From the Weekly Standard !?!?

Andrew Ferguson has an essay in the August 30 issue of the Weekly Standard. Spends some time on the Democrats newfound tough-guy image. Then he writes: (emp add)

... in 2004, Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing. This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.

Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.

Needless to say, the proposition will be a hard sell in those dim and tiny reaches of the electorate where voters have yet to make up their minds. Indeed, it's far more likely that moderates and fence-sitters will be disgusted by the lengths to which partisans will go to discredit a rival. But this anti-Kerry campaign is not designed to win undecided votes. It's designed to reassure uneasy minds.

Interesting notion, that this is a strategy to keep Bush's core supporters from straying. We're not so sure that's the primary goal, but maybe it is.

posted by Quiddity at 8/21/2004 05:35:00 PM

Yes!

Looks like the pot has boiled over. Matthew Yglesias says what's been on our minds for the last couple of weeks:

So Mad

I'm really so furious about this whole situation that I don't know what to say. I'm taking out my credit card and making some donations and I would strongly advise any readers who don't feel like continuing to see a lying, cowardly, idiot who's willing to go to any lengths whatsoever to maintain his grasp on political power (and that's all there is to it, this isn't deception in pursuit of some higher goal, the man has no ideological principles whatsoever other than his own self-aggrandizement) so that the gang of criminals he's employed at the highest levels of government can avoid prosecution serve in the White House I would suggest that you do the same. The purpose of negative ads is to demobilize your opponent's supporters. Don't let it work. Give the DNC some money. Or your favorite 527. Whatever you can. It's increasingly clear that the bad actors have, quite literally, no shame whatsoever and will stop at nothing to maintain their grip on the government.

And Josh Marshall says that this presidential campaign has demonstrated

... cowardly rich-boy viciousness we've seen so many times from [Bush] and his family.

Political Animal says:

... SBVT is nothing more than a bunch of embittered vets who hate Kerry for his anti-war activities in the 70s and decided last year to get together and make up as many lies as they could to get back at him. It's disgusting ...

posted by Quiddity at 8/21/2004 05:13:00 PM

Stop right there!

For tomorrow's Fox News Sunday, we read that they have scheduled:

Should John Kerry have to defend his war record? We’ll ask Van Odell and Larry Thurlow of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Plus, Iraqi and U.S forces take aim at radical Islamic cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia. But is there a danger that the violence could spread across Iraq? Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., weigh in.

Two anti-Kerry Swivt Boat Veterans. No pro-Kerry guests.

That is not balanced.

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS? When you visit the FNS website, a pop-up ad often appears. One of those Undertone Networks.com ads. We clicked to close, and this crap appeared:



There was no close button to activate (upper right corner) and on the Taskbar, right-clicking did not result in a Close option (or any option for that matter). Any computer-savvy person is likely to be concerned when something like that happens, not expecting such an item from a mainstream website. Yes, it came from Fox's website. Here is the program list:



Bastards.


posted by Quiddity at 8/21/2004 03:31:00 PM

Mr. Even-handedness:

Thursday on PBS' News Hour there was a segment about the Swivt Boat Veteran's charges against Kerry. Two guests were interviewed: John O'Neill (anti-Kerry) and Tom Oliphant. We thought the segment was very interesting, particularly since Oliphant seemed to be quite angry, but kept that completely under control. Towards the end of the segment, Jim Lehrer looked at o'Neill and said to get "the story" and "to know about this", they should read "Unfit for Command". Turning to Oliphant, Lehrer said, "If somebody wants to know the complete story from your perspective, in other words fill in the gaps you claim that are in this book [Unfit for Command"], where do they go?"

We were surprised at the way Lehrer characterized both positions. O'Neill gives you "the story" to let you "know", while Oliphant has a "perspective" and makes "claims".

MINOR POINT? In the transcript of the program that exchange, where O'Neill was silent but Oliphant was responding to the last point, it reads as:

JIM LEHRER: Finally, before we go, you think the story is in your book? If somebody wants to know about this, they can get your book.

If somebody wants to know the complete story from your perspective, in other words fill in the gaps you claim that are in this book, where do they go?

TOM OLIPHANT: Well, you would want to ...

Which makes it look like Lehrer was only addressing Oliphant for the entire time. Not true.


posted by Quiddity at 8/21/2004 02:57:00 PM

Vox populi:

We took a look at a current Yahoo story, Kerry: Bush Lets Groups Do 'Dirty Work':

Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of relying on front groups to challenge his record of valor in Vietnam, asserting, "He wants them to do his dirty work."

These stories usually generate a large number of message board posts, which we like to scan. Here is our favorite:

WHERE ARE BUSH'S MEDALS?
by: ingram1ja 08/19/04 11:18 am
Msg: 7617 of 8407
3 recommendations

Oh, I'm sorry. The Defense Dept. doesn't give medals for state-side boozers and coke addicts during a shooting war. Guess what? BUSH DOESN'T HAVE ANY MEDALS FOR WAR TIME VALOR!

A FURTHER THOUGHT: We were reading about the Dreyfus affair last night and the assault on Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans sure have the same flavor. Disputed evidence (or worse), highly partisan, the nation's honor at stake, self-described patriots attacking a distinguished military man, etc. There's even a small Jewish element (Kerry's grandfather) and we all know that conservatives like to say he's "French".

posted by Quiddity at 8/19/2004 08:41:00 AM

The Bush convention bounce killer: (no pun intended)

The Republican National Convention is set to begin on August 30. It will be over by Friday, September 3.

According to the Iraq Coalition Casualties website, there have been 953 soldiers that have died (combat & non-combat) as of this posting.

Before we go any further, let us be clear that we consider all these deaths to be a tragedy for the families involved. So this is not an exercise taken lightly.

However, we look at the figures and it appears that 20 days from now the total US casualties will have reached 1000 (1000 - 953 = 47 / 2.3 per-day = 20 days). Twenty days from now is September 8 - right in the middle of the week after the Republican convention ends.

You know how it is, round numbers are hooks for stories, and no doubt that when 1000 deaths is reached there will be a spate of them to that effect. Our guess is that it will be a real damper on whatever positive momentum Bush gained the previous week of the convention.

NOTE: Yes, September 11 will follow soon after but it's not clear that it will help Bush. If anything it might emphasise the contrast between fighting terrorists (a job still unfinished) and the 1000 casualties from fighting in Iraq.

posted by Quiddity at 8/19/2004 04:49:00 AM

Why we hesitate:

We are very, very, very, very, very slightly inclined to think that Kerry will win the presidential election. Why? Because every time we think, yes, Kerry has solid support in traditional Democratic strongholds and is making inroads into Bush country, we read something like this: (From TPM, quoting Charlie Cook) (emp add)

At this point, there remains 10 states that are too close to call: Florida with 27 electoral votes, Iowa (7), Minnesota (10), Missouri (11), Nevada (5), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21) and Wisconsin (10).

Well guess what? Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin were the only states in the midwest to vote for Dukakis in 1988. (Ten entities went Democratic that year: Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, --- big gap --- , Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, --- big gap ---, West Virginia, District of Columbia, New York, Massachusetts.) Now that was 16 years ago and nothing is static in politics, but if Charlie Cook puts those three states in the Tossup category, we can't feel confident that Kerry will win.



LINKS TO OTHERS ON THIS TOPIC: Digby, Rain Storm, That Colored Fella

posted by Quiddity at 8/18/2004 11:20:00 AM

Democracy on the march:

We were somewhat surprised at Hugo Chávez's stong showing at the polls in Venezuela. There had been much talk of discontent, but as Political Animal puts it "Chávez is a champion of Venezuela's poor, promoting agrarian reform and redistribution of oil revenue", so the vote was a chance for the poor to assert themselves. In a similar vein, the recent elections in India (Apr/May) was also a sign of the poor exerting political power. We read in Wikipedia, "The BJP government had concentrated more on the market and economic reforms that benefitted the urban people at the expense of the rural poor and the farmers." (NOTE: That wasn't the only reason the BJP lost control.)

We're not saying democracy is bad, but it does appear that for emerging countries with a substantial proportion of poor people, elections will tend to slow down economic development - by transferring wealth in order to establish a more equitable society. The leaders in China know that, and they will probably want to keep their poor away from the political process while they concentrate on getting their economy up to a world-class level. But that will be a difficult, if not impossible task. In any event, how that unfolds will be very interesting.

posted by Quiddity at 8/18/2004 07:52:00 AM

Quiet time?

There doesn't seem to be much to write about this week. However, we did check in on Howard Stern's radio show this Wednesday morning and boy, was he harsh on Bush/Cheney. He said that Kerry should recite the dates that Cheney got deferments (various times from 1961 to 1965). The same for Ashcroft. Then Stern called Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft "monsters" and said that "they should be punished".

Stern might get even more aggressive with the Republican National Convention takes place in NYC beginning later this month. Could be interesting.

posted by Quiddity at 8/18/2004 05:15:00 AM