his administration are communication.
Does Kerry have any of these qualities? The theatrical producer David Belasco had a sign on his desk: “If you can’t put your idea on the back of your business card you don’t have a clear idea”. Mr. Kerry does not have a clear idea.
Both candidates are severely, even fatally flawed. And yet, as the late Mayor Daley said “Regardless of what it looks like right now somebody will be elected”.
Bithead,
I would respond, but it would require listing crew that supports Kerry and backs him up, then you respond with those that don’t, etc, etc.
Rick Ballard,
I could respond with a listing of Kerry’s accomplishments, or compare them with either Bush’s or Cheney’s, but again, then we argue back and forth – is it a valid accomplishment? Is the comparison fair, etc, etc.
Not gonna do it – Armed Liberal is goin ta have ta give us a “what veterans support Kerry and why?” thread, or a “what are Kerry’s accomplishments and are they acceptable” thread. Then we can get started.
I again am going to agree with what Armed Liberal is saying, and I would think the professionals should be prepared for this.
However, preparedness for political smears, is not necessarily the same ability as leading the country. It’s not necessarily indicative and clearly not a one-to-one relationship. I wonder what the percentage would be? 20 percent indicative? 40% indicative?
Also, I would think a couple of other qualifications would need to be added to Armed Liberal’s list.
1. That the vision is actually somewhat in line with reality.
2 Simple competency.
Would you agree?
A.L.:
I’m not especially impressed with George Bush’s political acumen either. I don’t think it would be terrifically difficult to beat George Bush. You’d need to do two things:
1. Compel him the radically change the theme of his compaign at least twice in a relatively short period, and the point to that as evidence that he’s insincere. McCain did it once, in N. Carolina, and the backed off.
2. Respond to charges, whether by the Campaign itself, or by his surrogates, within a 24 hour period. If you wait longer than 24 hours people won’t know what you’re talking about, because they’ve already forgotten the charge and just remember the negative impression. The only way to wipe out a nondescript negative impression is with a positive impression… which is a lot more expensive hole to dig yourself out of than simply answering a charge.
So McCain did neither of those things, although he got his foot in the door on the first. Kerry doesn’t even have his foot in the door on #1 and is floundering badly on #2.
But I’d have still voted for McCain. I won’t vote for Kerry, because I think he’s sorta nuts. Or rather his incompetence amounts to more that just a bad political sense.
It seems to me that there was only one response to this Cambodia business that would make it really go away. They could say that he was in Cambodia, alright, but just got the dates mixed up. That wouldn’t really be a win for him, because he’d still look a bit stupid, but the issue would slowly evaporate. So why don’t they do that? Well, it could be that they’re just dumber than a bag of hammers. But the big problem with that approach is that he would have actually had to be in Cambodia at some point, and he had a pretty short tour of duty so it’s probably checkable.
Which means, sadly, that he probably made the whole thing up. Or, as Andrew puts it
Gotta go. Lights just went out.
JC –
It’s not a matter of being ‘prepared for political smears’. I’ve been divorced twice and have a – colorful – romantic history. If I was going to run for office, past a city-council level, I’d assume it was going to be an issue, because people have the right to know what kind of person they’re being asked to vote for.
And if I was going to run, I’d be ready to both explain what kind of person I was when those events happened, and why that person is connected to the person I am today – the person who I’m asking my fellow citizens to vote for.
I’m waiting for Kerry to show up on this.
A.L.
JC,
OK again then, what does Kerry’s selection of convention theme and campaign staff tell us about his executive competency? He obviously selected the strategy and he is absolutely responsible for the selection of his campaign staff. How do you believe he’s doing at a bit over 2 weeks from the start of the convention? Consider what you typify as a smear as a terrorist attack. Is he responding effectively? This hasn’t been a whispering campaign, this is a stand up and slap him in the face attack. If it were anywhere near a smear campaign then the truth is the obvious defense. When do you suppose we will hear the truth from Sen. Kerry concerning Christmas in Cambodia? Shoot, those are his words. All he has to do is eat them and the story might die down.
Rick Ballard,
At this point, when talking about political response, you are correct about Cambodia – there isn’t anything on Kerry’s website that I can find.
Armed Liberal, if you take a look at Kerry’s ACTUAL response, released by the Kerry campaign, at least to the whole Swift Boat thing, it’s pretty good.
Link here
I went ahead and read that Scarborough article.
I think it is important to keep in mind that part of this is that, in many ways, the “democratic” side of this debate, Lawrence O’Donnell, is not nearly as much of a partisan guy as Tony Blankley.
If anyone here reads The Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com – too lazy to link right now), one of the main issues is that outright partisans oftentimes represent the right, and that “left-leaning” columnists often represent the left.
So that’s part of the issue too, especially on network tv. Who’s getting the access?
“However, preparedness for political smears, is not necessarily the same ability as leading the country. It’s not necessarily indicative and clearly not a one-to-one relationship. I wonder what the percentage would be? 20 percent indicative? 40% indicative?”
JC-You’d be surprised. Having worked directly under a Governor’s Press Sec, I spent half of my time on this kind of thing in an election year. You think somebody that isn’t prepared for this is going to be prepared for a foreign policy “smear”, or backstab? I’m not feeling too confident. And no blaming it on the “team” underneath, ultimate responsibility lies at the top, that’s why people who don’t avoid responsibility seek out exec positions…with the exception of when it’s ego driven.
I’m dying for the year that I have to make a really hard choice between two great candidates, but I guess they’d feel that’d make them too close to tell apart…polarization doesn’t suit me though.
AL and JC – to me the big thing about the Xmas in Cambodia and Winter Soldier thing is how Kerry used it to get us where he wanted us to go: he wanted us out of Viet Nam and was willing to lie and smear to do it and has never had the grace to admit it. Hell, Joan Baez admitted she was wrong about Uncle Ho, why couldn’t John or Jane?
As someone recently posted on a blog: “Kerry lied and MILLIONS died” (referring to the pull out from Viet Nam). When he and the Donks figure out how to explain THAT elephant in the room, I will rethink on GWB. Given Mayor Daley’s dictum quoted by Dave Shuler, I gotta go with GWB for now because Kerry is worse: this time it will probably be a million Americans who die.
JC,
This “Telegraph”:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/13/dl1302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/08/13/ixopinion.html leader is how the story could play here in the US in the next few days. The Kerry response teams rebuttal of other charges will be adequate for many people, vide P.T.Barnum’s dictum, however, Sen. Kerry is going to be asked to address his own words and actions going back to the Winter Soldier days as the campaign progresses.
He selected the convention theme, he selected his campaign team and both of those decisions are, in my view, extremely questionable. They are the most important decisions that he has made in his political life. The potential repercussions of selecting the convention theme were foreseeable dating at minimum from May when the Swiftvets went public. Why is there no effective counter ready? As Scott mentioned above, when a flat out negative story goes more than 24 hours without rebuttal, you lose. That is hardly news, that’s remedial Political Science 101.
Reading AL’s post, I was reminded that when Kerry picked Edwards for the VP slot a few weeks ago, several pundits commented that it illustrated a major difference between Bush and Kerry: Kerry selects people who can help win the election, Bush selects people who can govern.
One criticism of Kerry that keeps coming up is his judgment. He was wrong to meet the north vietnamese in Paris in 1970; he was wrong to slander the American troops; he was wrong to ignore the consequences of the American pull-out from Vietnam he advocated; he was wrong about the Soviet threat during the cold war; he was wrong about the Sandinistas; he was wrong about Reagan bombing Libya; he was wrong about the Gulf War.
His judgment doesn’t seem to have improved with time either; he was wrong to straddle the Iraq question for the sake of political expediency; he was wrong to slander our allies (“fraudulent coalition”); he was wrong to slander Bush over WMD (“misled”); he is wrong to defer to the UN, France and Germany; and he is wrong to think France and Germany have the will and ability to contribute a significant number of troops in Iraq if only Bush is sent back to Texas.
Returning to AL’s point, since Kerry’s staff is hand-picked by him (directly or indirectly), doesn’t their incompetence also call Kerry’s judgment into question? The same goes for him picking Joe Wilson and Sandy Berger to advise him on national security, giving Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore prominent spots at the convention, and parrotting Michael Moore’s 7 minutes garbage.
Dan,
Armed what?
Seriously. Before the Dean campaign imploded (and I am not even sure why), I questioned the viability of Kerry because of the very things you point out about the “googleability” (new word?) of questions about his Vietnam experiences – among other things. My question is not so much why the Kerry campaign has not responded effectively – to me the reasons are clear.
My question is why the Democrats, of late, insist upon propping up guys like Kerry and Gore as the face of their party. I don’t mean to be vitriolic, but I am a simple mind with a simple vocabulary. These guys are not “logical” choices – it’s all symbolism. Where are the REAL progressives?
This is no dig – I just don’t understand what is driving the agenda these days – I don’t see eveidence of the party claims.
I guess my main problem with Kerry is the one Rick Ballard picked up on: for a guy who was in the Senate for 30 years, the main thing he promoted during the convention was something he did when he was 22. Huh? What has this guy been *doing* all this time which is evidence of the ability to come up with original solutions to problems, or alternatively, a history of legislative activity showing he has “the vision thing” and/or leadership?
I know the Democrats have historically had a problem with being taken seriously on national security, and promoting Kerry as a warrior might have been his campaign’s best shot at addressing that. However, if that’s where his campaign stops at, I don’t think it’ll reassure most voters that he’s going to be an improvement over what we’ve got now in the White House.
I think I could be persuaded, maybe. But I see a lot of Kerry supporters who aren’t rabidly ABB, but are assuming that Kerry will automatically do things like fight the Islamists and cause economic growth better by virtue of just not being Bush i.e. it can’t get any worse than Bush regardless of who’s in the WH. I find that a dramatic, almost wishful leap of faith. When the Kerry people come out and say for example that they’re going to be able to “lead a coalition of the able”, that’s not enough for me. Why should I believe this fellow has the qualifications to do a better job of that then the guy already in the office? And saying that they’ll tell us details *after* the election is a great way *not* to get my vote. At least with GWB, I have a pretty good idea what I’m getting, warts included. It seems to me there’s a lot of “trust us” going on with Kerry/Edwards’ campaign, and that makes me very uneasy considering the dangers we’re facing in the post-9/11 world.
tagrynn,
Sorry for not being precise. Sen. Kerry entered public service as a prosecutor in 1976, he was elected Lt. Gov. of MA in 1982, he was elected to the Senate in 1984. So 28 years in public service with 20 years as a Senator. His two year stint as Lt. Gov. to Mike Dukakis is his only theoretical executive experience.
I thought he became a prosecutor in ’74 but he didn’t graduate from law school til ’76.
Sorry. The power went out, and although I have battery backup for about 10 to 20 minutes I usually don’t push it. Lead acid doesn’t bounce back very well past a certain threshold.
Anyway, as I was saying Andrew Olmstead holds:
But to me the issue isn’t whether this was a gaffe, or memory playing tricks on him. What he has done is to build a fantasy that’s composed of several real events conflated into one, and then folded into scenes from Apocalypse Now. That’s not incompetence, although it certainly has an effect on competence. As I said to Andrew:
I won’t be voting for him. Doesn’t mean I’ll necessarily be voting for Bush, but this thing really gives me the creeps. The horror! The horror!
Joel – good point. I was mentioning on another blog tonite that this is more like ’72 than ’68: a Republican president who can be beaten on the issues of his strategy, and the Dems pick a nut who is likely to be much worse. I don’t get it either. I would like to say that the Left is just insane, but then I recall that LBJ could have lost in ’64 to a lot of people. “This post”:http://www.classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1275 may be on the right track about extreme wings of the major parties.
Some repubs are theorizing that Hillary operatives inside Kerry’s campaign convinced him and others in the campaign to focus on his Vietnam service during his convention knowing that it would blow up in his face.
Apparently Bill Clinton also told Kerry that he should play up his Vietnam service to shore up his CIC credentials.
I commend this thread’s contributors for a healthy and rational discussion. This from someone who avoids becoming enamored of one candidate or another. Maybe the descriptor “passionless” could be applied, but I’d rather delude myself and just say that I’m unpersuaded by a one-sided presentation of anything; a product endorsement means little unless I see in it an honest attempt to identify shortcomings (I know there must be SOME).
Another bias of mine is to remain skeptical of claims about what one “intends” or “plans” to do. The world is awfully complex and pretty unstable, and though it’s helpful to know how a candidate tends to think, philosophically, about this and that — I can accept someone who then says, “what exactly I will DO will be a function of these things: (insert)……….., as well as my knowledge, experience, and beliefs.”
So, that means I could become comfortable with a Kerry candidacy that lacks some specificity, if properly framed. There are “nuances” and sometimes gray is more realistic than either black or white. Yet, I’ve counselled dozens of people about their careers, and coached them through the job-finding process. Kerry bothers me because he seems not to acknowledge two of the more common pieces of advice I give:
(1) If there is something troublesome in your past, hoping it will not come out is a losing strategy. Better: Have a very thoughtful and compelling explanation, as honest as you can make it without just blowing yourself out of the water. Best: Take the initiative to bring these things up yourself, to give yourself a chance to manage at least PART of the discussion with confidence.
(2) Your resume is where you tell the story of what you have accomplished; it needs to focus on results achieved that would not have happened (or not as fast or as well) had you not been involved/responsible at that time. And the more RECENT stuff counts for a lot more than “early career” stuff. Too much emphasis on the early career period plants the seed of doubt that you may have lost your edge, or gotten into an arena that was beyond your competence.
I’m not sure if Kerry is even TRYING to make the case that he has “made a tangible difference” as a result of his service in the Senate. If he is, it’s not getting out there for people to admire. What am I supposed to envision happening under Kerry that is naturally extrapolated from his recent past?
The Drudge report is reporting that Doug Brinkley, author of Kerry’s biography “Tour of Duty” is preparing a piece for the New Yorker that will claim Kerry was in Cambodia in January 1969 rather than Christmas 1968. It is surprising that this “life changing” event was not included in the original biography. Perhaps Kerry was just being modest.
I was in Vietnam in 1966-67 and I sure remember where I was on Christmas even though I was not doing anything as exciting as leading an illegal clandestine mission into another country. You would also think Kerry would remember who gave him his orders, especially since all of the commanders he served under are opposed to him now. Because this was an illegal clandestine mission it would damage the credibility of people now opposing Kerry if it could be shown out that they had selected him for such a sensitive mission.
Oscar,
Thanks! I agree with you.
Terry,
Maybe there is a reason for what you say – which I believe to be true.
Perhaps the entire campaign is based upon the “Just as long as you are not Bush, you’ll win”. The ABB candidacy. If this is the strategy – then the office is being done a dis-service if Kerry actually wins the election. He’s not presidential material.
I still look at the past two elections with dismay. I would have voted for a rational, experienced Democrat over a veteran of 5 years at state level. I even considered voting for Gore (8 years in office) I just could not fathom Gore and the closer we got to the elections, the shriller he and the entire left got.
Democratic politics have been shrill ever since, IMHO. I won’t debate it, it’s how I feel.
This time, I have seen a man do a tough job -even though imperfectly – in the worst possible situation I can fathom (our nation attacked on our own soil) and I am impressed. I am impressed by his consitency. He said he would stand up for certain things – period – and on those things he has. He said he would compromise on some things, and he has (Homeland Security for example). I could not do the President’s job. W has my respect and my vote.
The Cambodia story, in whatever version, should have been on the due-dilligence list for any consultant thinking of working for Kerry.
Basically, a competent political operative will run a candidate through his own biography looking for holes. Because if you find a hole you can fix it; but if you’ve missed one it is sure to come back and bite you.
The whole CIC strategy smacks of amateurs mistaking form for substance.The goofy salute with Kerry’s anti-war record was going to be pure cheese and who was it going to attract to the flag? Vets? No.
What it was designed to do was counter GWB on the one area where he consistantly out polls Kerry: security. But running a motor boat, no matter how swift, thirty five years ago is not the way to send the security message.
The way to do it, and I fear I may pre-empt AL’s speech would be to have said:
My name is John Kerry. Thirty five years ago I served my country in a war I, and millions of other Americans, bitterly opposed. Tonight I stand ready to serve my country in a war which we have no choice but to fight. A war which we have no choice but to win.
How we fight that war, how we win that war, is absolutely the most important issue facing the President of the United States now and will be absolutely the most important issue facing me when I am elected November 4.
I am running for the Presidency because I am angry about and, frankly, frightened of the total lack of planning in Irag. I am ashamed and outraged at the horrors of Abu-Ghraib.
I learned one thing in the Swift Boats: no matter how small the boat the captain takes responsibilty for fighting smart, fighting decently and, most importantly, fighting to win.
The day I take office America will begin to fight our real enemy: global terrorists. We will fight them without distractions, without neocon sideshows, without angering the Islamic world and alienating our allies.
A famous English General once said, “Nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.” I do not like this war, but I like the prospect of defeat even less.
(PS…If I were American and could vote Kerry would not be getting my vote even if he made that speech.)
A.L.,
How does this:
“…it’s actually interesting to me to watch major-league hardball be played by people who are good at it on both sides.”
square with this:
“The stunning ineptitude of the Kerry campaign in dealing with this issue….”
It has been my impression that the Kerry campaign has not handled this issue well. I suspect that Kerry himself cares a great deal about his own public image–not wholly a bad thing–except that he gets flustered when it is threatened. (Several of his gaffes reflect this, e.g. the SS SOB skiing incident, the Kerry-in-a-bunnysuit incident, etc.)
From the look of his press personnel, I think they got massively sideswiped and then found that Kerry wouldn’t be giving them much support in the way of a detailed rebuttal. Therefore, they’ve gone with a kitchen-sink _ad hominem_ response, often making seriously mistaken factual responses on camera–like Lanny Davis claiming that Kerry rescuing Rasmussen was when Kerry got his third Purple Heart. (It wasn’t; Kerry got his Silver Star for that; the third Purple Heart was another incident.) A well-prepped advocate would be more up to speed on the correct timeline.
The big question is who authored the after-action reports for the medals. and who made the recommendations for Kerry’s medals?
If it turned out that Kerry was both the author and the recommender then the Swiftboat Vets have nailed this fraud.
The Cambodia issue illustrates incompetence by showing how Kerry allows his personal story to PREVENT necessary debate on an important topic.
In any conflict there will be fall out or spillover beyond the intended boundaries. Domestic violence winds up involving the neighbors. Viet Cong attack the South via Cambodia. And now, Al-Qadea and Taliban guerillas hit-and-run into Afghanistan and Pakistan from Tajikistan. Now, too, fedyaeen slip in and out of Iraq to attack US forces and the fragile Iraqi government from across the borders of Syria and Iran.
What should the US policy be? (a) Respect borders even if it costs military lives? (b) Only cross (violate) borders in “hot pursuit” of guerrillas? (c) send special forces across the border in secret to ‘carry the fight to the enemy’ in the enemy’s own rear/secure area?
This is an important question. And the problem of Cambodia provides useful historical examples to consider in deciding that question.
But Kerry has poisoned our ability to discuss LBJ’s or Nixon’s historic policies on Cambodia by injecting himself — dishonestly — into that history. Did we in fact send special forces into Cambodia? Kerry says we did — but Kerry LIED! So what should be a simple historic fact from which to begin discussions about the success (or lack thereof) of such a policy devolves to dispute about whether it was one mission or four, at Xmas under LBJ or Valentine’s Day under Nixon. Kerry’s lies delay and divide us from rational debate about one of the most substantive issues of this election.
This is — to put it as kindly as possible — incompetence of the first order.
Just for contrast, stipulate for a moment that Shrub WAS A.W.O.L. for a few months at the end of his own service. Has he ever used his own service, or lack thereof, to illustrate how his policies as Texas Governor or US President would, or would not, be effective?
One relatively well-reported bit of Texas legislation (regarding subsidies to small oil-well operators in Texas to allow them to keep the wells open even when Saudi market manipulatioins lowered oil prices such that the Texas wells would otherwise close ) came to Governor Bush’s desk with near unanimous bi-partisen support — but by signing it, the Governor was LOUDLY criticized for setting policy based on his “nostalgia” for his own former days in the small oil business. And then he was criticized again for NOT speaking up on the matter either way. By refusing to address his own background, he weakened the debate.
But I would suggest that approach did not weaken the debate as much as if he’d taken the stump and declared the problem of keeping American oil flowing under market-attacks from Arab princelings was seared — seared! — into his memory …
The problem with Kerry is that he has no credibility when it comes to protecting this country. You can’t spend the 80’s opposing military expansion, military policy (nuclear freeze, getting pictures taken with Ortega), oppose the first gulf war (rush to war), propose cutting CIA budgets after the fird WTC bombing etc and suddenly say that you are strong on defense. It is an intellectually untenable position. It may be nuanced and gray and all that other crapola, but he was wrong at every turn. He called for the ouster of Saddam in 98, he voted for the Gulf war in 2002, then denounces it, going all Dean. Then the bone headed lie about Xmas in Cambodia seared into his memory. Christ he is a maroon. Believe it or not we are at war. The Democrats had a responsibility to nominate someone who recogized that Islamic terrorism was not going to go away if we just were more understanding of the French and the PLO. Lieberman would have been a better candidate, I am sure there are others but the field of candidates that ran, were a disgrace. Only one candidate thinks we are at war and its not Kerry. If it was, he wouldn’t be proposing to bring 1/2 our boys home in the first 6 months. ABB is not a strategy for winning anything.
Oscar,
Jane (however sincerely) apologized.
Kerry has not.
==========
Joel (No Pundit Intended)
What happened is that all the Progressives have joined in with the socialist anti-American wing of the party and the liberals (for the time being) have joined the Republicans.
The politics of envy/theft are dead. Died in 1991 or so. The body lingers on. Headless.
==============
Jay Currie,
The famous General was Wellington.
======================================
I’m going with Kerry is not a liar. I believe he comitted war crimes as he testified before the Senate.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
Kevin says,
“Christ he is a maroon.”
As a double maroon (Central High, Omaha; University of Chicago) I resemble that remark. 😉
==============================================
Kerry has 3 major negatives
1. His Vietnam service was with Walter Mitty and Marlon Brando.
2. Winter Soldier was one ugly bit of consorting with the enemy. (I won’t even go into the assasination plot)
3. His Senate record
This is a lot of defence before he even gets to offence.
Now let us study current events.
1. Plan to replace 1/2 the troops in 6 months.
Please explain what country or group of countries has 70,000 soldiers of the required competence for the replacements. It is a joke. Note I haven’t even asked if they would be willing to commit. Just capabilities.
2. Other wise he is going to do what ever Bush has done/will do only better. Not mentioning what exactly will be improved. The troops get caviar instead of MREs? Perrier instead of Evian? Or choice of either? What?
This is the case of the classic empty suit. Can it win an election? We shall see.
====================================
Do you know where John Kerry spent the Christamas of 1968?
You don’t?
That is all right. Neither does John.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
M.Simon – Thanks, I was not aware that Jane had apologised, although I do recall that she dissed Joan when SHE apologised. Thanks for letting me know.
Since by my count, this thread degenerated to ad hominem attacks on Kerry, on various and sundry issues (as I predicted at the beginning of this thread) I might as well put in a little balance, for this oh-so-balanced site:
Claim: Kerry was never in Cambodia he’s a liar!:
Au contraire! Here is some evidence otherwise:
Link here
At any rate, there is definitely some evidence he was running some boats in January/February of the next year.
You could of course contrast this with what Bush was doing at the time, which doesn’t look too good for Bush.
Also, if lying is grounds for discrediting a person for President, how about this?
Bush himself, in his 1999 autobiography, ”A Charge to Keep,” recounts the thrills of his pilot training, which he completed in June 1970. ”I continued flying with my unit for the next several years,” the governor wrote. While in fact, he stopped flying (for whatever reason) in August 1970.” I don’t know if you call 2 “several”. It’s a lie.
Another lie in this regard:
Bush responding to a question about his 1972 service stated: “I was there on temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time. I made up some missed weekends. I can’t remember what I did, but I wasn’t flying because they didn’t have the same airplanes. I fulfilled my obligations”
However, records show that in 1973 thousands of hours were logged on the airplane in question at Bush’s unit. “If [Bush] had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out,” said [Major General] Hodges, a Bush admirer. “But I don’t recall him coming back at all.”
Again, an obvious lie.
Another canard here is that Kerry has no accomplishments to his credit. Let’s nip this in the bud in two ways:
Bills sponsored by Kerry:
* He helped to reauthorize a majority of credit and noncredit programs into the Small Business Administration (SBA) through passage of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997. Over $300 million in loan funding and technical assistance.
* He and Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO) coauthored emergency legislation entitled The American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act of 2001, which gives customized loan and borrowing access to small businesses hit by the affects of the September 11 terrorist attacks
* Through cooperative efforts with former Sen. Bumpers of Arkansas, Kerry has fought to reduce capital gains taxes by 50% for small business owners, and they have proposed a 50%-75% tax exemption for shareholders in small businesses that specialize in technological R+D.
* Kerry supported the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which gives targeted credit breaks to operational family-owned small businesses or farms by exempting them from payment of the first $1.3 million in estate taxes, while keeping health insurance deductions for the self-employed
* Kerry’s efforts in small business revitalization have gained small businesses research and contracts to increase commercialization and federal aid through the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR).
* He battled the FDIC in Massachusetts to secure a statewide foreclosure moratorium during a time of bank failures, giving small businesses the opportunity to repay loans with capital through retail rather than auction.
* He and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) sponsored a bill to extend disaster relief loans through the SBA to small businesses affected by the airways system shutdown that followed Sept. 11.
* He sponsored the Code of Arms Transfers Act, banning U.S. military commitment in undemocratic countries that violate human rights
* He sponsored the Arms Transfer Code of Conduct to enforce stricter regulations on US arms sales, ceasing the transferring of arms to nations that harbor oppressive and fascist policies and human rights violations.
* Kerry cosponsored a Defense Department amendment that authorized our military to transport the families of wounded active duty soldiers
* He joined Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) in requesting Coast Guard funding to supplement search-and-rescue missions, the prevention of drug smuggling, and fishery patrol
* During the Gulf War, Kerry voted to postpone interest payments on SBA loans and extend tax return filing deadlines for reservists who went to serve in the Middle East, and has been outspoken in probing the causes of mysterious illnesses that afflict Gulf veterans – – cosponsoring the Gulf War Veterans Act of 1996 to make diagnoses between physical afflictions and wartime toxic exposure.
* He introduced legislation that requires the DOD to reimburse families who pay hundreds of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses for body armor of their children who are soldiers
* Along with McCain, Kerry co-chaired a rigorous investigation of American POWs and MIAs in Southeastern Asia, and they lobbied the Vietnamese government into compliance
* Congress passed Kerry’s 2002 legislative initiative authorizing low-interest loans for farmers suffering from drought.
* Kerry has presented a “Two Strikes and You’re Out” bill, which requires mandatory life sentences for two-time child predators who engage in the rape or sexual assault of kids
* Kerry supported Sen. Joe Biden’s 1994 Crime Law, which created over 1,500 new police officers.
* Kerry introduced and passed the Nurse Reinvestment Act, which is designed to help rural hospitals and health care providers to find qualified nurses
* Kerry joined Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Susan Collins (R-ME), and former Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) in proposing the Home Health Nurse and Patient Act of 2001, to allow regulatory discretion for home health care providers by reducing red tape, and reform policies to attract more nurses for home health
* In the Senate, he authored a Children’s Health Initiative for children in working families through subsidized vouchers that allow easier access to private health insurance
* Kerry was an original sponsor of the Women’s Health Equity Act, providing women of all ages with high-quality health care, including an emphasis on breast cancer prevention and treatment
* John Kerry is an outspoken proponent of quality housing programs for the elderly, having gone to bat for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) so that seniors are not rendered homeless, housing targeted at retirement communities, and block grants for geriatric services.
* He is an original sponsor of MiCASSA and The Money Follows the Person Act to end institutional bias against disabled Americans, and will promote the formation of more independent living centers.
* As part of Kerry’s platform on gay rights, he supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, including inheritance rights, health benefits and insurance, family leave, bereavement leave, pension plans, hospital visitation, and survivor benefits from Social Security. He supports legislation to give these rights to federal workers. Shortly after being elected to the Senate in 1985, Kerry joined in introducing an anti-discrimination bill.
* He was one of 14 senators in 1996 to speak out against and vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, authored by Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), which was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton
* He sponsored and voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1996, which blocks job discrimination based on sexual orientation by federal employers
* Kerry voted for Sen. Barbara Boxer’s 1993 amendment to modify President Clinton’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which would have striked out language in Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell that currently permits the dishonorable discharge of gay and lesbian soldiers due solely to sexual orientation
* He sponsored the Native American Small Business Development Act to create a permanent Office of Native American Affairs through the SBA. Kerry believes that the myth that all tribes have become rich from tribal gaming needs to be dispelled, so people are aware of the over 350 tribes that are stuck in poverty.
* Kerry authored much of the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, and has authored the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2002 to create a five-year plan in combating AIDS.
* Kerry sponsored the original Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Care Act
* In a joint effort with fellow Sen. Gordon Smith, Kerry introduced the Comprehensive School Improvement and Accountability Act to hike federal funding of public schools by $23.8 million, which would cover “Second Chance” programs, after-school programs, teacher training, early childhood education, and merit evaluation, in an effort to promote competition and accountability
* Kerry and Sen. Bond of Missouri presented Congress with the Early Childhood Development Act of 1999 to support local communities in establishing intervention programs for at-risk youth at earliest stage of life.
* He sponsored original versions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill to ban “soft money” (unlimited donations from corporations, unions, and individuals) and sham attack ads
* He teamed with Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota to present a Clean Money bill that would give candidates the option of financing their political campaigns with grant expenditures from a public campaign trust fund.
* Kerry joined a bipartisan effort for meaningful election reform, by sponsoring Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Federal Election Reform Act of 2001
* The senator was one of the original organizers of the first Earth Day in Massachusetts (in 1970), and chaired the National Earth Day board in 1990
* He and Boxer passed a Senate amendment to impose a moratorium on oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and the West Coast, including California’s coastline. The Kerry-Boxer amendment closes a loophole that would have allowed oil companies to drill in environmentally sensitive areas and protects the fishing and tourism industries from being trumped by Big Oil
* Kerry cosponsored Lincoln Chafee’s Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000, a bipartisan bill providing national brownfields cleanup and redevelopment in urban areas
* Along with Sen. Biden, Kerry sponsored a State Department bill amendment tackling global climate change by mandating the Bush Administration to engage in international environmental renegotiations and to work toward revising Kyoto
* He and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) brokered a bipartisan compromise to propose increasing fuel-efficiency standards by 50%, with a goal to reach a fuel economy average of 36 miles per gallon by the year 2015.
Compare and contrast the above with Mr. Cheney’s record of legislative accomplishments, whom I assume many here would say is accomplished:
There were only two
Again, what I am going against here is the negative assertions about Kerry, that keep appearing, and are, I believe, naively uninformed about the actual record of the man.
If someone isn’t going to vote for someone, for whatever reason, that’s fine. But at least have good reasons, and facts behind your reasons not to vote.
Kerry’s “lying” about Cambodia, is in question. Bush shows the same type of “lie” about his records 30 years ago – and as I say this is in question as well.
The facts show that Kerry’s accomplishments stack up quite well, either with Bush’s accomplishments, or Cheney’s.
So, doing my duty, I bring balance to this, one of my favorite website, devoted to informed commentary!
JC – you’re right, the thread has deteriorated somewhat. But…to address your last post, there’s a key difference between Bush’s questionable service in the TANG and Kerry’s; Bush didn’t get on stage in 2000 and show us videos of him in his flight suit, or bring up his peers to testify to his charachter. It wasn’t an issue, as I recall, back then.
Kerry, for better or worse, had brought this issue to the forefront of his campaign – which I think was stupid – and he and his team are reacting badly to the challenges – stupid again. To my mind, that’s the issue.
A.L.
JC – thanks for the list of Kerry accomplishments. I just wish the official Kerry campaign did not seem to be based on his short stint in Viet Nam. I suppose they think this makes him look tougher or something, but his record in Congress seems like it should be more of a talking point for them.
JC – your link with evidence about Kerry in Cambodia goes to a page on which the word “Cambodia” does not appear. Can you check it and repost? Thanks
Oops!
Here’s the link
I’m gone until Sunday. To all, be well!
A.L.;
Bush “lied”:http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_08_08_atrios_archive.html#109232846477256861 about his military service in his 1999 autobiography.
I guess lying doesn’t bother you as much as Kerry being a “bad communicator” about his? (An assertion which I completely disagree with, BTW. I understand his service perfectly well because I have not relied upon CNN or Fox to tell me about it, perhaps.)
(And you are also ignoring the complication of having to get his message through the pro-Bush major media outlets.)
Here’s how it works: You gotta choose between Kerry or Bush in November. If you can find an example of something that you really don’t like about Kerry (even limiting it to your vastly oversimplified “three major qualifications”), and Bush is not a worse offender, fine.
Otherwise, what’s your problem here?
“And you are also ignoring the complication of having to get his message through the pro-Bush major media outlets.”
I usually let outrageous statements go, but this one has to be challenged. Is it your contention that the news media bias in North America is pro-Bush, rather than left-leaning? If so, would you mind identifying the offending news media outlets. I’m just curious about the left’s general perception on this issue.
Mark;
No, I would not mind at all.
In no particular order (drum roll please)…
Fox News
CNN
New York Times
Washington Times
MSNBC
Wall Street Journal
NBC
ABC
PBS (new kid on the block)
But you seem to be conflating “pro-Bush” with “Left”. We can have a discussion on that issue if you first define what you mean when you say “left-leaning”, if you’d like to digress.
Since I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of left-leaning journalists (and leftits in general) are anti-Bush, I see no useful distinction here.
I don’t think I’ve read a poll of news journalists that didn’t place the majority of them on the left. I’d be willing to place Fox, WSJ and Wash Times on the right or centre, but everything else is solidly left. I mean, pro-Bush PBS and NYT?
VT –
You’re kidding, right? This is the “the press is worth 15 points” (Newsweek editor); 88% – 12% pro Gore national press?
I’d love some non-DU cites that support your position, because all the cites I’ve seen tip the other way.
A.L.
Mark;
Nice dodge. Define what you mean by “left-leaning” or concede the point.
A.L.;
No, I am not kidding. Are you? Where is your evidence that mainstream media coverage favors the Democrats over Bush? Polls citing reporters own alleged political leanings are meaningless, of course.
Didn’t you watch the Democratic convention? Jim Lehrer was more concerned about how the speakers embraced their wives than the content of the speeches. And he clearly favored Republican Shill David Brooks over Mark Green in the “analysis” portions of the PBS coverage. When he did have something to say or ask, it was usually a simple repetition of a misleading Republican talking point. I guess he gets the RNC faxes also.
And what is “DU”?
Please, it is becoming increasingly clear to everyone that “The press leans to the Left” meme is pure right wing propoganda. The media are wealthy corporate elitists who favor Bush’s policies because they benefit from them disproprtionately. Its a bottom-line thing, you see. Tell me that you believe Kerry would be a better president for the Big Media than Bush (and Michael Powell, etc.), and I might perhaps begin to re-think this point.
Care to take a crack at my request from my first post? It cuts to the core of this thread, which you began.
So Kerry’s a big environmentalist. He sure didn’t hang his hat on that one during his convention.
VT,
Since it is your contention that the news media is not, in fact, left-leaning, you’ve admitted that you understand the meaning of “left-leaning” as against “right-leaning” (“wealthy corporate elitists”). Hence your challenge to me to define the term was gratuitous. But while we’re at it, I’d note that leftists hold general views that there are inequalities in the present order of society based on class, race and/or gender, and that the solution to these inequalities are to be found in large-scale social reorganization, including income redistribution and communal, rather than individual, solutions.
Journalists, editors, news managers, etc., in selecting, on a daily and hourly basis, the stories that get told, translate this bias into news coverage (as my favouriate CBC leftist reporter is on record as saying: “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”; he, of course, decides who is comfortable and who is afflicted – we simply must accept his judgment on this).
“Where is your evidence that mainstream media coverage favors the Democrats over Bush? Polls citing reporters own alleged political leanings are meaningless, of course.”
I would think that polls of editor & reporter bias would be highly relevant, given that these people actually, you know, produce & report the news. If you want to exclude such polls, you’d have to make a fairly strong argument for doing so. I look forward to seeing it.
It was your contention that the media is pro-Bush. So prove it. (Why are leftists surprised when people ask that a debater actually prove a position? Is this asking too much?)
JC,
Thanks for the more than thorough response. I would note that “accomplishment” generally connotes the realization of an activity. I would never say that Sen. Kerry has not advocated, supported, sponsored, co-sponored, teamed, presented, spoke, voted, proposed, helped, co-authored, battled, joined, brokered, introduced and spoken out about even more legislation than you have noted.
I would note as an actual accomplishment that his authoring and carrying the Nurse Reinvestment Act has undoubted been a boon to rural hospitals.
However, I find it curious that there is no mention of defense or intelligence related legislation (aside from the McCain MIA/POW investigation) in this resume. Do you have any thoughts as to why that might be? Certainly his opposition to aiding the Contras in opposition to Danny Ortega’s Sandanistas is worthy of mention.
Where within his illustrative carreer might one find evidence of his support of our armed forces either in providing them with the necessary tools for their tasks or for providing for their general sustenance and well being? He’s running as a “sensitive” hawk, you know, and I’d like to see some evidence from his past suggesting that he has advocated, supported, sponsored, co-sponored, teamed, presented, spoke, voted, proposed, helped, co-authored, battled, joined, brokered, introduced and spoken out legislation concerning the military that might help me judge his ability in this rather vital area.
Mark,
When you can explain to me how repeating Republican talking points in countless articles or interviews relating to the Presidential campaigns has anything to do with “large-scale social reorganization”, maybe then I’ll understand what the hell you’re talking about. Otherwise I will think you have simply opened your Right Wing Debating Primer and chosen a random comeback from the “Liberal Media” chapter.
And when will Neocons realize that asking someone to “prove” something to them is meaningless because they will never concede that their standards have been met.
Vesicle,
Sometimes your opponents don’t agree with you: crying about it isn’t generally persuasive. If leftists profs taught their students how to debate instead of how to repeat marxist slogans, we’d be having a more successful discourse.
When you’re ready to make an argument, let me know.
When will people learn that generalizing with broad labels will never convince anyone of anything (unless they’re already convinced)?
VT – It’s nowhere clear to me that I’m repeating “tired right wing slogans” instead of articulating my own observations. One infuriating, and ultimately losing, style of argument I only seem to see from the Left these days is the “you’re brainwashed” argument. VT, I’m genuinely interested in which team the media are playing for. I also have some – through my own observation, and the observations of others that I’ve read – to believe that they’re pulling hatd for the D team right now.
If you’ve got counterarguments, please make them (you hinted at a couple).
A.L.
A.L.
I don’t think I ever accused you of repeating “tired…slogans” here, so I’m not sure what you’re responding to.
My “counterargument” (I wasn’t really making one, but ok) is simply to ask you to consider your accusations of Kerry on balance with Bush, given that these are the only two choices. I posed several questions in my posts, on the topic of this thread (off-topic comments were put in parentheses). But you (and Mark) seem to rather prefer to focus on the parenthetical remarks. This can be interpreted in two ways: 1) It is easier for you to defend the minor rather than the major point, or 2) You have no answers.
For more on the media, I would suggest the following sources. Read them for a few weeks and then let us know what you think.
“CJR”:http://campaigndesk.org/
“Bob Somerby”:http://www.dailyhowler.com/
“Media Matters”:http://mediamatters.org/
“Center for American Progress”:http://www.americanprogress.org/site/c.biJRJ8OVF/b.8473/
Gary: Your point?
Mark:
You are an artful dodger, I have to give you that.
Vesicle,
The fact that you direct the audience to leftists commentators instead of primary sources is telling.
Perhaps we should examine the primary sources: the 1996 study by the American Society of Newspaper Editors surveyed 61 newspapers, and found 61% of journalists were left or left-leaning (1988 figures were 62%), and only 15% as right or right-leaning (1988 figures were 22%). The recent PEW poll found journalist identifying themselves as left 34% of the time, compared to only 7% for conservatives. Those who claimed to be politically moderate actually held left views on specific issues (god, ethics, sexual orientation).
Feel free to make an argument. Note: Moaning about my alleged intransigence, flat denials or commentary by other leftists are unlikely to be persuasive.
Mark;
The sources are routinely listed on the sites that I linked to. There are so many examples (daily) of Right Wing bias that one or two examples cannot possibly do it justice. It is no more a dodge than your failure to provide a link for your reference, or perhaps something a little more contemporary.
Dismissing the links as “leftist commentators” is typical from you.
And again, you seemed confused by the basic difference between a journalist’s self-reported voting preference and their potential reporting bias. Media coverage favors Bush and the Republicans. Here’s just another “example”:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004512.php of this for you.
Bush didn’t get on stage in 2000 and show us videos of him in his flight suit
No, because the political impact was greater in 2003 when GWB landed on the carrier deck to tell us Mission Accomplished. Did you forget that little episode?
Vesicle,
I avoided linking conservative commentators because I expect that my audience can decide for themselves once they view the primary sources of evidence (studies & surveys). That you believe that “evidence” consists of commentary from biased leftist sources and then refuse to address the more probative primary sources is demonstrative of the basic problem the left has in debate. Either confront the primary sources & make an argument or concede the point.
“[Y]ou seemed confused by the basic difference between a journalist’s self-reported voting preference and their potential reporting bias.”
This is almost an argument, but not quite. You leave your audience to draw the conclusion that these surveys ask journalists to identify “voting preferences”. Pew didn’t ask journalists if they were democrat or republican; it asked to describe their “political thinking”.
Turning to the guts of the 2004 Pew survey:
Interestingly, 71% of national broadcasters believe that there has been an erosion between commentary and reporting & 84% believe that too little attention is being paid to complex issues
Almost 60% of those in journalism (people who, remember, maintain liberal or left-specific views), claim that “the internet allows too much posting of links to material that is unvetted or unfiltered”. This is consistent with your own view: the left is averse to audience members deciding for themselves. Given this, together with the previously acknowledged left-bias of newspeople, one can draw a reasonable inference that news media is motivated to produce a left-leaning news product.
Of the 40% of newspeople who could recall a particularly liberal news source, the most frequent answer was the New York Times. Contrast this with your contention that the NYT is pro-Bush. Fox News was identified as conservative (scroll up for my claim re: Fox).
Though 55% of the national press suggest its own coverage of the Bush administration is not critical enough, 43% suggest that their coverage is either fair to too critical. Given what we’ve seen above, this is a bit worrisome: the majority of the left-biased news media, concerned about “too much information” in the hands of the public, believes its own biased coverage is not biased enough.
One last point: you hint that personal bias does not influence journalistic bias. I find this bit humorous: for years, academic leftists (and many non-leftists) have claimed that personal bias fundamentally determines our view of the world. In one form or another, this claim pervades psychology, political theory, philosopy, literature, social studies, etc. Now, however, when non-leftists make this obvious point in the context of reporting – the direct and active recounting of events in the world, mind you – leftists deny the claim they’ve been making for decades. How stupid do you think we are?
Back to the original thread – how much of the lack of preparation of the Kerry campaign might be due to the compressed primary schedule? Formerly many of these issues came out and were resolved during the primaries. The hurry of the primary season certainly led to fewer people participating in the selection process and these folks having much less information about a candidate.
At least, Bush is the devil we know.
As seen in “Apocalypse Now”, it would make far more sense to send a small PBR across the Cambodian border instead of the much larger Swift boat.
Mark: Keep up the fight!
VT – are you sure about your links?? The CJR link had lead articles that implied Leftist bias of the press.
As I said above, visit “this site”:http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081704.shtml for a near-daily example of Pro-Bush media coverage.
Vesicle,
Is it because of your contempt for your audience that you refuse to address primary sources of evidence, or are you just giving up?