208 Comments

1. Pat Curley:

They finally get around to the Christmas in Cambodia story in the 72nd(!) paragraph. Jimmy Hoffa should be buried that deep!

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:21 am 2. Mark Poling:

Just before reading this I read an AP article about Kerry adding “Top Advisors” to his campaign.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040817/D84H23080.html

The image that came to my mind was “Night of the Living Dead” where more zombies keep popping up, saying “Brains! Brains!”

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:25 am 3. hollywood:

As to whether MSM is liberal or not: http://www.andrewtobias.com/

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:34 am 4. yellowking:

No! “Two legs good! Four legs bad!” “He who breaks the Law, goes back to the House of Pain!” “Not to suck up drink– that is the Law. Are we not Men?”

Are we not Men? We are Devo.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:41 am 5. Knucklehead:

What has Andrew Tobias’ website got to do with the MSM and whether the MSM is liberal or not?

BTW, speaking of Instapundit and the MSM and its donosaurs and mammoths, Mr. Reynolds was not particularly kind to Mr. Cronkite today.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:42 am 6. PeterArgus:

Hollywood:

I recall (its seared in my memory, really) reading that the civil rights commission was unable to substantiate that police had put roadblocks around polling booths in predominantly black areas. Of course they probably didnt have access to the same reliable source of Bob Herbert: “a black Floridian friend of a friend”.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:48 am 7. Barry Dauphin:

Andrew Tobias? Try again re: Florida voter intimidation: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200403090858.asp

“Despite claims of rampant police intimidation and harassment, the only evidence of law-enforcement “misconduct” consisted of just two witnesses who described their perceptions regarding the actions of the Florida Highway Patrol. One of these witnesses testified that he thought it was “unusual” to see an empty patrol car parked outside a polling place. There was no evidence that sight of the vehicle somehow intimidated the witness or any other voters from casting ballots. There was no evidence that the erstwhile occupant of the vehicle harassed voters. There was no evidence that the empty vehicle was there for the purpose of somehow disenfranchising anyone assigned to vote at that location.

The second witness had filed a highly publicized complaint with the NAACP regarding a police motor-vehicle checkpoint. In the hysterical recount period following the election the complaint took on a life of its own and apparently became part of the basis for the legend that legions of cops were harassing thousands of black voters throughout Florida.

The evidence, however, shows that the checkpoint in question was two miles from the polling place. Moreover, it was not even on the same road as the polling facility. During the checkpoint’s approximately ninety minutes of operation, citations for faulty equipment were issued to 16 individuals, 12 of whom were white. The uncontroverted evidence shows that no one was delayed or prohibited from voting due to the lone checkpoint.”

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:49 am 8. RogerA:

Hollywood: The Tobias piece was actually two pieces: the first was an unsubstantiated 2000 election redux; the second part was presumably why you linked to the piece. That piece was an accusation by none other than Paul Krugman complaining that the media has not focused on issues; rather, it focuses on trivia. To that we can all agree–MSM coverage is puerile and jejune and offensive to thinking people of either the left or the right. The article, however, does NOT speak to the liberal bias of the media, and to me that bias is well documented and continually reinforced daily. Perhaps you have a better citation you could offer?

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:53 am 9. hollywood:

You guys jumped on the first part of the Tobias column (about Fla.) and ignored the Krugman section about MSM’s scant reporting of issues.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:00 am 10. Gideon7:

The Minneapolis Star Tribune had the Christmas in Cambodia flap in a front page article:

Kerry’s claims of fighting in Cambodia come under fire (registration required).

The article is a reprint from the Kansas City Star from Saturday, Kerry’s Cambodian links questioned (also requires registration).

KANSAS CITY, MO. — John Kerry’s “reporting for duty” salute at the Democratic National Convention last month emphasized the key biographical boast of his campaign — decorated combat service in Vietnam.

Now his repeated claim that he also weathered combat upriver in Cambodia has drawn harsh skepticism — driven by anti-Kerry veterans who star in a political commercial and book financed by Texas Republicans.

Roy Hoffmann, a retired admiral who was a Navy captain in command of Kerry’s unit at the time, said the candidate’s statements about spending a Christmas Eve in Cambodia can’t be true.

“I think he just outright lied,” said Hoffman, now aligned with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and one of the officers criticizing Kerry in the ad. “He never was there.”

[See links for rest of article.]

That this nominally hard-left newspaper would publish the story on page 1 is a good sign that the MSM blackout is finally breaking.

While it does try to give a belated pro-Kerry spin by impunging the SBVTs, it does lay out the basic facts correctly.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:01 am 11. Rick Ballard:

Mark,

When the “Let a Thousnd Flowers Bloom” stories about a campaign start appearing you know there is an axle dragging in the dirt. Will he be hiring Joe Trippi to run the Internet operation next?

Now that the band of brothers nonsense is getting a bit of decent play (remember that the DNC/LAT first said that they wouldn’t touch it) perhaps a shift of focus to the honored candidates illustrious carreer in the Senate is in order. It appears that his intelligence committee credentials need to be examined as closely as his complete military record.

Is there any particular reason why his attendance record at closed intelligence committee meetings shouldn’t be published? We know he missed more than three out of four open meetings. I’m sure he made up with it with stellar attendance at the closed meetings. He did, just issue a statement call for the adoption (without reservation) of the 911 Committee’s reccomendations, didn’t he? Surely, that is founded in his scrupulous attendance at the closed meetings. Why, if he only attended 1 in 4 closed meetings, one might be led to ask on what basis he is to be deemed reliable on any public utterance concerning intelligence matters.

Come, Senator, regale the electorate with the basis for your pronouncements, point to those august and salient personal Senatorial experiences that would cause us to entrust you with this great office which you so desperately seek. Let your record speak for itself. Put it in front of us.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:02 am 12. RogerA:

Hollywood: not me

As for Krugman, you might want to look at his objectivity generally–I would suggest a content analysis done by a blogger known as lyinginponds–you can google it for a citation.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:02 am 13. RogerA:

I guess we could go to Kerry’s website for a look at issues–how about stemcell research, for example? Nahhh–what we find there is the blatent misrepresentation of “far reaching ban…” That is clearly a lie, and as we all know, Kerry lied, stemcells died.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:05 am 14. bdog57:

Hollywood,

Kerry’s positions aren’t covered because many/most of them are untenable (class warfare via a “soak the rich” policy, an impossible proposal for healthcare that somehow won’t require a tax hike, he believes life begins at conception but he’s still okay with abortion, etc.) Furthermore, on many issues (Good Morning Iraq!), he has changed his position so many times that they don’t want to highlight his inconsistencies. The Onion article really does sum up his campaign plan and the MSM has been complicit in getting out the message.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:05 am 15. jdm:

After reading this post, I recalled the reactions of the, um, non-Republicans (the less fanatic ones anyway) here at work. And I think I see the “plan”.

For many, Kerry’s war experiences are merely part & parcel of the total package (flawed as it is). Most will assert that politicians lie, they all do. The approach that is being taken by the MSM is to present Kerry’s lies about his time in Vietnam as little white lies: all politicians lie, it happened 30 years ago, who cares, nothing to see here, move along…

At the same time it is necessary associate the reactions of those who sense the gravity of these lies with mindless Kerry haters (ie, Republicans). If they can create an environment in which the most serious allegations are denigrated into mere “crazy talk”, the plan will have succeeded.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:08 am 16. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

Your link was to andrewtobias.com, “Money and Other Subjects” and the first item at the the Tobias site is an article about FL police apparently investigating some issue about absentee ballots in the Orlando mayoral election back in March. The police claim they are investigating something and “elderly black voters” feel frightened and intimidated. I don’t see, although I may have missed, any link by Tobias to any news article about this. He links to Herbert’s op-ed in the NYT which apparently goes on to pass a third hand account of an allegation by “black Floridian friend” who claims police set up road blocks to try and prevent blacks from voting in the 2000 election by finding cracked taillights and the like.

The Tobias and Herbert pieces are both weak. Tobias in no example of the MSM and, from a quick scan of his site, seems to have Dem leanings. Herbert is part of the MSM and doesn’t bother leaning, he is of the left.

So, what point were you trying to make from the link?

Barry Dauphin provides a link to a March 2004 NRO article by Peter Kirsanow which rather convincingly debunks claims that black voters were targetted for intimidation to prevent them from voting in the 2000 election.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:09 am 17. Barry Dauphin:

Krugman is speaking of TV. But he works for the NY Times, of all places, one of the very MSM outlets giving the Cambodia issue such short shrift.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:12 am 18. Knucklehead:

Sorry, Hollywood. I didn’t realize you wanted to scroll down. I wrote off the Tobias piece when he started quoting a Herbert op-ed. You are correct, he went on to quote a Krugman op-ed. I can’t be bothered reading Tobias and further or Krugman. If Herbert and Krugman are who Tobias wants to point to, well, that’s his problem. Thank goodness I never bought his SW.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:18 am 19. Roberts:

Hollywood, that was hilarious. If you want to establish that the MSM isn’t biased toward liberal partisanship, you are going to have to do better than cite to discredited liberal partisans.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:26 am 20. Fresh Air:

Gideon7–

…”and book financed by Texas Republicans.”

Well, that “Republican-financed” book is #1 on Amazon and it can’t be kept in stock at bookstores across the country. What will the MSM have to say when 10 million people have read it and want answers? (Crickets chirping.)

BTW Roger, ever hear of a major house like Regnery making an author finance his own book? Pity the poor KC Star reporter so deep in the weeds he hasn’t even heard of a book advance.

Close all the journalism schools and turn them into orphanages!

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:30 am 21. penwil:

Once again, Hollywood drags out someone else’s opinion and presents it as an established fact. But then I keep forgetting . . . in his world, opinions are equal to facts.

Whatever.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:34 am 22. jdm:

Geez, I didn’t realize how much of a Moorelock that Tobias has become. Sad.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:39 am 23. jerry:

Roger:

I cannot let your image of the lumbering dinosaur heading for extinction stand. There are more dinosaur species living today then mammals. They are called birds. The proper image for dinosaurs is a class of animals that are flexible and adaptable. The description doesn’t fit the MSM. I am glad you switched metaphors to Mammoths and Camels.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:42 am 24. Sandy P:

Oh, holly, did he quote the recent study by 2 professors, one being from either the U of C or Northwestern??

I can’t remember - it’s so left that one would need to view twice as much Special Report to counteract the spin.

FoxNews is center right - not extreme right.

That was in the past couple of months, but I’m not feeling generous today to do your research for you.

Maybe you should start reading Oh, That Liberal Media for the other side:

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:49 am 25. Steven Smith:

Perhaps the reason this hasn’t become a major obsession with the news media is that we’re now living in the post-9/11 world. If you guys haven’t noticed it yet, we’re at war; stories about who invented the internet, what sort of earthtones a candidate is wearing, and what month a veteran was in Cambodia might have been stories in 2000, but the rest of us are a bit more serious now. Maybe next time !!

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:55 am 26. jdm:

> the rest of us are a bit more serious now

Indeed.

Can I assume that when the Bush AWOL stories were rampant (post 9/11 as I remember), you were of the same opinion?

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:00 am 27. PeterArgus:

Steven:

Has anybody told John Kerry it is a post-9/11 world? He cant seem to get past 3/69.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:01 am 28. marek:

Gee Steve,

Your explanation clarifies why MSM was so obsessed with Bush’s AWOL. Thanks a million. What would we, simpletons from the pre 9/11 world, do without your guidance.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:01 am 29. Mike:

Roger,

I read you often, finding your commentary always insightful.

That having been said, what is with your obsession with stamping out “Liberal” as a descriptor?

Unless you have a better term that instantly identifies huge portions of the electorate, “Liberal” and “Conservative” work just fine.

Unless you want to use terms like “Socialist,” “Anarchist,” “Fascist,” and so on, as more specific subsets of the broader groups.

But I think many Americans identify themselves as, or with Liberals and Conservatives, while not conforming to every tenet of either belief system.

Yeah, I know, there are pro-abortion Conservatives and pro-Second Amendment Liberals, but the terms *are* useful.

Many conservatives and liberals proudly identify themselves as such, and the fact that liberal politicians often run away from the word seems to indicate that it still has great force and meaning, at least with the electorate.

Keep the posts coming,

Mike

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:06 am 30. Sandy P:

And Holly, via Oraculations today:

Sneak posting from NYC: Catch this Krugman piece in the NYT this AM. The Republicans have already stolen the election.

Everyone knows it, but not many politicians or mainstream journalists are willing to talk about it, for fear of sounding conspiracy-minded: there is a substantial chance that the result of the 2004 presidential election will be suspect.

And he goes on. And on. And on. The Left cannot lose, they can only be robbed. If there was ever a call for rioting after an election this is it. Read it.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:07 am 31. Rick Ballard:

Steven,

Is skipping more than 3 out of 4 intelligence committee meetings and indication of the seriousness of your candidate? What particular aspect of the Senator’s illustrious legislative career do you find most cogent to the post 911 world? Where within his 28 years of public service are we to look for the accomplishments that make him worthy of the office he seeks?

Take your time, after all you have 78 days to provide something.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:07 am 32. Charlie (Colorado):

Mike, not to speak for Roger, but I agree with him that the term “liberal” has become useless. Once upon a time is meant “governs best which governs least” and “everyone should be as free from coercion as we can possibly arrange”; then it grew more state-friendly, but still believed in the notion of reducing coercion and fighting fascism, and in free trade; now, to all appearances, it stands for isolationism, “realism” in dealing with fascist states even if it means leaving millions in durance vile (eg, North Korea, Iraq), trade protectionism, and government control over eery facet of our lives (read the Reason article about Kerry’s civil liberties record.)

I don’t blame Roger a bit for feeling that the term “liberal” which used to be a useful self-description for him has become corrupt.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:20 am 33. Jay Rice:

- - - -

Your instincts are probably right, Roger, in associating this with “dinosaur.” This goes beyond Liberal politics. Newspapers are fighting for their very survival.

They are facing a shrinking subscribership, reduced ad revenues, diminished credibility, a reality check by Blogs, a closer look at their circulation frauds, and fear of relevance in an Age of Information they no longer monopolize.

Old media is no longer concerned with Liberalism so much as committed to exerting power as a demonstration of viability. The Kerry coverup and the non-coverage of the War on Terror is their way of flaunting power they think they still have to punish Bush I and II for their worst nightmare - the Internet. Old media is already dead and they know it. They’ve already lost. The only thing left to do is to throw themselves into the water to poison the spring.

In coming weeks we will know which newspapers don’t want to follow the herd into extinction.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:32 am 34. jdm:

Charlie, does anyone know the history of how/when the term liberal became synonomous with the left in the US? The term, at least in Scandinavia, still means what you described it used to mean.

I guess I mean, did the meaning change or did the group it normally applies to change?

For example, the name of the liberal (old meaning) party in Denmark is called The Left. This stems from a pre-socialism period when the liberal party represented the shop-keepers and farmers. They sat on the left side in the Danish parliament. Danish politics have since incorporated the usual collection of socialist parties. But the liberal party is still called The Left even tho’ they’re on the right - and are partners with the conservatives in the forming the present government.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:39 am 35. Knucklehead:

Shhhh!!! ixsnay on the iberalskray talk. You know how Roger gets when this discussion flares up! He’s liable to pull the car over and reach back and whack up all.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:44 am 36. Sandy P:

Maybe some should read this post from Samizdata:

In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage

J.E. Haynes & H. Klehr

Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2003

“We should recognize the issue of communism and Soviet espionage has become an antiquarian backwater. After all, the Cold War is over.” With these words, a typical leftish US historian, Ellen Schrecker, recommends that a whole sector of an historical era should be ignored and work on it effectively closed down. “It is time to move on,” remarks another academic, using the modern terminology that neither denies nor accepts responsibility, but leaves a mess behind for someone else to clear up. Now historians are, by definition, paddlers up backwaters, investigators of things that are “over” and move in, not move on when invited to examine data never before available.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006541.html

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:51 am 37. J_Crater:

You are sometimes left to wonder that if they write all their stuff like this, you’d expect stories on elections to never mention votes (every vote counts , excluding vote counts common) and stories on budget battles to never mention money.

It seems the kabuti dance is more important than the underlining facts.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:04 am 38. Erik:

Denmark is a special case, where the Liberal party calls themselfes “venstre” or “the Left”. They’ve never had an agenda that could be described as “leftist” in any way.

http://www.venstre.dk/viewPage.php?id=739

I keep getting confused by the name whenever I hear political news from Denmark, but as jdm said, the reason for it is historical..

In Europe, the Liberal parties is considered right of center. In Sweden this is certainly the case.

That’s why I have a hard time calling people on the left (even in the US) liberals, to me it just doesn’t fit.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:06 am 39. DennisThePeasant:

Stevie-Poo-

You didn’t get the above moniker because you were too serious for us.

Knucklehead-

You always get a Tobias link in a Hollywood post. It has more to do with the fact he knows how to link to it than anything else.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:14 am 40. jdm:

Erik, as it stands for the Democrats at present, you could just call them “venstreorienteret” or even just “socialister”. They would happily import “socialdemokrati” (so called Democratic Socialism) to the USA if they could.

Of course, the Democratic Socialists in Denmark are having a hard time convincing Danes of the need to keep veering leftward. I blame Jyllands Pesten, er, Posten. And Fox.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:22 am 41. DennisThePeasant:

Upon reflection, I’d have to say I am being unfair to Stevie-Poo.

Of course the Democratic Party and John Kerry inhabit a post-9/11 world. Why else would you have Max Cleland introducing John Kerry? I mean, what could be more serious, and meaningful, in a post-9/11 world than an ex-U.S. senator of absolutely no distinction, who lost his seat over his post-9/11 conduct regarding the WOT, and just happens to be a maimed Viet Nam veteran?

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:26 am 42. DennisThePeasant:

Refusing to vote for the establishment of a Dept. of Homeland Security because the employees will be unable to unionize.

That’s post-9/11 thinking!

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:33 am 43. DennisThePeasant:

Oh, Oh!

And voting for the appropriation for the monies to begin the reconstruction of Iraq before voting against the appropriation for the monies to begin the reconstruction of Iraq.

And then bragging about it.

That’s more post-9/11 thinking.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:36 am 44. DennisThePeasant:

Gee…

Let’s have a “What could be more serious than a post-9/11 Democrat?” contest!

How about Howard Dean’s reaction to the capture of Saddam Hussein? Remember that one?

Next…

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:41 am 45. jdm:

“What could be more serious than a post-9/11 Democrat?”

I vote for Kos’ reaction to the 3, 4 Americans murdered in Falujah (”I feel nothing over the death of merceneries[sic]“).

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:49 am 46. Charlie (Colorado):

Speaking of dinosaurs:

“A CYCLIST revealed what it’s like to perform without feeling the burden of the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq, without thinking about hostility by political association, without checking the preset limits on her freedom to express herself.”

Sports section. NY Times, today.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:52 am 47. holdfast:

Hey - at least Cleland’s non-combat wounds come from someone else’s mistake, as opposed to Kerry’s rice in the ass and mini-fragment in the arm. This guy was frickin’ dangerous with ordanance - I’m starting to think that his crew all deserved medals for bravery just for getting in the boat with this walking disaster area. Thank the lord he wasn’t in the Arty or Engineers.

General rule of thumb: If Terry “Global Crossing” McAuliffe says ANYTHING military-related it will be wrong. It might be a lie or it might just be a factual error, but it will be wrong.

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:17 pm 48. Lapsed Randian:

If it is true that we are now engaged in World War 4, perhaps the most apt distinction would be between 9/10 Americans and 9/11 Americans.

Discounting the intellectually dishonest remnants of both the “left” and the “right”, it seems that the most telling lens many, if not all, use for their worldview nowadays is whether they think we can go back to the days of 9/10, or whether 9/11 truly did “change everything.”

The ironic thing about the 9/10 and 9/11 distinction is that it is precisely President Bush’s successful stewardship of WW4 that allows the 9/10 crowd the luxury of being the 9/10 crowd.

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:19 pm 49. Gordon:

This “liberal” thing is pretty complicated in Europe. I am an Englishman who lives in France. Here the term “liberal” is almost always rendered as “ultraliberal” and means a (fanatical) believer in market forces, rather than a “dirigiste” who would prefer that the state should sort things out( with some politician creaming 20% off the top). Just think PrimaTotalElf!

If you are still awake, the prejorative prefix “ultra” derives from the “ultras” who opposed, mainly by assassination attempts, de Gaulle’s ending of the Algerian war

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:24 pm 50. Fresh Air:

Holdfast–

Hey - at least Cleland’s non-combat wounds come from someone else’s mistake…

If I recall the story correctly, Cleland was about to board a chopper bound for a beer-and-steaks party with the rest of his unit when he stopped to pick up a still-live hand grenade. I think even Cleland admits it was his own mistake. Tragic to be sure, but still his.

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:31 pm 51. Charlie (Colorado):

Fresh, I think the distinction is that Cleland wasn’t the one who dropped the grenade.

Actually, whatever he was trying to do with the grenade, I wouldn’t have any trouble with calling Cleland a “hero” in context. Even if what he was about to do with the grenade was dumb, it was heroic dumb to pick it up rather than kick it out of the chopper (and into the crowd?)

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:38 pm 52. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

That article was a hit piece on SBVT. It was so chopped up that it’s hard to tell what they were talking about. I notice the group here has done a pretty good job on the fallacies in it (Republican funded book - hah!),

I wonder if the readers are wondering why they didn’t know about this before. AFAIK the LAT has had no news about this at all (except for a small article after the May 5 press conference, if memory serves me right).

They nicely conflate the book and the ad, mentioning 13 people who signed affidavits when for the book it is 60. BTW… I ordered the book the second day it was on Amazon, and my ship date is the end of September.

One subject totally ignored is an investigation of Kerry’s “Band of Brothers.” Why do they take all this time to follow him around. Do they have jobs? Is he paying them? How many were transferred to safe billets when he left ‘Nam (at least one crew by his own words), and is that why they are so faithful? If Bush had a band of brothers, the media would be all over them.

Likewise, the people cited in the book are easy to get hold of. Fred Barnes of Fox called some of them yesterday and got right through - no waiting line of reporters, as he put it.

Of more significance is the lack of reporting on any aspect of this story on the main stream TV (except for Fox and I guess a talk show on CNN & MSNBC). There is a deafening silence echoing across the land. I predict that when they do finally open it up, it will be one story, conflating the book and the ad, with the spirit of the LA Times article or worse. Then silence again. Given the power of TV, they will probably be much more hostile than the LAT in terms of symbols and sound bites.

And who is reporting about DNC attempts to frighten station owners away from playing the ads with their lawyer letters? Talk about suppression of free speech. Also, how about the dirty tricks department which dug up some minor dirt on Jerry Corsi. Where’s the outrage?

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:55 pm 53. Fresh Air:

Charlie–

Found the old newspaper account about Cleland. Excerpt:

Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.

Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future.

Hero or victim of a tragic accident? You make the call.

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:55 pm 54. holdfast:

My “reasearch” (reading old newspaper articles, mostly based on Cleland interviews) indicates that the grenade in question was dropped by a newbie, but Cleland thought it was his, and reached to pick it up. The newbie had loosened the pin, so that it came out when he dropped it. Cleland had dropped grenades before, but since he hadn’t messed with the pins, they were safe enough to pick up. I also undersand that he had choppered into a base, done some comms work (he was a comms officer), and was on the chopper to go back to his base, when he changed his mind and decided to have a couple of beers with some buddies at the base where the task was. HE jumped off the choppper, and was leaving the pad when he saw the grenade. Thinking that it was his, he reached to pick it up, with tragic consequences.

These kinds of horrible-stupid incidents are all too common in the military (I think of a friend decapitated because his LAV rolled on a bad road, the guy paralyzed by a live wire that wasn’t supposed to be and the bud whos lost his eye to a muddy spare-tire retaining lever - all just training accidents in peaceful Canada.

Anyway, Cleland did serve at Khe San, and though some have said that his silver star citation was a bit sexed-up, nobody says that he did not acquit himself well under fire. Even the sexed-down version is a lot more heroic than Kerry’s story. Up until 2002 Cleland was always very modest about his achievements, and in interviews refered to his “stupidity” - a bit harsh in my view, but his call to make.

Aug 17, 2004 - 12:56 pm 55. Casey:

I agree with you completly about the “hologram”of the left. Modern Liberalism is dead, it is an intelectualy discredited and bankrupt tradition. What we see now is a shadow on a wall. Nitzcsche used this analogy from a story about Budha and his shadow on a wall staying after his death when he pronounced infamously “god is dead”. God may not be dead but Modern Liberalism is. The future belongs to Classical Liberalism and its varients. Leftist know they follow the dead and the past but can not let go. This is a major reason our politics has gotten so nasty. As the left movement goes through its death convulsions it lashes out with increasingly nasty and vicious attacks. The democrats are too ingrained with leftism to remain a mainstream party, Williams Jennings Bryan and FDR made leftism too much the DNA of Democrats. Democrats will have to be replaced with something else in the end. Until then our politics will continue to be filled with conspiracy theory and ruthlessnes of the Michael Moore variety. Just to further prove your point. Could anyone formulate a real summary of Moore’s political thought. He has none, he is a shifting balloon, of maudlin sentiments, mythic tones, and dishonesty. All gas.

Aug 17, 2004 - 1:31 pm 56. Fresh Air:

Holdfast–

Even the sexed-down version is a lot more heroic than Kerry’s story.

Good points. And as Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn both pointed out (before being vilified for it), Cleland never claimed to be a war hero until the Kerry campaign decided to make him one.

Everyone–

Also, if anyone wants to read more about real, hot Swift Boat action. See Joe Muharsky’s story. (Scroll through all the personal stuff and you will get to some very vivid accounts from 1969, almost contemporaneous with Kerry.)

Note several things of note pop out in Muharksy’s story:

1. Swift boats were sometimes beached in order to attack V.C. (Was this a good idea? I don’t know.)

2. Villages were destroyed. (Spite seemed to play the greatest role, at least in Muharsky’s case.)

3. Swift boats did occasionally ferry SEALs and other Special Ops forces, contrary to what this former SEAL says.

On this last point, rather than Muharsky’s story being dispostive evidence, I think of it rather as material for Kerry’s fantasies. He heard about some Swiftees taking SEALs on dangerous missions, so he invented a story about doing it himself.

Anyway, after reading Muharsky’s blog I have a great deal of respect for what the Swiftees did. Seeing what some of them went through, I can understand why Kerry’s antics would have pissed them off.

Aug 17, 2004 - 1:31 pm 57. MeTooThen:

jdm,

…”Most will assert that politicians lie, they all do. The approach that is being taken by the MSM is to present Kerry’s lies about his time in Vietnam as little white lies: all politicians lie, it happened 30 years ago, who cares, nothing to see here, move along…

At the same time it is necessary associate the reactions of those who sense the gravity of these lies with mindless Kerry haters (ie, Republicans). If they can create an environment in which the most serious allegations are denigrated into mere “crazy talk”, the plan will have succeeded.”

Yes.

And it is working, so far.

The AnyOneButBush voter cannot be swayed from choosing John Forbes Kerry for President, because…he’s not Bush (ala The Onion, sorry no link).

But the cynical and apathetic voters (not always the same people), or those who are still undecided, will come away from these allegations and revelations with indifference.

“They all lie, so what?”, is what a AnyOneBustBush-Dislike Kerry family member said to me recently when the “Christmas in Cambodia” story began to get traction in the blogosphere over the weekend.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating (well, in my mind anyway), the election belongs the New York Times’, Peter jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw. If they denouce Kerry as the recidivistic and unapologetic liar that he is, the election is over.

Until then, John Forbes Kerry looks like he may be this country’s next President.

Sigh.

Aug 17, 2004 - 1:41 pm 58. jackmack:

Roger wrote,

“Meanwhile, we are left with the question of why the mainstream media is giving this subject such short shrift.”

One of the reasons is obvious, right in front of everyones face.

And that is that the mainstream media is not that good. They, on average are below average journalists. They clearly are not as good as they think they are, and after being brainwashed over a couple of years, they end up being worse or, if not, they are fired.

Yes, that is one of the reasons.

Aug 17, 2004 - 1:50 pm 59. jedrury:

MeTooThen:

You are conceding too much electoral power to the MSM. The election will be won or lost in the Midwest where the New York Times is not so influential.

Paul Krugman ? Who is Paul Krugman in Toledo, Ohio or Jefferson City, Missouri?

The network heads’ power to sway an election

is dubious.

Look to the local papers, the travels of the candidates and the strength of the get out the vote drives in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and other states.

Concede New York and Massachusetts to Kerry and look for GOP strength or weakness in the border states of Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky.

Look for possible Kerry strength in Arizonia and NewMex

Then your comments will have merit !

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:04 pm 60. Knucklehead:

Fresh Air,

Just wanted to make a point regarding your #3 above:

3. Swift boats did occasionally ferry SEALs and other Special Ops forces, contrary to what this former SEAL says.

There is no doubt that SEALs were transported (ferried) on Swiftboats (PCFs). PCFs, however, were limited to their coastal and deeper, wider, river patrol areas. Those were under the command of the Coastal Divisions. Kerry belonged to these. Their patrol areas went roughly from the coast to half-way to Cambodia. Where their patrol areas ended the River Division patrol area started. The River divisions used PBRs. Not only that but they had SEAL and UD teams assigned to them for duty within their patrol areas. And the SEALS had their own boats (called MRRC and LRRC, IIRC).

The Coastal Divisions and their PCFs would only have carried SEALs around within their own patrol arrias of ferried them to the River Division where they would have been delivered to the units who had responsibility for, knowledge of, and equipement better suited to, working the waterways from there to Cambodia.

Note how Joe Muharsky talks about this:

I could talk for days about those patrols and raids but I am going to move now to March 7, 1969. We were sent out with 2 other PCF’s to pick up some Cambodian mercenaries that I understand the CIA was paying $80 a month to fight for us. I think if the VC had paid them $85 they would have fought for the VC but thatís another story. They were better soldiers than the ARVN (South Vietnamese Government troops) and besides that they were all we had. There were no military bases where we made these raids. It was just us and the VC and sometimes the NVA.

I’m not sure of the number of the 3rd boat that went along that day but I know the second one was PCF 38. We did not have the 94 boat this day because it was damaged in some earlier action and was in for repairs. Re-aluminizing is what we used to call it. We used PCF 5 that day. When we left An Thoi for our trip south the regular crew of the 5 boat told us that it was the luckiest boat in the division. It had never been hit with anything but small arms. That was to change too. We entered the Bai Hap River. It’s on the southwestern tip of Vietnam and its entrance is on the north side of a large bay. The Cua Lon River enters from the south side of the bay. We stopped in a village along the way and picked up some mercenaries. On some occasions we would carry UDT teams or Navy Seals for special operations but on this day we had 2 Green Berets along. Another crusty old Sergeant who I understand was on his 5th tour in Nam was on board the 5 boat with us and a young Green Beret LT. Was on board one of the other boats. They had a good working relationship also. They both knew the LT. was in charge but when they went ashore and the LT. made a decision that the Sergeant thought was wrong based upon his 5 tours in Nam. The LT. listened. We dropped the troops and the Green Berets off at various points during the day and they hunted Charlie as we waited for them.

This is an action that is almost obviously well within Vietnam. Note also the date - Mar 7, 69. This is a year before Nixon authorized the Navy to operate in Cambodia and it took the Navy roughly two more months (May ‘70) to operationalize that authority.

Nobody claims Kerry never had SEALs of CIA on his boats or that he “ferried” them or even guns around Vietnam. He never did either of those things, however, anywhere near Cambodia. Whatever amount of that stuff he actually did was done within the Coastal Division patrol areas. And he would never have pursued enemy all the way through the River Division’s patrol area. Not only was that half-way across Vietnam, but it was another unit’s area of responsibility. The military has radios to let the next unit along the line know the enemy is coming his way so that they can deal with him.

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:11 pm 61. penwil:

jackmack: “They, on average are below average journalists. They clearly are not as good as they think they are, and after being brainwashed over a couple of years, they end up being worse or, if not, they are fired.”

It’s because the message hs become everything and the facts only matter so long as the facts don’t get in the way of the message. What they haven’t figured out yet is that for every story they write that gets the facts wrong or has a blatant bias in favor of only one side of an issue, there are scores of people reading or hearing that story who know what the facts really are, or who have a bias in the other direction, and so they judge that journalist’s reporting (or lack thereof) accordingly. If, say, a OBGYN who is paying six figures every year in malpractice insurance reads an article on the health care “crisis” and the article has the facts wrong and blatantly slants the story towards the Edwards’ contingent and against tort reform, then they’ve lost that doctor as a reader forever. Every day the MSM is losing credibility, which is why their subscription rates are falling.

The time is rapidly approaching when the only ones bothering to read what they are printing are the already converted. A huge percentage of the population isn’t reading newspapers anymore (outside of the sports pages and the movie reviews) and every year fewer and fewer are tuning in to the news on TV. So how are people going to get the message the MSM wants them to get if no one’s paying attention?

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:22 pm 62. Samuel:

Roger

The conventional wisdom is that they are “liberal.” I say no. That term has gone the way of the dinosaur and the mammoth and completely lost its meaning.

In light of your admitting in a previous thread of you incorrectly supporting the Santinistas in Nicaragua during the 80’s I have one question. When did liberalism die (As we knew it)? Obviously many “liberals” would still support the Santinistas today, yet you or I would not. Does that mean liberalism died on 9/11? Obviously not. This merely stands as the date many recieved ample doses of “smelling salts”.

Ok, you are honest enough to have alluded on many occasions that you were late in recognition of certain truths but when was the point you should have considered changing knowing what you know now? Certainly like most downfalls it was not overnight but usually there are certain events that clearly mark the death nell.

This is why if one sets aside prejudice and self-interest certainly Ronald Reagan was at least in my opinion when liberalism started acting in the mode of “protecting past gains from the infidels of the Right” yet does Right = Conservative? Does stopping change = liberalism?

I am with you that the definitions have become very inappropriate for determining right and wrong. That being said it does cause me to ask, when did liberalism start dying? I think the safest bet is to follow the history of the movement of Neo-Cons and Scoop Jackson Democrats.

The earliest movements unfortuanately were very shortly after civil rights. It happened when Vietnam inspired the merge of the left with liberals and anti-Americanism arose in the ranks of many of the liberal left movement. Many who felt uneasy with this stayed in hope of changing and fighting againts this tide. I remind people here that Bill Kristol was in fact still a Democrat in 1976, as was Wolfowitz, Horowitz and most other of todys Neo-cons, yet the handwriting was on the wall. Jimmy Carter disabused many of that thought.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan (himself a WASP version of Neo-Con and previous Democrat) blended some very Progressive ideas into the Republican Party and the Democrats have been kicking and screaming ever since. I kicked and screamed until 2002 (9/11 wasn’t even enough) and you probably started supporting this President even earlier, but then again you have about 10 years on me.

The truth Roger is many of us were shamefully late and I repeat shamefully. In recognition of this I am glad and celebrate your frienship with the “most dangerous” of Neo-cons, Michael Ledeen. But what is even more shameful is how few of us there are. I guess it is better late then never but missing the boat on Reagan is still my biggest political regret, I suspect it will always be. I sat worshipping liberalism as it lay on its deathbed but I must say no more, it is dead to me now. -JSF

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:24 pm 63. penwil:

Hunh. InstaPundit.com is linking to a Washington Post story on how the White House web site is going to get more involved with blogging. One telling quote from Jimmy Orr the White House’s “internet guru” (as the article called him):

“Here’s what the bloggers do. They notice something in the news or something they’ve observed that maybe the ‘traditional’ media hasn’t covered or isn’t spending much time on. But they think it is significant. So, they give the story a second life (or first). And they talk about it. And others talk about it. Before you know it, it is leading the news.”

Earth to the New York Times: The future is now.

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:35 pm 64. Rick Ballard:

Folks,

If you can’t state the premise and proof in 30 seconds you’re going to see a MEGO response in the listener - doubleplusungood.

The story is this:

For over thirty years John Kerry has told and retold numerous lies concerning his service in Vietnam. He lied in his Winter Soldier testimony before Congress, he lied about the decorations he threw over the White House fence and when he was elected to the Senate he repeated a fantastic lie about spending Christmas in Cambodia while he was making a speech whose effect was to support Danny Ortega, the Nicaraguan Communist.

When finally confronted with these lies by veterans who served with him in Vietnam, he reluctantly acknowledged that he had been lying for years about his Vietnam service. The people who served with him have written a book - “Unfit for Command”. Buy it, read it, make up your own mind.

The minutiae of the story are unimportant if you are speaking to someone ignorant of the details. If you’re speaking to someone who is leaning toward Kerry then shift to questions. What has the man accomplished that makes you think he is capable of being President? Not what he says he will do because he has said one thing and then done something else for his entire carreer but, What has he done? What has he accomplished?

Each person reading this has a circle of influence, a family or a group or a work setting where their voice will be heard. Within that circle of influence, your clearly stated opinion, backed by facts, will finally carry more weight than all the ads and the DNC/MSM together. It’s important to know the details and be able to support your opinion but wrapping yourself around the axle of the side issues won’t be very effective in swaying opinion.

OK, back to the detective work.

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:50 pm 65. MeTooThen:

jedrury,

…”The election will be won or lost in the Midwest where the New York Times is not so influential.

Paul Krugman ? Who is Paul Krugman in Toledo, Ohio or Jefferson City, Missouri?

The network heads’ power to sway an election

is dubious.

Look to the local papers, the travels of the candidates and the strength of the get out the vote drives in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and other states.”

The New York Times, like it or not, is the nation’s “Paper of Record”. If not for independent Midwesterners, it is for every newspaper in the country.

The media blackout on the SwiftVets is only just beginning to break despite the fact that millions of Americans have already been exposed to the story via the Internet. This fact alone means something.

Organs like the Times, ABC, NBC, CBS are where the majority of Americans still get their news. Add to that the power of the AP and Reuters news services, which like the Times have a strong bias in favor of John Forbes Kerry, and fill the newspapers with their view of the world in places like Toledo and Jefferson City.

If Dan, Tom, or Peter question the veracity of Kerry, then so too, can the local affiliate in the hometown of your choice. To do so without the national precedent would be ruinous for the locals.

Yes, the influence of these national media outlets and news sources may be on the wane, but they remain the most dominant force in the creation of news stories and their dissemination, bar none.

And yes, the election will be decided on those states that are currently “too close to call”. But how close would any significant electoral college state be (save perhaps for New York, California, & Texas), if the MSM buried Kerry the way in the same in which they have tried to discredit and defeat Bush?

The relevance and influence of the Internet is being tested, as is the MSM, during this election. But whereas the former’s is as yet unkown, the latter’s is known all too well.

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:53 pm 66. Terrye:

Me too then:

The race is still slose. In fact Bush’s approval rating is up, so don’t give it up yet.

Everybody:

Moveon.org came out with a new ad attacking Bush. The suject? What else, swift boats and awol. Bush used his daddy to get out of service and now these bad Republcians are picking on our war hero. They actually call on Bush to stop the ad.

So much for freedom of speech. Moore gets to sit next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC but Bush is supposed to make the bad people pull this ad.

So far the reaction of the Democrats has made them look worse than the Swift boat guys have.

Hypocrites and crybabies. That is what the party has devolved into since the last election.

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:55 pm 67. RogerA:

Samuel–I think you have done a good job describing the demise of liberalism (which I take to mean a Walter Lippman style of liberalism) as a process with roots in the Viet Nam era. I think the loose alignment of what I will call Lippman liberalism with radical elements such as free speech movements, black panthers (remember radical chic?) splintered Lippman liberalism into two competing camps. Reagan conservatism hastened the decline by putting together a new conservative movement, and the rise of Clintonian “pragmatism” vitiated the principles that made Lippman liberalism cohere. The Democratic party lost the earlier glue that held it together and no longer has any vision of governance or policy prescriptions. I think the Kerry campaign is a metaphor.

Aug 17, 2004 - 2:55 pm 68. Percy Dovetonsils:

Charlie (Colorado) - that NYTimes article is an indication that the MSM is extremely lazy as well; apparently the Times no longer can be bothered to do its own writing, and is lifting articles verbatim from the Guardian (aka the “Granuiad”).

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:04 pm 69. Erik:

The New York Times, like it or not, is the nation’s “Paper of Record”. If not for independent Midwesterners, it is for every newspaper in the country.

Not only for the USA.

Most european newspapers use the New York Times as a newssource, it’s their source on “what the US media is saying”, and what the public opinion in the US is.

So what New York Times writes has a big impact on people in other countries opinions about the US.

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:07 pm 70. Fresh Air:

Knuckle–

I agree that Kerry’s story is almost certainly a fabrication, though to say Swiftees never carried SEAL teams is unsupported and therefore weakens the case.

One other thing I forgot to mention in Muharsky’s story: One of those “rented” Cambodians fighting for the good guys wounded himself with a small piece of shrapnel when he accidentally fired an M-79 too close to shore. Sound familiar?

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:08 pm 71. RogerA:

Fresh air: Re the M79 and close to shore. The M79 round had a bad habit of going off to close–it was only set back armed and could go off 5 meters from the muzzle–after the round was reworked to make it spin AND set back armed it was much safer.

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:12 pm 72. Connecticut Yankee:

Roger and others–

What do you make of Hugh Hewitt’s latest posts on a news item in U.S. News & World Report from 2000? Kerry evidently told the reporter (Kevin Whitelaw) that he conducted secret missions into Cambodia during the Vietnam War “to deliver weapons to anticommunist forces.” [Whitelaw's wording] Hewitt contacted Whitelaw this afternoon, and Whitelaw verified that “That’s exactly what [Kerry] told me.”

More James Bond stuff?

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:13 pm 73. M. Simon:

To help in tracking down the story Captain’s Quarters is probably the tops. People there are doing outstanding research. Check the links. And the links in the posts.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

Here is the best summary of what we know to date from No Oil for Pacificists:

http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2004/08/kerry-tales-part-xlv-another-vietnam.html

Those should be good places to start.

=====

Why was John Kerry mistaken about Christamas eve in Cambodia? Because John’s brain was seared.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release all the records.

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:34 pm 74. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Fox just had a friendly 15 minute interview with John O’Neill. O’Neill had all sorts of dates and facts ready off the top of his head. Notably, when his political position was mentioned, he had donated $7000 to Republicans and $25,000 to Democrats - not exactly a Republican shill.

Fox also reported that SBVT is filming a new ad - my guess - about Kerry’s anti-war treachery.

On the grenade launcher stuff, a SEAL officer friend fired an M-203 (under-barrel of M-16 grenade launcher) at a VC who popped up our of a spider hole, and was immediately hit between the eyes with something that knocked him to the ground, leaving a minor wound. In this case, the range was 40-50 meters so it should have been safe. He’s still scratching his head and trying to figureout what happened. The corpsman wrote him up for a purple heart but he never turned in the paperwork - he would have been ridiculed in his team for doing so.

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:36 pm 75. Cain:

Folks,

Saying that “liberalism” is dead is a little too hasty, don’t you think? The fact that a Senator from Massachusetts with a fairly liberal voting record can run fairly even with President Bush at this point in the campaign attests to the relative health of “liberalism”. Yes, a fair portion of these voters support Kerry only because they hate Bush. You have to admit that pathological hatred of Bush isn’t any more of a factor among Democrats than pathological hatred of Clinton was among Republicans.

Much commentary on this space sounds like an echo chamber: “The Bush Administration understands our foreign policy challenges in the post 9/11 world, and everyone who doesn’t is ignorant or cowardly”.

Let’s set a few things straight: the jury is still out on the Bush doctrine. It’ll take years before we can judge the efficacy of the Iraq operation. Like all of you, I was pleased to see them liberated from a fascist, murderous dictator. But the operation wasn’t about the liberation of oppressed people. It was about protecting US security. And we won’t know for awhile if it worked.

In conversations with pro-war friends, I often hear “But he liberated fifty million people from oppression”. It’s something I’ve read in these comment pages as well. Sometimes, I wonder which one of us is the conservative.

Sorry, folks, liberating fifty million people from oppressive dictators for their own sake is a pretty liberal foreign policy agenda. So those of you who use that argument should be cognizant that you’re using liberal, not conservative, ideas.

Liberallism isn’t dead. Look at social matters. Conservatives that argue for the reimposition of racial segregation are rightly considered extremists. Not forty years ago, conservatives with that viewpoint were in the mainstream. There will always be a viable progressive party because too many of us support progress.

Electorally, the Democrats are in a fallow period, for sure. But so were the Republicans from ‘32 to ‘68. These things have a way of balancing out.

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:37 pm 76. Knucklehead:

I don’t believe for one moment that in 4.5 months on active Swiftboat duty in Vietnam John Kerry mastered the inland rivers, creeks, and canals and was assigned “secret” missions to pass through fifty miles of another command unit’s patrol area to deliver weapons to anti-communist (or any other) forces in Cambodia.

He’s spent years building a preposterous narrative when “I served, I fought, I was wounded, I recieved medals for bravery, and then I went home” would have been more than sufficient.

Look into the stretching he’s done with his narrative with Dan Alston just recently. These speeches they each give are not extemporaneous - they are planned and triple-checked campaign speeches designed to create and impression and cover certain ground the campaign feels needs to be covered. And yet a bunch of bloggers with few resources can uncover the stretched truths, half-truths, and “you gotta be kiddings”.

The MSM needs its franchise revoked. They have joined a political party are no longer serving the function of a free press.

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:39 pm 77. Mark Poling:

To echo Erik’s point, the International Herald Tribune is often the only english-language paper available to expatriates abroad. (I know; I worked for a trade finance software company until recently.) The IHT is wholly owned and operated by the New York Times.

Guess where most of its stories come from?

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:39 pm 78. Knucklehead:

Speaking of John O’Neil, did anyone see the report of his pre-emptive strike to disable the DNC lawyers attack on the stations who might consider running the Siftvet ad?

I saw it through NRO’s Kerry Spot but the article itself is at FrontPageMag.

You need to get deep into the article to find the part about O’Neill sending out a substantial packet of documentation to stations to pre-empt Kerry’s legal team’s threats.

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:45 pm 79. DennisThePeasant:

It just hit me…

There are no La Brea Tar Pits in Scotland!

Aug 17, 2004 - 3:53 pm 80. Ben:

Cain -

Really, when we say Liberalism, what we are speaking about is Leftism, not (Classic) Liberalism. Liberalism (Leftism) may not be dead, but it’s in intensive care. If it’s doing so well, why is Kerry doing everything he can to run AWAY from his leftist voting record and TOWARD the center? Like it or not, leftism is a discredited ideology: its social prescriptions simply will not work. No candidate could run as a leftist and win national election in the USA, absent special circumstances.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:07 pm 81. Fresh Air:

Knuckle–

I did see that article about O’Neill. Initially the story was reported as a response to the Kerry/DNC lawyers. To find out it was preemptive strike just tells you how savvy and smart John O’Neill is about politics.

John Moore–

When did O’Neill donate the money to the Democrats?

If a Republican has an idea and no one from the DNC is there to criticize it, is it still wrong?

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:12 pm 82. Katherine:

“There will always be a viable progressive party because too many of us support progress.”

Please define “progress”.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:12 pm 83. Fresh Air:

Cain wrote:

Conservatives that argue for the reimposition of racial segregation are rightly considered extremists.

Agree with you there, Cain. You might also add conservatives who are in favor of child molestation; conservatives who believe in torturing animals; conservatives who push old ladies down in the street; and conservatives who believe in giving liberals swirlies without due process.

Except for that last one.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:16 pm 84. Charlie (Colorado):

Saying that “liberalism” is dead is a little too hasty, don’t you think? The fact that a Senator from Massachusetts with a fairly liberal voting record can run fairly even with President Bush at this point in the campaign attests to the relative health of “liberalism”.

Cain, are you actually an idiot, or just being willfully obtuse?

The issue isn’t whether “liberalism” is dead, it’s whether liberalism is dead.

“Liberal” in the sense that Roger means it is anti-fascist, for human rights, free trade, and democracy. In this, you might think of John Kennedy, or even Harry Truman.

The “conservatives” of the Nixon, Kissinger, Johnson era were “realists” who didn’t think ending fascism or Communism was an option, and that the best we could hope for was to “contain” the creep of totalitarian oppression.

Roger has discovered that — it appears to me, again risking putting words in his mouth — unlike he once thought, the Maoists, the Soviets, and the satellite Communists were fascist in fact, even if they talked Left.

So now the “liberals” are for trade protectionism, “realism”, and are perfectly willing to see people living under fascism rather than act.

So, no, it’s not that liberalism is dead: Roger’s site is proof of that. It’s just that what calls itself “liberalism” is simple reactionary conservatism in disguise.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:19 pm 85. Syl:

Knucklehead

The Swifties have the cover letter that was sent to the stations posted at their website

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:21 pm 86. Syl:

BTW..why are the Google ads here trying to download something to my harddrive? Just started happening.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:22 pm 87. ambisinistral:

Liberaliosm isn’t dead. As a minority member of the minority party I for one will never align myself with the Bible-thumping Baptists on the far right so I’ll go down swinging against the collectivists of the far left.

I’ve been thinking about Roger’s three party solution lately. Here’s my scenario. The Democratic Party continues to wobble and fissions open up between the far left and the centrist posrion of the party. As a result, the far left gradually becomes more strident and peels off to find a more natural home in the Green Party. This causes the Democrat’s postion to be more centrist appearing which would draw back moderate Republicans uncomfortable with the prohibitionistic tendancies of the religious right.

The result, a Centrist Democratic party, a slightly smaller Republican party, and a much smaller Green Party. I’ll concede it is an unlikely scenario, but the dynamics would be interesting.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:23 pm 88. jedrury:

Metoothen:

I’ll give you your due; the Times is the American paper of record but its influence is marginal outside the East. The networks slanted the news on the war; it remains to be seen on their slant on the campaign. Granted the networks have not run with the Kerry/Cambodia/Swiftboats issue as they should have but CNN played it, Fox has of course played it. There are a lot of outlets which Americans get their news and the networks lose market share monthly. This race is very young. The president will have his convention and, hopefully, he will get a big bounce coming out. The White House’s capacity to control events can not be underestimated. Images of Kerry on his bike, with his crash helmut, and, the president in dark suit/blue tie provide a marked contrast when it comes to the image of who is serious about the affairs of this country. There are some undercurrents going on in the American electorate and they are not flowing to benefit the senator from Massachusetts.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:27 pm 89. jedrury:

Metoothen:

I’ll give you your due; the Times is the American paper of record but its influence is marginal outside the East. The networks slanted the news on the war; it remains to be seen on their slant on the campaign. Granted the networks have not run with the Kerry/Cambodia/Swiftboats issue as they should have but CNN played it, Fox has of course played it. There are a lot of outlets which Americans get their news and the networks lose market share monthly. This race is very young. The president will have his convention and, hopefully, he will get a big bounce coming out. The White House’s capacity to control events can not be underestimated. Images of Kerry on his bike, with his crash helmut, and, the president in dark suit/blue tie provide a marked contrast when it comes to the image of who is serious about the affairs of this country. There are some undercurrents going on in the American electorate and they are not flowing to benefit the senator from Massachusetts.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:28 pm 90. ambisinistral:

The Houston Chronicle has an Op Ed piece that definitely isn’t following the NYT’s lead.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2740155

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:33 pm 91. Fresh Air:

Ambi–

A better solution would be to keep the two parties and end judicial activism. That way the social issues that until recently were the primary demarcation (until the war, that is) between left and right would be resolved by our democratic system. If the people were unhappy with the way they were resolved, they could simply vote the perps out.

Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board, etc. have unfortunately imposed certain wisdoms on the republic without the benefit of a legislative initiative. They also tend to shut off debate or promote remedies that are unnecessarily broad, like constitutional amendments.

Much of the acrimony over these issues would subside if they were simply left up to Congress and remanded to the states. Highly conservative people could live in Utah or Alabama where they wouldn’t have to put up with abortions. Likewise liberals could live in New York or California and have abortions as they chose.

The trouble is demagoguery always enters the debate (usually from the left) whenever someone suggests (quelle horreur!) that the people should actually make the laws.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:35 pm 92. ambisinistral:

Fresh Air,

One of the peculiarities of Conservatives is their strange inability to comprehend that the Judiciary is the third tier of the US government. A two-legged tripod would fall over.

I mentioned the worrisomne prohibisionistic tendancies of Conservatives in my last post. The Founding Fathers, as amply demonstrated in the Bill of Rights, well understood that rights had to be gauranteed against what they called the Tyrany of the Majority.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:43 pm 93. doublecola:

for what it’s worth…

From mediamatters.org:

Since 1990, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, O’Neill has contributed $14,650 to federal candidates or national political organizations — all Republicans.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:49 pm 94. mudmarine:

M. Simon

I appreciate your persistence. Kerry must release his records. All of this could be put to rest shortly thereafter, one way or another.

Cain

Just for the record, this time around (unlike my previous 32 years of voting Demo) I am giving my vote to the man that after 30+ years of us doing essentially nothing, took action. I will not give my vote to someone who after 30 years has done nothing. Also, I just can’t understand how you think that the US is not safer without Saddam around.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:49 pm 95. Charlie (Colorado):

From mediamatters.org:

DC, a link would have been nice.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:51 pm 96. Fresh Air:

Ambi–

And one of the peculiarities of liberals is to understand the Constitution is not an empty vessel into which judges pour all their notions of social justice.

I understand what Tocqueville said about “tyranny of the majority,” but judicial activism doesn’t protect anyone from it. Nor is it the courts’ role to “stand up for the minority.” The courts’ role is to enforce and preserve the Constitution from encroachment.

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:54 pm 97. doublecola:

Charlie (Colorado),

Here you go:

http://mediamatters.org/

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:57 pm 98. doublecola:

sorry, here’s the direct link. it’s late in the day and I’m tired…

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130010

Aug 17, 2004 - 4:58 pm 99. Fresh Air:

Drat!

“…fail to understand…”

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:04 pm 100. penwil:

So the MSM, in particular the NYT, WaPo, and the network news programs, are waging an overt and all out war to defeat President Bush–but what is going to happen if he still wins in spite of them? Won’t this prove that these once venerable institutions no longer wield nearly the power that they think they do? And somehow I think the Left will find a way to blame them in part for Kerry’s defeat–for not being able to stop Bush from “stealing” the election, for instance. So with the Left disillusioned with them and the right having long ago discounted them, who will be left to sit up and take notice when the mighty New York Times clears its thoat?

Conversely if Kerry wins, they will experience a resurge in power, for the Dems will be beholden to them. Indeed, they will probably get to vet every decision Kerry makes, provided he’s capable of making a decision. And this will last as long as they can keep reality at bay. But if the terrorists start striking on Kerry’s watch or the economy goes south, the MSM won’t be able to play the same kind of shell game that they’re playing now with the swiftvets’ accusations. It’s kind of hard to keep printing stories that the terrorist threat isn’t that a big a deal when there are bodies lying in the street, or that Kerry’s promised 10 million jobs are right around the corner when people are filing for unemployment compensation and their portfolios are shrinking before their eyes.

Also, I’m wondering what enlistment and re-ups will be like with Kerry as CIC. Because one segment of the population that is totally clued in on now (thanks to the internet) to the swiftboat vet/Cambodia/winter soldier/phony medals/magic hat affair is the US military.

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:13 pm 101. Rick Ballard:

FA,

If you keep that up you’re going to have to start explaining about goverment being unable to grant rights or protect them. Or, worse, trying to explain the difference between liberty and license. Brave man.

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:19 pm 102. Terrye:

Cain:

Don’t tell anyone that Kerry is a liberal. The Democrats don’t like that word. They prefer progressive. If they can’t even name it then I doubt they are comfortable with it.

Once upon a time liberal meant taking care of people. Now it means using them to enhance your power base. Why do you think Bill Cosby is pissed? You think he is not a life long liberal?

When people who pass themselves off as leaders of the liberal movement are more interested in attacking a Presbyterian Republican than they are in even acknowledging the fact that there is a threat posed by radical Islam then they lose me. They are unserious silly people.

For instance they rail about drug prices and evil drug companies, but one of the best employers in this region is Pfizer. Now if Pfizer shut down and outsourced those jobs to decrease drug prices or if cheap imports caused these businesses to shut down what would the reaction of Democrats be? They want it both ways, all the time.

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:34 pm 103. Tom Holsinger:

Kerry’s campaign is fast developing the horrid fascination of a good car crash.

The LA Times story is so poorly written (or excessively rewritten as Roger points out) as to be effectively unreadable. I.e., it fails in its intended goal of hiding Kerry’s lies and character issues by changing the subject to the story about Kerry’s Cambodia story.

I can’t emphasize enough that Kerry’s campaign is very inept. Sure it is stuck with El Dud as a candidate, but it could and should be doing better when disasters like this pop out.

1) They didn’t do “opposition research” on their own guy. The Cambodia story should not have been a surprise.

2) They didn’t hang a lantern on it.

3) They didn’t point out that LBJ was a lot worse in wartime resume padding, and postwar self-puffery/Texicanisms, and got away with it.

4) They didn’t have “let’s change the subject” stories ready to roll.

5) No spin-doctoring, i.e., they let the only versions of this story be those propagated by their enemies.

6) They haven’t disseminated just-invented purported Kerry whoppers so they can beat those up like straw men, and create confusion about just which Kerry story is out there.

7) They let themselves be distracted by the other Swift boat vets, and ignored the Cambodia story until it developed legs, at which point their only options are all bad.

And now they’ve done a “deer in the headlights” imitation. Losers.

So it’s up to their press and media allies to try to save Kerry, but those guys can’t do it right, which is why the LA Times story reads like a shopping center lease form.

It’s POPCORN TIME! Pass the salt and beer.

“Never interrupt a man who’s committin’ suicide.”

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:38 pm 104. John Lynch:

Well, buckle your seat belts. This is going to be a nasty ride.

Now that the dam is breaking on the story, whatever energy the press, the Kerry campaign, and the lefty blogosphere can come up with is going to come with it.

I guess this is the modern ‘crucible of truth’ that will eventually yield a fairly exhausted public whatever is left.

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:40 pm 105. Beldar:

InstaPundit linked both of these, but for those unwilling to drill down through an extra set of links, you can find fiskings of the LAT’s article from Patterico and myself via these links. Hugh Hewitt’s comments are also worth reading IMHO.

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:45 pm 106. julie:

DC

O’Neill gave twice that amount to Democrats. Why did you and/or Media Matters omit that fact?

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:46 pm 107. Erik:

About two-party systems,

The US system, in the way the election system is set up, favors the presence of two major parties. There will always be a few small parties around, and it can happen that one of the small parties gets big enough and takes over as one of the two major parties, but as the rules are set up, it will always favor the existance of two major parties.

The Western European system on the other hand (I’m referring to Scandinavia and Germany here) favors a multi-party parliament, with (usually) 4-7 parties represented in parliament.

This is not a political opinion, it’s mathematically and statistically provable, I even read a detailed explanation as to exactly why this is the case, I just cant remember where right now. It was a site that showed how different election rules effect the results.

If I recall right, I believe the reason is the “winner takes all” approach of the US system that tends to generate two major parties, whereas the proportional representation (with “thresholds”) tend to produce 4-7 parties in parliament.

Another fun observation, a system such as the one in England tends to favor the biggest party heavily, giving it a very strong majority in parliament that is more than the votes it actually got. (I believe Labour got something like 34% of the votes, but got the majority in parliament. PeterUK, correct me if I’m wrong.)

Actually fascinating stuff to learn, and if it’s not to be proven false, I dont think we’ll see 3 major parties in the US. Most likely if there’s a split, only one of the parts will survive. Most likely the one that is willing to accept a broader spectrum of opinions.

I did a quick google, and came up with a link that explains a little of it. I know there are better links around though.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Two-party_system

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:46 pm 108. Percy Dovetonsils:

“Conservatives that argue for the reimposition of racial segregation are rightly considered extremists.”

Whereas “progressives” who argue for the reimposition of racial (or other group) segregation are practicing “identity politics.”

Totally different thing, of course, when the progressives do it. It’s so… progressive.

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:47 pm 109. Erik:

About MSM,

There was a report a while back, I think the Pew report, that said that something like 28% trusted the MSM.

At the same time Bush’s approval rating was around 50%.

Assuming that people dont “approve” of a media they dont trust, that means that Bush had roughly double the approval rating of the MSM…

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:50 pm 110. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

ambisinistra

One of the peculiarities of Conservatives is their strange inability to comprehend that the Judiciary is the third tier of the US government. A two-legged tripod would fall over.

Where did you come up with that nonsense. I suppose you are confused by conservatives complaining about judicial activism, such as Roe v Wade or the recent O’Connor affirmative action decision. Now you might ask why it is that conservatives are the biggest critics of the Supreme Court, compared to liberals or whatever. The reason is that we are more likely to hold to existing rules (such as the Constitution), and the left is more likely to hold to “the end justifies the means.”

The reason goes back to the Roosevelt era when the Supreme Court, under threat of court packing by congress, suddenly caved in to a substantial number of clearly unconstitutional FDR laws. In other words, SCOTUS pretty much destroyed federalism, which the same Founding Fathers you mentioned built into the constitution. Once freed of the bounds of simply interpreting the constitution, SCOTUS has been going farther and farther afield. I believe that if Kerry gets to nominate some judges, the constitution will become “a living, breathing document” - which is to say, it’s meaning will be whatever the court feels. Notice that the civil rights movement, with Southern Democrats using federalism (states’ rights) as an excuse for discrimination led many people to believe that federalism, especially when called “states’ rights” was a code word for racism, and hence discredited. This opened the doors for more and more federal intervention at the state level - from environmentalism to the war on drugs (what in the constitution gives the federal government the power to worry about drugs grown in someone’s back yard?).

Conservatives tend to be federalists and originalists - we think the Founding Fathers were pretty smart, and they built mechanisms into the system for changing the constitution (and overriding the court). I believe that the “living” constitution is an idea that really means that the court can and should find whatever they need in the constitution, in order to achieve a social goal. That approach is judicial activism or legislation. The worst example recently is Roe v Wade, where the court simply arranged for the constitution to know about trimesters and other minutae, and created a very complex right out of thin air. We have been paying for that ever since. Had the court left it alone, we would have a patchwork of abortion laws, which represents increased freedom, better association of law with local mores, no damage to the constitution (the result of RvW has been additional rulings on abortion which have now carried it to its logical extreme: just short of blatant infanticide).

We are well aware of tyranny of the majority. We are also aware of tyranny that results from ignoring the text and intent of the constitution to make law just because it seems like a good idea. We don’t have tyranny of the majority, but we are approaching tyranny of the nine.

Fresh Air says it much more succinctly.

Re: doublecola re: O’Neill

He and a partner have almost identical names. The real number to Republicans is $7500. There is also 25,000 to democrats. He named individuals, and one was a mayoral candidate and the other I didn’t recognize.

The link is to Media Matters, a highly partisan organization that focuses on attacking conservatives:

Media Matters for America‚Ñ¢ is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to correcting conservative misinformation in the US media.

As far as I know, it is run by David Brock, a former conservative trpotyrt who changed sides and became extremely anti-conservative. See this. MM is the site that dug up from old conversations embarassing phrases by Jerome Corsi. It’s specialty is nit-picking conservatives. Too bad we don’t have one of these for the MSM from another perrspective, but there’s only one George Soros and he has a specific viewpoint.

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:52 pm 111. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

ambisinistra

One of the peculiarities of Conservatives is their strange inability to comprehend that the Judiciary is the third tier of the US government. A two-legged tripod would fall over.

Where did you come up with that nonsense. I suppose you are confused by conservatives complaining about judicial activism, such as Roe v Wade or the recent O’Connor affirmative action decision. Now you might ask why it is that conservatives are the biggest critics of the Supreme Court, compared to liberals or whatever. The reason is that we are more likely to hold to existing rules (such as the Constitution), and the left is more likely to hold to “the end justifies the means.”

The reason goes back to the Roosevelt era when the Supreme Court, under threat of court packing by congress, suddenly caved in to a substantial number of clearly unconstitutional FDR laws. In other words, SCOTUS pretty much destroyed federalism, which the same Founding Fathers you mentioned built into the constitution. Once freed of the bounds of simply interpreting the constitution, SCOTUS has been going farther and farther afield. I believe that if Kerry gets to nominate some judges, the constitution will become “a living, breathing document” - which is to say, it’s meaning will be whatever the court feels. Notice that the civil rights movement, with Southern Democrats using federalism (states’ rights) as an excuse for discrimination led many people to believe that federalism, especially when called “states’ rights” was a code word for racism, and hence discredited. This opened the doors for more and more federal intervention at the state level - from environmentalism to the war on drugs (what in the constitution gives the federal government the power to worry about drugs grown in someone’s back yard?).

Conservatives tend to be federalists and originalists - we think the Founding Fathers were pretty smart, and they built mechanisms into the system for changing the constitution (and overriding the court). I believe that the “living” constitution is an idea that really means that the court can and should find whatever they need in the constitution, in order to achieve a social goal. That approach is judicial activism or legislation. The worst example recently is Roe v Wade, where the court simply arranged for the constitution to know about trimesters and other minutae, and created a very complex right out of thin air. We have been paying for that ever since. Had the court left it alone, we would have a patchwork of abortion laws, which represents increased freedom, better association of law with local mores, no damage to the constitution (the result of RvW has been additional rulings on abortion which have now carried it to its logical extreme: just short of blatant infanticide).

We are well aware of tyranny of the majority. We are also aware of tyranny that results from ignoring the text and intent of the constitution to make law just because it seems like a good idea. We don’t have tyranny of the majority, but we are approaching tyranny of the nine.

Fresh Air says it much more succinctly.

Re: doublecola re: O’Neill

He and a partner have almost identical names. The real number to Republicans is $7500. There is also 25,000 to democrats. He named individuals, and one was a mayoral candidate and the other I didn’t recognize.

The link is to Media Matters, a highly partisan organization that focuses on attacking conservatives:

Media Matters for Americaô is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to correcting conservative misinformation in the US media.

As far as I know, it is run by David Brock, a former conservative trpotyrt who changed sides and became extremely anti-conservative. See this. MM is the site that dug up from old conversations embarassing phrases by Jerome Corsi. It’s specialty is nit-picking conservatives. Too bad we don’t have one of these for the MSM from another perrspective, but there’s only one George Soros and he has a specific viewpoint.

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:54 pm 112. Terrye:

doublecola:

I saw Eliot talk about contributions and if I remeber correctly this is what he said:

He gave $7,000 to Republicans, the other $7,000 came from someone else in his firm. He himself gave $25,000 to Democrats. Now he is a lawyer, if he did not have anything to back that up would he say it? Besides, Soros is a billionaire who has said he would give his entire fortune to beat Bush and apparently has given a lot to outfits like moveon.org who have made nasty ads about Bush.

Democrats have put out some of the ugliest, nastiest most outrageous proaganda I have ever seen against the president.

I think this is more personal against Kerry than it is politcal for Bush, and what is more the Dems have behaved so badly they are in no position to bitch about it. Unless of course they are pussies on top of everything else.

We former Democrats can get just as ugly the current ones can.

Aug 17, 2004 - 5:58 pm 113. Samuel:

RogerA

Thanks for the compliment. Clintonian “pragmatism” as you call it was more an instinctive genius for the mood of the people and his ability to split the difference. Ronald Reagan was probably the most ideological President ever elected with such resounding decisive electoral success with a message that would usually have been much more divisive as a whole, it was clearly quite remarkable in retrospect. What President has been more ideological against the tide of normalcy in our History? (Abe Lincoln?) Like I said I missed the boat on that one indeed. Clinton was the master of me too, nothing was original, in fact he was fairly boxed in by the ideology of Ronald Reagan which leads me to this…

Cain

I have been voting since Carter and campaigning since McGovern. The Democrats are, to put it mildly, going through a slump that they will find a hard time working through. True they can effectively split the Republican base like with Perot and divide and conquer their way into the White House but in truth it is very dire for them even if they win the White House and I’ll explain why.

In 1994 the Republicans took over the House of Representatives and the Senate. Since then Democrats have slowly chipped away at the numbers actually gaining ground, they even gained 5 seats in 1998 when they should have lost. In 2000 they pick up in the Senate and the House and actually regained the Senate (through treachery in my opinion).

That being said I would like to state why liberalism is not the ticket and in fact a greater weight around their neck then conservatism is for Republicans. Did you know that Congress in more pro-life now then in 1994 when the Republicans took over and Republican numbers were higher? Do you realize that there are more NRA supporters every time the Democrats gain seats? Why? Because they realize they must not be liberal if they desire to win especially in the South and Mid-West. Also, how many Democrats become Republicans as compared to the reverse once they arrive on the National Stage? It is about 5-1 in favor of Republican. Why in 2002 did the Republicans achieve majority status in the State Legislatures for the first time since pre WWII?

You see Cain the Democrats run from Liberalism and that is a fact. My Governor is a Democrat and I know him, he is personally one of the most liberal people I know. He got his ass kicked running for the Senate as a Liberal, yet he won as a “conservative”, NRA supporting God fearing Democrat, who promised to not overturn parental-notice of a minors abortion legislation he had previously opposed. (Which of course is a joke as he is running against himself!)

Joe Scarborough (an ex-Democrat himself) says, “A Republican fears nothing more than a Democrat that ‘Loves guns and Jesus’.”, and why is that? Because many places like Virginia and Florida have many more Democrats registered then Republicans but they are not liberal. These people like many wait to see if the person is a liberal and are hoping the Party of their parents will shake the liberals ways for good. For the Democrats to gain power they must not only moderate themselves but renounce liberalism. Who was the last declared liberal to win as President? Clinton was a moderate, all the Republicans were conservatives and hounded as such by the press yet able to win.

Cain, you are equating Democrats and liberalism, do that as a Party and for sure die. The truth is more Americans consider themselves Conservative than Liberal by about 15 percentage points, but the Party affiliation is about even, that says everything.

There are many other regional complexities and the Mid-West is the new battleground area, there is only one problem. It is the new battle ground area because the Democrats have basically lost the South (save a fighting chance in Florida). The Electoral College in the Mid West has been leaning for the Democrats as a whole for quite a while, in truth that support is slipping. If you think a Kerry win is an endorsement for liberalism then have Kerry act on such thinking, it will seal the fate. Trust me I know better. I spent many years pouring over the behavior patterns of Catholics and “Reagan Democrat” like voters. These are people whose loyalty is wearing very thin. Modern day communications is making it more difficult to hide behind smoke and mirrors campaigning, it is catching up. There are many what I call “Big Government Social Conservatives” and some “Small Government Liberals”. The former tie their lot to Democrats and the later to Republicans but they are of late swapping back and forth. This has always been the case. The main reason for the opportunity the Democrats found was when the Cold War ended. Now the Democrats have two choices, either convince people they are Hawks or that they are Doves and that Security isn’t a concern. Kerry is trying to talk Hawk while he is sending a very “cut and run” message. I will tell you this, people give Clinton a pass because they realize they were not sending a signal of caring that much about such issues but they will not forgive it twice.

In summary when Democrat = Liberal they lose, when not they win. There are more registered Democrats, yet more people consider themselves conservative, get it? When the Democrats carry a more conservative message they keep the Reagan Democrats when they don’t they lose them. Republicans bank on this as they have for a long time because they have fewer numbers (or did but that is changing). Don’t make the mistake of equating fewer Republicans with fewer conservatives, there is a huge difference. There was a study that showed the Democrats numbers in the house directly reflected their loss of pro-life voters. There is much more intensity with pro-lifers then the pro-choice crowd on this issue. In fact it is the single reason why Missouri and other Mid-West States like Minnesota and Wisconsin are trending Red. When the Democrats held a majority of Congress they carried the balance of power in keeping the House Pro-Life as a whole. As their membership became more pro-choice they lost seats in direct proportion to these numbers. As they have become more pro-Life again since 1994 they have gained some seats back, but the percentage of congress that is pro-life remains fairly constant, whether Democrat or Republican. That certainly is not liberal now is it? Also all the issues of the day have been pre-ordained and set forth by Reagan and the Republicans. Kerry if he wins like Clinton will be boxed in by such policies. What new policy have the Democrats brought forth recently? None! Clinton basically helped finish much of what Reagan brought forth. Bush’s policies in the War on Terror will permeate as well. Liberalism as we knew it was pretty much driven into the wilderness by Reagan, there it remains. We are left with the double speak of the me-to Democrats.

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:01 pm 114. Charlie (Colorado):

A better solution would be to keep the two parties and end judicial activism. That way the social issues that until recently were the primary demarcation (until the war, that is) between left and right would be resolved by our democratic system. If the people were unhappy with the way they were resolved, they could simply vote the perps out.

I dunno, Fresh. I’ve never actually thought of myself as a “conservative”, because I’m a Barry Goldwater libertarian. I was in school when the school-prayer thing happened, and I’m rather aware of the fact that at the same time I left Christianity, I was also allowed, by Court action, to not be forced to say Christian prayers in the morning.

I think that’s a good thing.

I understand the issue you’re raising — but it seems to me pretty clear that “judicial activism” has been a feature of the court since Marbury v. Madison, and I rarely hear my Republican friends complain about the more agressive interpretation of the “takings clause” that Thomas and Scalia have been arguing.

It ends up seeming to me like “judial activism” just means “decisions that don’t go the way I like.”

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:03 pm 115. Samuel:

Terrye

We former Democrats can get just as ugly the current ones can.

Well I know this one can, but then again I have more of an axe to grind then most. :^)

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:08 pm 116. ambisinistral:

Johm Moore wrote,

“We are also aware of tyranny that results from ignoring the text and intent of the constitution to make law just because it seems like a good idea.”

Again, I believe this is a Conservative blindspot. As you well know, Congress writes the laws and the Supreme Court, as it has done for virtually the entire existence of the U.S., interpets those laws to see that they do not abridge the rights granted by the Constitution. Laws can not abridge those rights. Period.

Supreme Court decisions also cut both ways, Liberals howling annually over its decisions just as Conservatives do. What bothers me is Conservatives increasingly seeing the Supreme Court as being an abonimation that has to be circumvented.

Merits of gay marriage aside (and I really, really, really don’t want to debate that topic in this thread), attempting to rush a prohibition against it before the issue has been debated, legislated and litigated at the State, much less the Federal level, seems precipitous to me. Also, the recent ideas floated of writing laws that claim they can’t be reviewed by the Supreme Court are another nonsensical example of the disdain for the Balance of Power the Right has floated.

People have to put up with laws they may not agree with, actions of the Executive branch they may find odious, and Court decisions they don’t like. Tough, that’s the way it works. One of the most brilliant things about the Constitution is the Bill of Rights — the granting of everybody inalienable rights that can’t be taken away by 51% or more. Take Judicial Activism, ie; the Supreme Court review of laws away and you will end up with the Tyranny of the Masses.

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:28 pm 117. Barry Dauphin:

Curiouser and Curiouser. More from Hugh Hewitt via LGF: http://hughhewitt.com/#postid788

From US News & World Report May 8, 2000.

“Sen. John Kerry made his first forays into Cambodia during the Vietnam War as a Navy lieutenant on clandestine missions to deliver weapons to anticommunist forces.”

Hewitt followed up with the reporter who verifies that is what Kerry told him. As Instapundit says, “read the whole thing.”

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:29 pm 118. Rick Ballard:

Terrye & Samuel,

I really hope that ugliness is not going to be required to any great extent. I agree with Tom Holsinger above that the Kerry campaign is one of the weakest seen in recent history. All of the Soros/moveon crap didn’t produce a single delegate for Dean (remember him) and it included a rather large GOTV element that was remarkable only in its naivete. We know about the mass mailing of Moore’s crockumentary DVD scheduled for early October and I certainly hope that the Reps have a good 911 DVD being produced to counter it. The Swiftvets are doing just fine and Winter Soldier is still waiting in the wings.

Kerry is way off balance now, nothing has gone right for him since the convention. The global DNC/MSM editorial staff has to be realizing that there just isn’t enough lipstick in the world to pretty up this pig. Doesn’t mean they won’t try but every day just seems to bring another twisted ankle for Kerry. The Globe hack’s call for Kerry to respond personally to the Swiftvets is indicative of his future with the press. His personal character stinks and the fact that they can’t hide it is sinking in.

I’m working on my pro Bush arguments now. Kerry is providing all the necessary anti-Kerry arguments by himself.

Samuel - DtP gave the Kerry campaign a D for their efforts thus far - how would you grade them?

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:35 pm 119. Fresh Air:

Charlie–

I think most constitutional law scholars would tell you judicial activism is a 20th-century phenomenon that reached its apex with the Warren and Burger courts. While it is not nearly as bad as it was in the seventies, putting weathervanes like Sandra Day O’Connor on the court has not helped matters.

I also think most conservatives maintain a low profile and let the court act. It’s only on the big cases where whole constructs are developed out of the ether that people complain, like the affirmative action case John Moore cited.

Samuel–

Great post on liberalism. Nice to have you back, however briefly.

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:35 pm 120. Fresh Air:

Rick–

Check michaelmoorehatesamerica.com if you haven’t already. I can’t figure out the status of his film, but he was putting out stuff earlier that indicated he would get out by this fall.

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:38 pm 121. Rick Ballard:

ambisinistral,

Please review the Declaration. The government doesn’t grant rights, never has, can’t and never will. The word “inalienable” is how the Founders described rights. Great word and very descriptive. Generally, I put the dividing line between liberals and conservatives right at that word. My government grants me nothing, nor finally, is it responsible for protecting the rights that I have. I do grant the government the right to conduct business on my behalf and I do recognize my duty to support that government but I’m not at all confused as to who is in charge.

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:46 pm 122. Terrye:

FreshAir:

I agree with you in regards to the recent nature of Court activism. This is something that really came about in the 20th cnetury. After all many of these social issues had existed before, in fact more so.

And:

I hope this campaign does not get much nastier either but when the entertainment people got knee deep in the campaign whatever little restraint we might have hoped for was gone. Now we have Moore’s cinematic masterpiece and Whoopi’s private parts to deal with.

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:55 pm 123. Connecticut Yankee:

Barry–

Hugh added another item to his column a few hours ago– a retired USNR commander states that Kerry expanded his one swift boat tour into two in the book he published in 2003.

Wonder what else will turn out to be fabrication.

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:56 pm 124. Fresh Air:

Terrye–

Apparently Whoopi made some crack about photocopying her butt and sending it to Bush.

Tim Blair headlined it: “More Toner, Please!”

Aug 17, 2004 - 6:58 pm 125. ambisinistral:

Rick,

You are right, I was sloppy in my use of the word granted. Reaffirmed, or something similar, would have been a better choice. Incidently, as an old timey liberal I would move the line inalienable draws somewhere farther to the left — say between me and my misguided collectivist bretheren in the Democratic party.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:03 pm 126. richard mcenroe:

Rick Ballard ó Hey, Kerry’s doin’ it for us, man! If the Khmer Rouge new what kinds of special secret stuff he knows they might try to torture him for information they could against the country he went to Vietnam to defend (he did, you know…).

Hollywood ó Krugman’s idea of a newsworthy story is speculating on how much Bush paid the pilots of the Twin Towers planes…

Terrye ó Hey, I’m still a Democrat and I want my damn party back.

I was at a rally for Bush’s appearance in Santa Monica last Thursday. The Kerry supporters across the street were sort of a soap-scum on a crowd of ANSWERbots, Palestinian sympathizers, and general post-adolescent assholes (”I can shout ‘fuck Bush!’ I’m a real anarchist!”). The Kerryistas tried to get a chant going and were flatly told by the ANSWER organizers: “Shut up.” (I was wandering through their crowd with my “KERRY LIED- SUE ME” sign at the time; it was fun to hear.)

To us, Kerry is The Weasel. To the ABB crowd, Kerry is The Other Fascist and there is no way a lot of them will be voting for him, if they can vote at all. Kerry’s people are in for a shock in November…

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:06 pm 127. richard mcenroe:

Connecticut Yankee ó As I said on on earlier thread, two tours down to four months down to maybe a week with one of his “brothers”… we’ll get Senator Gilligan down to that three-hour tour yet…

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:09 pm 128. Charlie (Colorado):

I think most constitutional law scholars would tell you judicial activism is a 20th-century phenomenon that reached its apex with the Warren and Burger courts.

I’m pretty sure Andrew Jackson (feh) would disagree with them. James Madison, too.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:13 pm 129. Katherine:

Rick,

The dividing line between the liberals and conservatives that you put on the expression ìinalienable rightsî also is at a root of our perennial misunderstandings with Europeans.

In America the rights belong to the people and government derives its power from the consent of the citizens. In Europe, traditionally, the power was vested within the government (whatever its form), which then graciously was grating rights to its subjects.

We tend to believe that individual should be free to do as he pleases with exception of specifically forbidden things; the opposite philosophy is to prohibit everything and then grant special exemptions from the prohibition. The rights created by the latter method should be more correctly viewed as privileges. It is a great way to create clients that those with power to grant privileges can manipulate.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:15 pm 130. richard mcenroe:

jdm ó And let’s remember Kos’ brilliant summation of that sentiment: “Screw them.”

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:17 pm 131. Katherine:

“I was wandering through their crowd with my “KERRY LIED- SUE ME” sign at the time”

Wow! Richard! I do admire you!

I personally am too much of a chicken to put W04 sticker on my car. True, it is an old beater and I am overdue for a new one but still I want to have it in one piece when I need it to get home. Living in SF makes me nostalgic for my childhood…. Those were days…

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:27 pm 132. richard mcenroe:

Dennis the Peasant ó Celts are smart. We traded our tar pits for peat bogs because you can’t filter whiskey through tar…

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:27 pm 133. doublecola:

Julie,

I didn’t omit it. I just could not find a record of it–at least since 1990. If you can find a source to verify O’Neill’s claims, then please post.

DC

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:27 pm 134. Sandy P:

Cain

–Sorry, folks, liberating fifty million people from oppressive dictators for their own sake is a pretty liberal foreign policy agenda. So those of you who use that argument should be cognizant that you’re using liberal, not conservative, ideas. –

What’s down is up and what’s up is down and has been for a couple of decades now.

—

Samuel -

–Terrye

We former Democrats can get just as ugly the current ones can.

Well I know this one can, but then again I have more of an axe to grind then most. :^)

–

From the wife of a white capitalistic oppressor of the world SBO - and a greedy little capitalist myself, all that money you spent all those years. (Sigh!)

Kind of like what we’ve poured into Europe….

We would be living large right now.

—

Found on Bros. Judd:

Drudge is now reporting that Kerry will, at his VFW speech tomorrow, criticize this announcement and advocate leaving **all** the troops in Germany and Korea as a means of shoring up our alliances. How’s that for a winning issue? I’m beginning to agree with Orrin that this is the worst run campaign ever.

—

…If these movements come about, Japan would become a U.S. frontline Asia-Pacific command post, according to Hiromichi Umebayashi, president of Yokohama-based disarmament think tank Peace Depot and an expert on the U.S. military in Japan.

“The message is more political than quantitative,” he said. “By concentrating command functions in Japan, the level of cooperation between the Self-Defense Forces and the U.S. military would increase….

–

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6b66998e-f08b-11d8-a553-00000e2511c8.html

—

I have kind of a free-flowing thought process.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:31 pm 135. richard mcenroe:

Katherine ó I’m six feet tall, 230 lbs and was carrying a six foot ash “flagpole”* … I didn’t feel terribly distressed but some of the comments after I passed were terribly wounding…

*”Actually, it’s a buck-and-a-quarter staff, but I’m not telling him that…” D. Duck

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:33 pm 136. hollywood:

“I understand the issue you’re raising — but it seems to me pretty clear that “judicial activism” has been a feature of the court since Marbury v. Madison,”

I’m hard pressed to think of anything more activist than creating the concept of judicial review. Unless it’s deciding a presidential election.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:35 pm 137. Sandy P:

Gotta agree w/you there, holly, glad the Supremes took the hit for the FLA activist judges.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:41 pm 138. Sandy P:

So, DC, did you ever get around to real the Val e-diction stuff on Allende??

It was you, right?

I also noticed that someone else had posted it before I did.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:42 pm 139. Barry Dauphin:

Connecticut Yankee

Thanks. And Hugh also notes the explanation from KC Star for why it is taking so long for MSM to report on this story. From KC Star.

“On Friday, a Google News search turned up dozens of references to the Kerry stories. Many of them were on fringe news and personal Internet pages, sites that The Star and other mainstream media don’t recognize as credible by themselves. Such news must be verified, preferably with two independent sources. That doesn’t always happen on Internet sites, talk radio and cable TV news shows even though such electronic media often are far ahead of other traditional news media in reporting controversy.” http://hughhewitt.com/#postid789

Considering that Hewitt is now discussing a tidbit from US News & World Report, I wonder if the KC Star thinks USN&WR is a fringe element. Quick somebody tell Mort Zuckerman. Well at least the reporter managed to find Google-it’s a start. And the KC paper appears to have done the most so far in MSM. But why was such deliberation not exercised re: Bush’s National Guard service/AWOL/deserter?

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:43 pm 140. Sandy P:

Ok - found this on LGF:

Superchicken:

http://vinylfrontier.com/Photoshops/Kerry-chicken-Movie1.swf

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:44 pm 141. Katherine:

Richard- I sort of figured that you are a guy who can take care of himself.

Still, a mob can be dangerous, even if consists mostly of weedy anarchists!

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:46 pm 142. TmjUtah:

Pecularities and blindspots?

The one thing that causes me to exclude parties from a debate is patronization disguised with vocabulary.

I was a surveyor most of my adult life.

A tripod is useless if all three legs don’t perform in the manner for which they were designed. It’s not that three is a magic number - it’s that each leg is mechanically sound, capable of fine adjustment, and rigid enough to bear its part of the load.

A tripod with one leg locked all the way out is useless for anything but holding up a stew pot over a fire. And barely that.

The Surpeme Court is a legal construct. The only God-given part of the Constitution, as stipulated by ratification, are the enumerated rights in the first ten amendments of the Constitution. Everything after that is a compromise defining government oranization by branch and powers, some parliamentary rules, and specific limits on the power of the central government. That’s all it is. It exists as a remarkably good-faith attempt to establish a central government that might just not become tyranny.

Forget abortion. Forget Gay privelige. You can even forget about bussing. The current level of well-meaning abuse of power perpetrated by the Supreme Court is the logical result of failed oversight - a dereliction of duty on the part of the congress - and has accumulated since the ink was still wet on the first writ ever wrote by a Surpreme Court justice that provided legislative relief. There have been grave issues decided by the court, and some decisions have been borne out as beneficial (Brown v. Board of Ed/Miranda) and others not so well (Dredd Scott?)…but with use comes familiarity and with familiarity comes contempt, then neglect. The reason laws were intended to be written in legislative bodies was to prevent the alienation of the electorate from the actions of government power.

The action required to regulate or restrict freedom should only come after debate and examination in the largest possible body of participants, all of whom are directly accountable for the consequences of imposing the suggested limits. Any act of authority that carries a penalty attached to violation is in fact a restriction on freedom - whether it be that of one or of millions. No matter how well intentioned or patently beneficial a bill may appear to be on its face, without it being successfully enacted after debate among representatives and signed by an elected executive, it stands little chance of bearing any resemblence of reality as seen by those who will be subject to the law.

The court has assumed greater and greater privilege of relief, and has trespassed on the duties of the legislature. And they’ve gotten away with it because legislators have become accustomed to kicking the tough questions across the street…and we have let them get away with it. Most of my social studies education in high school painted the actions of the Supreme Court in civil rights and anti-trust action as noble.

I am not nearly as ready to believe that now as I was then.

There comes a time in an adversial relationship where the underdog stops worrying about “them” and begins to actively resist. If we don’t get a handle on our untouchable five-man legislature we could see that point arrive in our life time. I would rather see citizens demand more of their elected representatives, who in turn will act to yank the court back out of the dictator business. Good intentions, bad intentions…what matters is that they stop ignoring the bedrock strengths of the constitution in favor of their own egos or agendas. There is nothing in their knowledge of legal arcana or imparted by their robes that makes them any better at congress’ job than congress should be. They should restrict their relief to individuals, or if that is not possible to refer the subject legislation back to the congress, as their role in the check and balance system was intended to be.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:48 pm 143. Charlie (Colorado):

Cain:

–Sorry, folks, liberating fifty million people from oppressive dictators for their own sake is a pretty liberal foreign policy agenda. So those of you who use that argument should be cognizant that you’re using liberal, not conservative, ideas. –

Uh, Cain, I think you just repeated my argument for why Roger’s complaint about “liberalism” made sense.

At least we’ve established that you are being purposefully obtuse.

In the mean time, though, since we do agree that liberating people from fascism is a liberal goal, and since we know that Kerry has been pretty explicit that he didn’t think liberating those people was wise, can we conclude you’ll now be a Bush supporter?

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:48 pm 144. Charlie (Colorado):

–Sorry, folks, liberating fifty million people from oppressive dictators for their own sake is a pretty liberal foreign policy agenda. So those of you who use that argument should be cognizant that you’re using liberal, not conservative, ideas. –

Oh. Ooops.

Never mind.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:50 pm 145. Charlie (Colorado):

I’m hard pressed to think of anything more activist than creating the concept of judicial review. Unless it’s deciding a presidential election.

Don’t forget that the substantive decision — not the remedy decision, but the Constitutional question — was 7 to 2.

But yeah, that was my point too.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:52 pm 146. Terrye:

holly:

Does it not occur to you and the rest of the crybabies that if the Bushies had really stole the election that perhaps the Dems would not have gotten their collective ass kicked in the Governor’s race two years later? Or did they steal that one too? You know if Gore had managed to carry his home state he would have won that election so rather than taking this obsessive walk down paranoid lane maybe you guys oughta blame the dipshit cnadidate that lost the lead he had and with it the damn election which is over for chrisake…moveon as they say. Knowing when you have lost is a sign of good mental health.

Aug 17, 2004 - 7:59 pm 147. Charlie (Colorado):

But, Tmj, the whole purpose of the Constitution is to define and protect the rights of the minority. As a non-white non-Christian — even if I pass as white and know a fair bit of Christianity — I’m very aware of the risks and problems of being a minority. My little half-eskimo cousin Erin knows it better than I; my best friend and writing partner Anil has run into it more than once; and my dear friend VJ has to deal with it from both sides, as a sometimes-lesbian black girl to most, and an “Oreo” to other blacks.

If the Court didn’t have the power, and the authority, and the responsibility to contradict and override the majority, that Constitutional protection wouldn’t be meaningful.

I’d be the last person to contend that the Supremes have always served this responsibility well — the McCain-Feingold decision is one I’d argue with — but the separation of powers is meaningless unless the Supreme Court can go against the majority of the legislature.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:02 pm 148. richard mcenroe:

Charlie(Colorado), Cain, Roger ó Just ask them if they’ve read Burke, Hume and Locke. If they haven’t, they aren’t liberals, just leftists…

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:04 pm 149. Charlie (Colorado):

Charlie(Colorado), Cain, Roger ÔøΩ Just ask them if they’ve read Burke, Hume and Locke. If they haven’t, they aren’t liberals, just leftists…

And if they have, they’re masochists.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:07 pm 150. TmjUtah:

Charlie -

Abuse of power is still abuse. I didn’t say that they must be rejected. What I am saying is that no body of jurists needs to establish what kind of sonar our Navy can use or how many acres of forest may be logged or how many billion dollars must be spent on a government project.

They do serve a vital, last ditch role in defending rights. If the court would step back and reflect on the intent of the constitution, I believe they would cut their caseload by better than half. They have encumbered themselves with so much use of excessive relief they have degraded the respect they should rightly command.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:09 pm 151. richard mcenroe:

Charlie ó Prose. Learn it. Love it. If more kids today had read Aristophanes, Clinton would have been laughed out of office and we wouldn’t be in this mess today.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:13 pm 152. Terrye:

I heard today that Tom Harkin called Cheney a coward for not going to Viet Nam when Cheney supports the war in Iraq.

I was around for Nam and there was not exactly a line a mile long of young men outside recruiters’ offices wanting to go to Viet Nam. It is only in retrospect and after the fact that the Democrats seem to consider it important. Back then you could get a lot further in the Dem party spitting on a soldier than being one wich I guess explains Kerry’s behavior on his return from the Heart of Darkness er… I mean Viet Nam.

This is getting stupid. The Dems are going bonkers.

Did Edwards go to Nam or anywhere other than law school? What about Hillary or her husband?

In 1986 I was voted as a rep to go to the National Family Farm Congress in St Louis. I met Jesse Jackson. Gephardt was there and so was Harkin. You could not shake a stick without hitting a Democrat. The interesting thing was Harkin told us all about his service. Now it seems I came away with a mistaken impression of his service. He was not actually a Viet Nam veteran at all, he was a “Viet Nam Era” veteran.

hummm, it must be catching.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:17 pm 153. Charlie (Colorado):

Tmj — The difference is that Aristophanes is fun, so long as you get a good translation. Burke and Hume are more like reading transcripts of Congressional debates on milk pricing policy.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:18 pm 154. Charlie (Colorado):

Terrye — you know, Don Sensing brought up the same point. Can anyone actually document Harken saying that he flew in the Nam?

In the mean time, though, I’d be curious to see what Bill Clinton says about Harken’s comments.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:20 pm 155. Charlie (Colorado):

Speaking of Don Sensing:

First, an interesting point about a small police matter in Britain.

Second, Sensing’s own account of the Harken story.

I would guess that Harken hopes to get his own story in the paper, just like Leahy did.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:24 pm 156. ambisinistral:

“no body of jurists needs to establish what kind of sonar our Navy”

Are not the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) laws written by the Congress of the US that need to be considered? Or were those laws written by the Court?

http://environment.about.com/cs/oceans/a/navysonar.htm

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:26 pm 157. Charlie (Colorado):

Oh, wait, here’s one:

…(though Harkin in his earlier political campaigns was notable, if that’s the word, for claiming to have flown combat missions in Vietnam and then having to admit that he had not, as recorded in the book Stolen Valor, by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley).

Mentioned here although it’s second hand.

Sorry to misspell Hark-i-n’s name.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:27 pm 158. Terrye:

Charlie:

I have tried to remember Harken’s exact words. I just know I thought he had risked life and limb. He talked about being a poor kid whose Dad was a hired hand on a farm and he said he went in the service so that he could get an education and in return he was willing to risk his life, etc. It is a long time ago but the impression I got was clear enough. I remember he also said “You don’t want government on your back but you do want it on your side.” That stuck with me.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:33 pm 159. Sun-Tzu:

Cain raises an interesting (albeit somewhat inaccurate) point in his post:

American Presidential politics is often marked by dominance by one party for extended periods. (He is mistaken in suggesting Democratic dominance from 1932-1968, since Eisenhower was President from 1952-1960, in that period.)

What is of interest, I think, is the reason for said dominance. From the Civil War to the First World War, Republicans dominated the White House, in no small part b/c of a perception of the Democrats as having been partly responsible for the Civil War and being the party of the South.

It was Woodrow Wilson who really broke that GOP grip—and ironically brought “separate but equal” to the entire nation.

Similarly, in the 1932-1968 period, the Dems dominated. Why? Because of perceived Republican ineffectiveness, both in the face of the Great Depression, and then during World War II (no accident that Ike was the Supreme Allied Commander).

In between, however, was the period of “normalcy,” as Harding put it—a period when you had Dems and GOPers alternating with neither side dominating.

The question that comes to mind is: Is the post-Cold War period, but especially the post-9-11 period, one of seeking “normalcy”? Or one of perceived ineffectiveness in the face of a great national disaster?

The Dems are arguing that we need to return to normalcy—the War on Terror is, at most, a sideshow. Kerry’s latest pronouncement (if true), that he would keep troops in Germany and South Korea (and his added promises to withdraw troops w/in 6 months of coming into office, and not dispatching any more to Iraq) are clearly efforts at recreating the pre-9-11 normalcy of the day.

The GOP is arguing that 9-11 broke the American view, in the same way that the Civil War and the Great Depression/Second World War did—there is no “normalcy” to return to, because you can’t put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:37 pm 160. Charlie (Colorado):

I remember [Harkin] also said “You don’t want government on your back but you do want it on your side.”

I’d settle for having it off my back, though.

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:38 pm 161. John Lynch:

On media credibility .. link .. . Cruise around the report for other than the specific page I cite. It’s pretty current and interesting.

Damn!

You all have gotten into legalism, the legal system, constitutionality, and the judicial system! Exactly the subject I wanted to get your views on and it is already close to midnight!

Well, anyway:

a) To what extent should the courts make new law as opposed to interpret the laws adopted by the legislative branch?

b) What responsibility should the legislature assume in reviewing ‘made’ law - thereby striking judicial-made law and replacing it with legislative law?

c) Does it appear that the judicial branch has ‘made law’ that reverses the premise (and the constitution) that rights pertain to the ‘people’ and replaced it with rights are what we give you?

Finally, how aggressive is Ashcroft’s DOJ?

Aug 17, 2004 - 8:50 pm 162. John Lynch:

Judging from the comments, I lean more towards tjmutah’s view than yours Charlie(c)

I am not arguing against the protection, but that laws should come from the people, not the courts.

If, in the course of interpreting law, they need to make some, then the legislative body should get off their collective arses and debate the newly-minted law and either rescind, clarify, or expand it - as a real law as described in the constitution.

It was meant, I believe, that laws were somewhat dificult to make. They should not be in the purview of any judge anywhere. This has led to the behavior of ‘venue shopping’ to find judges that will treat cases that shouldn’t see the light of day to be handled by a judge that wants to make law.

This is somewhat of a libertarian view, but I’ll do what I can to defend this view in any debate that ensues.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:05 pm 163. richard mcenroe:

Charlie (Colorado) —

Burke and Hume are more like reading transcripts of Congressional debates on milk pricing policy.

Dude?!

It is the nature of all greatness not to be exact.

Edmund Burke

Fraud is the ready minister of injustice.

Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises; for never intending to go beyond promises; it costs nothing.

Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

Bad law is the worst sort of tyranny.

Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

It’s like he’s footnoting this thread, man!

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:11 pm 164. Sandy P:

–Are not the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) laws written by the Congress of the US that need to be considered? Or were those laws written by the Court?–

Only when I, my family, my country and my beliefs are not on the endangered species list.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:12 pm 165. Syl:

re pulling troops out of Europe.

The dems seem horrified by that. Wesley Clarke said this would reduce our bargaining power and I think what he means is that part of Kerry’s secret plan was to threaten to remove troops if we didn’t get our way. He would do this in a perfectly friendly, nuanced manner, of course.

His carrot would be reconstruction and oil contracts in Iraq.

Widdy-biddy stick and an inedible carrot.

If I didn’t know that this ‘pullout’ was part of Rumsfeld’s plan that’s been in the process for three years, I’d say Bush did it on purpose to tickle Kerry’s widdle nose.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:13 pm 166. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

A…sinistra… The relativism in your analysis of Supreme Court actions is inappropriate. The fundamental problem is that the supreme court has expanded its powers dramatically. To do that, of course, required inventing new rights or other issues (the Constitution is about a lot more than individual rights - the 10 Amendments were tack-ons).

The blindness is in those who say it is just doing its job. It is not. It is accumulating excess power. What right is protected when a judge takes over a school district (Kansas City) and runs it down to the last detail, even creating new facilities and raising taxes (without representation) to pay for it?

The Roe v Wade action created (discovered) new rights that had apparently been hidden under a rock laying on top of the constitution for 200 years. Unlike anti-discrimination rulings, this right was

discovered after nothing at all had changed over the whole period.

Sandra Day O’Connor’s recent pro-diversity action likewise protected no rights. Do you see anyplace in the constitution that gives a right to an education among diversity, as defined by skin color but not ideas?

There are other examples. In the civil rights arena, the idea of equal opportunity, a fundamental principle of our country, was set aside in terms of equality of results, as measured by quotas. Oops, and then not quotas, but somehow you have to measure it. It was a mess and has created a terrible conflict. My daughter and her friends were terribly shocked as high school seniors when they saw people get school admissions based on skin color, or in one bizarre case, a Korean with a chosen Hispanic surname. Kids who had been together for years, a diverse group, suddenly discovered that in spite of how it seemed, they were different. Some were favored. Others were not. My daughter made use of her Native American ancestry once, to shut up some idiots.

But affirmative action today is an abomination, and the court just forced 25 more years of it on us.

The point should be obvious: if you create an institution like the Supreme Court with a lot of power, over time it is going to increase its power unless checked. Comgress has failed to check it, mostly because of the bias of the press (the Court is sacred so messing with it is going to cause storm troopers to emerge from the capitol and fill the country).

Conservatives especially complain about the court because, contrary to constitutional intent, the court since the late ’30s has been allowing the dramatic expansion of powers of the federal government. We believe that over-reaching government leads to a loss of rights, and indeed, other than sex-related rights, that has been the case over the last 50 years. We see animals given rights over our land, with no compensation. We see affirmative action and Courts actually administering various parts of society. We see Roe v Wade and its subsequent more extreme rules - a case where the court protects one right at the expense of a number of other parties with a valid instance, like the father.

There are those who say that the court tells us what the constitution means. That elevates the court to the level of a pope. In fact, many of us can read the constitution, read related history and jurisprudence, and get a pretty damned good idea of what it means. The founders knew better than to create a document that the citizens could not read.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:18 pm 167. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

John Lynch asks:

) To what extent should the courts make new law as opposed to interpret the laws adopted by the legislative branch?

Absolutely never ever ever.

b) What responsibility should the legislature assume in reviewing ‘made’ law - thereby striking judicial-made law and replacing it with legislative law?

A lot more than it is, but as long as the MSM obstructs it, and we have a 50-50 balance in the legislature, its not going to happen.

c) Does it appear that the judicial branch has ‘made law’ that reverses the premise (and the constitution) that rights pertain to the ‘people’ and replaced it with rights are what we give you?

The whole government acts that way. However, when the court creates rights that are not in the constitution (such as an absolute right to abortion), it is doing as you say.

Otherwise, I don’t see it.

Finally, how aggressive is Ashcroft’s DOJ?

I would guess pretty normal - except in counterterrorism. After all, most of the people are careerists.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:29 pm 168. TmjUtah:

I agree with every line of John Moore’s previous two posts.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:37 pm 169. Barry Dauphin:

I would figure the troop realignment is part of a longer term strategic plan that happens to have the advantage of being ready to announce now. As an admitted ignorant amateur in such matters, I think keeping large numbers of troops in Germany 15 yrs. post Berlin Wall fall doesn’t make a lot of sense. I remember something Rumsfeld is reported as saying after meeting with some of Clinton cabinet in ‘98 or ‘99. Paraphrasing, it was something like, ‘did you notice how they kept talking about how their policies would appear but never addressed whether their policies were designed to actually keep America safer.’ I’m sure I butchered the quote.

The point being the emphasis on appearances. I see Kerry as very appearance driven (hence all the semi offhand comments exapnding his role in Vietnam among other things). Now if Kerry wants to try to make a convincing argument for how keeping troops in Germany actually keeps us safer, let him. But as soon as he moans about what it looks like to the allies and their unhappiness, all I can do is roll my eyes.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:40 pm 170. WichitaBoy:

According to Jacques Barzun, the “Great Switch” in the meaning of the word “liberal” is due to George Bernard Shaw and other aligned socialists at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. I quote from “From Dawn to Decadence”, the chapter entitled “The Great Illusion”.

What Shaw and all the other publicists who agitated the social question helped to precipitate was the onset of the Great Switch. It was the pressure of Socialist ideas, and mainly the Reformed groups in parliaments and the Fabian outside, that brought it about. By Great Switch I mean the reversal of Liberalism into its opposite. It began quietly in the 1880s in Germany after Bismarck “stole the Socialists’ thunder”–as observers put it–by enacting old-age pensions and other social legislation. By the turn of the century Liberal opinion generally had come to see the necessity on all counts, economic, social, and political, to pass laws in aid of the many–old or sick or unemployed–who could no longer provide for themselves. Ten years into the century, the Lloyd George budget started England on the road to the Welfare State.

Liberalism triumphed on the principle that the best government is that which goeverns least; now for all the western nations political wisdom has recast this ideal of liberty into liberality. The shift has thrown the vocabulary into disorder. In the United States, where Liberals are people who favor regulations, entitlements, and every kind of protection, the Republican party, who call themselves Conservatives, campaign for less government like the old Liberals reared on Adam Smith; they oppose as many social programs as they dare. In France, traditionally a much-governed country, liberal retains its economic meaning of free markets, and is only part of the name of one small semi-conservative party; Left and Right suffice to separate the main tendencies. In England also, the new Liberal party numbers very few. Conservative and Labor designate the parties that elsewhere are known as Conservatives in opposition to Social Democrats. The political reality, the actual character of the state, does not correspond to any of these labels. It is on the contrary a thorough mixture of purposes and former isms that earlier would have seemed incompatible. Nowadays, a sensible voter should call himself a Liberal Conservative Socialist, regardless of the election returns. Changes of the party mean only a little more or a little less of each tendency, depending on the matter under consideration.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:40 pm 171. Sandy P:

As to the courst, w/Sandra and Ruth both saying that in the future the USSC should/will take “international law” into consideration into its’ rulings, time for a Congressional slapdown.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:52 pm 172. Rick Ballard:

WichitaBoy,

Excellent cite. I’ve been trying to think of how to describe the transition from liberal as defined by JS Mill and liberal as defined by the Gramscians. The Fabian society (and Wells and Shaw and others at the turn of the century) provided the initial transitional push. Toss in Dewey a few years later and the pitch of the slope steepened. Now I’m going to have to reread a little Mises and Hayek to make sure I’ve got the timeline correct. BTW, Charlie (C), there really are people who don’t find Burke and Locke boring whatsoever - nor Montesquieu either. Hume is a bit more problematical. He reads as if he were paid by the word.

Aug 17, 2004 - 9:54 pm 173. Katherine:

Aha! My “Unfit for Command” just got shipped!

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:09 pm 174. JB:

Kerry’s complaining that the pullout is damaging his ability to be elected president, in essence, since retaining that kind of footprint in Europe is an obsolete policy regardless of the events in Iraq.

Waaaaah!

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:25 pm 175. richard mcenroe:

Katherine ó I’m picking mine up at the local Bookstar Friday. I want to see their eyes when I take delivery, with their big table of Free Willy’s My Life marked down 30% and all…

SandyP ó I’ve always been a bit perplexed by Sandra/Ruth’s comments in that regard. Don’t Supreme Court justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States? Nothing in there about the Brussels SubCommittee on Proportional Gender Representation in Fisheries, as I recall… maybe we should remind them of the job description they were hired for?

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:28 pm 176. M. Simon:

John Moore says:

c) Does it appear that the judicial branch has ‘made law’ that reverses the premise (and the constitution) that rights pertain to the ‘people’ and replaced it with rights are what we give you?

The whole government acts that way. However, when the court creates rights that are not in the constitution (such as an absolute right to abortion), it is doing as you say.

John you ought to read Amdmts. IX and X again.

Our Constitution is not a list of the Rights of Citizens. It is a list of things the government may do. All else is forbidden to government.

No where in that document does the government have the right to nationalize the wombs of the women of this nation. Nothing about nationalizing flags either.

What is all this socialism from the right? Alcohol prohibition teach you nothing?

========================================

John Kerry is no liar. I believe his 1971 Senate testimony when he said he committed war crimes.

There is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:30 pm 177. richard mcenroe:

JB ó Well, you know, if he can’t do the job the way he wants to, maybe he should just, you know, not show up. He’s good at that by all accounts…

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:30 pm 178. JB:

Richard, yes — unfortunately Kerry wants to be elected first, then have the option of not showing up if he can’t do the job the way he wants to.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:44 pm 179. M. Simon:

Rick,

They wore out liberal.

They are now working on “progressive”.

=================

Why wasn’t Kerry reprimanded for throwing chickens against the wall?

Because he didn’t throw the chickens. He used a machine gun.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:49 pm 180. WichitaBoy:

Erik

You are indeed correct that the results of elections are somewhat determined mathematically and probabilistically by the form of the election mechanism. A vote which allowed people to state, say, first, second, and third, preferences, duly weighted, would tend to produce results much fairer by many measures than our hoary “first past the post” method.

There is an entire mathematical literature devoted to this topic, which has some applications in Economics and Computer Science, a literature which of course is never read by anybody, although The Economist does discuss the issue from time to time. There are even circumstances in which a very democratic voting system will necessarily lead to a dictatorship. There is a theorem to this effect by Arrow of Nobel fame. I found one link here.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:50 pm 181. JB:

Why did the chicken cross the road?

To escape John Kerry.

Tell two of your friends, and Kerry has no shot on Nov. 2.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:52 pm 182. Fresh Air:

Wichita–

Nice cite. I’m afraid I must now leaven this discussion with a bit of humor jogged by your post.

The former prime minister of England was campaigning out in the hustings one night and found himself in a small town. His coach had failed to arrive, and it was cold and starting to rain. Not wanting to spend a miserable night outside, the prime minister began wandering around town looking for a place to bed down for the night.

He came upon a large building that looked like an inn. He knocked on the door and a man answered.

“Yes. May I help you, sir?” the man asked.

“My good man!” the prime minister responded. “By any chance would you have a room available for the night?”

“Afraid not. We’re full up, sir.”

“Now see here my good man. I’m David Lloyd George, the prime minister of England. I’m exhausted from campaigning all day and I’m in desperate need of a room for the night.”

The man looked him over. “I’m sorry, sir.”

Just then the prime minister heard a ghastly shriek coming from down the hall. A man came running past the doorway in his nightshirt.

The prime minister raised his eyebrows. “Say my good man, what kind of hotel is this exactly?”

“It’s not a hotel, sir. It’s a sanitarium.”

The prime minister pondered his fate and decided it was still his best option. “I would be awfully grateful if you could squeeze me in for the night.”

The man exhaled and thought for a moment. “Well,” he said, “we have three David Lloyd Georges here already, but I suppose there’s always room for one more.”

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:53 pm 183. richard mcenroe:

Syl ó The Democrats and the Germans are like the residents in a trashy neighborhood who pelt the cops with garbage and rotten food, then complain when they don’t get out of the prowl cars anymore…

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:58 pm 184. M. Simon:

How does common law come into being?

America (except for Louisiana) is a common law country.

DeSoto’s “Capitalism” goes into this very well.

=================================

When was John Kerry Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as the Democrats have claimed? When he still had some intelligence left. That is: never.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:58 pm 185. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

M. Simon

I am well aware of the ninth and the tenth. One of my objections is the court’s failure to take the tenth into account often enough, overriding it with the Commerce Clause or the 14th amendment.d

I am also aware of the proper idea that the constitution is not an enumeration of rights. However, the ninth amendment is tricky and almost never invoked.

As far as nationalizing wombs, I could make a suitable comeback, but it has been argued here before. Instead, check out Why Abortion is a Moral Issue for Libertarians.

As to your comments on socialism and prohibition, I haven’t a clue what you are referring to. I would point out, however, that the ccurts approval of congressional overreach allowed socialism in Americca in the form of the New Deal. That is one example of a court failing in its functions.

Also, there is plenty of stuff that the c

As to the “nationalizing flags” nonsense. I am not in favor of the anti-flag burninng amendment, but if one were to pass, it would of courses be constitutional by definition. That is a correct use of the constitution: change the meaning by amending it, rather than our current method of having SCOTUS change the meaning by judicial fiat.

Aug 17, 2004 - 10:59 pm 186. WichitaBoy:

Katherine and marek–OT

You are very lucky. I am envious of your ability to read Lem in the original. He’s not always the most pleasant guy to read but when you’ve done so you’re more fully human, like it or not.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:03 pm 187. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Just for grins,

I believe it is true that Kerry had two Vietnam tours (but no Cambodian tours).

One was an “area” tour - awarded the familiar Vietnam Service Ribbon (yellow with red stripes and green on the ends).

The other was an in-country tour, awarded that same ribbon (or star on it) and a strange green and white thing that I never did figure out what it was for - something from the South Vietnamese government. Mine was destroyed in a fire..

There were 2,500,000 or so in-country vets, of whom about 500,000 actually engaged in combat. There were another 500,000 area veterans - either in Thailand or off shore on ships (such as Kerry’s time on the Gridley) There were about 8,000,000 Vietnam Era vets, and I don’t know if the 3,000,000 is included in that number.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:06 pm 188. M. Simon:

JB,

Do you really want to discuss Kerry giving orders to slaughter farm animals? A war crime?

I guess if that is his best point you have to go with it.

==========

Why was John Kerry mistaken about Christmas eve in Cambodia? Because poor John’s brain was seared. He has never been the same since. He said so himself.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:08 pm 189. JB:

No, I was serious. The way I see it, with his incredible myth-making convention puffery, Kerry has set himself up to be a target of ridicule. And so he shall receive it. Once the book is read, the jokes will spread through the culture like a wildfire.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:19 pm 190. richard mcenroe:

M. Simon ó Don’t undervalue Kerry killing chickens. Those hamlets were subsistence-level argrarian. When he slaiughtered their livestock and torched those hootches he put that entire community on the wrong side of the survival line. Their entire means of sustaining themselves was gone. Unless those villagers could find their way to a relief organization or a government-protected ville (or throw in with Charlie), they were in deep nuoc mam…

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:46 pm 191. Katherine:

WichitaBoy, OT:

The fact that I can read Lem in original is no virtue of mine: Polish is my first language, after all.

Lemís translator Michael Kendel is rather good, though some things do get lost, e.g. in the English version poems of Electronic Bard in Cyberiad do not come close to the cleverness of the original, unfortunately.

Lemís sardonic humor, which so often hides political message, is hard to beat, but I agree that some of his ìseriousî novels are a bit much. For example, I find ìReturn from Starsî to be quite unfortunate, and so do ìFiascoî.

I donít know if you read Eden. It is technologically very dated, but story and message are really powerful.

But I love Space Traveler Ijon Tichy and the Constructors the most.

Aug 17, 2004 - 11:52 pm 192. richard mcenroe:

And just in case anyone was wondering how you really do get a medal…

Aug 18, 2004 - 12:04 am 193. Stephen_M:

Are those fellas at IraqTheModel trailblazing for Roger?

Aug 18, 2004 - 1:02 am 194. M. Simon:

From:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002273.php

“A previously unnoticed passage in John Kerry’s approved war biography, citing his own journals, appears to contradict the senator’s claim he won his first Purple Heart as a result of an injury sustained under enemy fire. Kerry, who served as commander of a Navy swift boat, has insisted he was wounded by enemy fire Dec. 2, 1968, when he and two other men took a smaller vessel, a Boston Whaler, on a patrol north of his base at Cam Ranh Bay.

But Douglas Brinkley’s “Tour of Duty,” for which Kerry supplied his journals and letters, indicates that as Kerry set out on a subsequent mission, he had not yet been under enemy fire.

While the date of the four-day excursion on PCF-44 [Patrol Craft Fast] is not specified, Brinkley notes it commenced when Kerry “had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968,” which was nine days after the incident in which he claimed he had been wounded by enemy fire.”

The lies are starting to pile up faster than Kerry can correct them.

=====

When was John Kerry Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as the Democrats have claimed? When he still had some intelligence left. That is: never.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Aug 18, 2004 - 5:26 am 195. M. Simon:

richard,

I know the value of killing chickens. It is why such activities performed by the opposing side are considered a war crime.

———–

Why did John Kerry sprint out of the church after each of his weddings?

Vietnam made him afraid of rice impacts from behind.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Aug 18, 2004 - 5:34 am 196. M. Simon:

Mpls. Star Tribune breaks the story:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007511.php

=========

What do Walter Mitty and John Kerry have in common? Great imaginations.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Aug 18, 2004 - 5:39 am 197. M. Simon:

So now Kerry not only won commendations at a rate which threatened to outstrip Audie Murphy (literally) but also managed to win a combat award a week before he saw combat. Now we can understand the reluctance of his superiors to award the first Purple Heart; even John Kerry admitted in his own writing that he didn’t deserve it. It takes a gross stupidity or an unbelievable egomania for Kerry to think that no one would cross-reference dates between his journal and the service record he had posted on his site in order to boost his credentials for the presidency! Not to mention a fecklessness bordering on incompetence for his biographer, Douglas Brinkley, who at last report was busy trying to rescue the Cambodian Christmas myth for the New Yorker.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002273.php

So he didn’t deserve his first Purple Heart by his own admission. Fantastic!

=================

John Kerry a man who faced shot and shell in Vietnam is afraid of paper in America.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Aug 18, 2004 - 5:46 am 198. M. Simon:

There is coming a time when only insanomaniacs will admid they support Kerry.

=================

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 ALL the records.

Aug 18, 2004 - 5:50 am 199. jerry:

I am going to come to Harkins defense in a limited manner. If Harkins was a Naval Aviator then he bore a substantial peacetime risk, unless he flew P-3s which are little more than glorified airliners. If he flew carrier based aircraft or Helos he bore the same flying Risks as GWB with the added risk of operating at sea. So lets not denigrate Harkins’ service per se, however much he was out of line about his personal attack on Dick Cheney.

Aug 18, 2004 - 5:58 am 200. Syl:

I don’t care about Harkins’ bona fides. Cheney criticized something Kerry said, and in return Harkins blasted Cheney’s character.

Mort Kondrake, an eminently reasonable man. A man I’ve never been able to figure how he votes, is furious at the ad hominems coming out of Democratic mouths. He says the Democrats have been far worse than the Republicans as far as dirty campaigning goes…which left Juan Williams sputtering and outraged at the very thought.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Mort so angry.

Aug 18, 2004 - 6:40 am 201. Charlie (Colorado):

Only when I, my family, my country and my beliefs are not on the endangered species list.

So, uh, Sandy — what you want is for the Court to find a “national defense exemption” that’s not written in the law?

I thought we were complaining that the Court was legislating from the bench?

Aug 18, 2004 - 7:12 am 202. Charlie (Colorado):

The blindness is in those who say it is just doing its job. It is not. It is accumulating excess power. What right is protected when a judge takes over a school district (Kansas City) and runs it down to the last detail, even creating new facilities and raising taxes (without representation) to pay for it?

Now, here you’ve got a point. It seems a bit of a stretch for a court to be able to compel a school district in this way.

But then that wasn’t the original issue — it was the more general, black and white issue of whether a court should be able to “legislate from the bench”.

If we deny courts the ability to override the legislature, we eliminate the primary way it has to protect our rights.

Once we allow for it at all we’re back to arguing whether a particular action was wise or not — and I’d be the last person to suggest that every action of every court has been wise.

Aug 18, 2004 - 7:20 am 203. Fresh Air:

Jerry–

Okay. I suppose a little braggadocio is par for the course with Harkin. But let’s not forget Harkin is still a horse’s ass.

Tying this back down to Kerry, I ran across an article from the good old days when Foreign Ministers Harkin and Kerry were trying to business with another communist, Danny Ortega.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane to 1985:

Reagan was in the middle of a delicate balancing act - seeking the release of a $14 million appropriation for the Nicaraguan resistance.

On the table: an offer to limit U.S. aid to the Contras to humanitarian assistance. The quid pro quo: the Sandinistas would agree to national reconciliation and free elections.

The scene was set for Kerry to bluster into the equation like a bull in a China shop.

Teaming with Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the pair - without portfolio - traveled to Managua to chat with Sandinista junta leader Daniel Ortega.

The result: a meaningless document that State Department experts considered little more than an offer to the Contras to surrender. The Sandinistas made no commitment to national reconciliation, and that was the heart of the matter.

Nonetheless, Kerry raced back to Washington with the document he touted as a “peace proposal.”

“Here,” Kerry boldly pronounced to the Senate, “is a guarantee of the security interest of the United States.”…

But few bought the grandstanding. Overnight, Kerry found himself not the returning hero and peacemaker but a pariah….

A frantic Kerry had his staff seek out anybody willing to praise his efforts. The only takers were Sens. Teddy Kennedy, D-Mass., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who styled the controversial mission to Managua as a masterstroke forcing a recalcitrant Reagan to parley with the commies.

Ah yes, I remember it well. And to think these two Chamberlains could have accounted for 100% of the Democratic ticket this year.

Aug 18, 2004 - 7:21 am 204. Charlie (Colorado):

I am going to come to Harkins defense in a limited manner. If Harkins was a Naval Aviator then he bore a substantial peacetime risk, unless he flew P-3s which are little more than glorified airliners. If he flew carrier based aircraft or Helos he bore the same flying Risks as GWB with the added risk of operating at sea.

Jerry, I agree with you, except in that it appears Harkin claimed to have actually been in combat. Flying fighters, good. Lying about your combat record, bad.

Aug 18, 2004 - 7:28 am 205. jerry:

Charlie, Fresh Air:

I said limited defense. I clearly stated that he was out of line in his personal attack on Cheney. I just thought fair is fair. If I am going to cite the risks of service in defense of GWB I felt it necessary to go the extra mile and point out that Harkins’ service was hardly risk free.

Aug 18, 2004 - 7:52 am 206. M. Simon:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/18/kerry_disputes_allegations_on_cambodia?mode=PF

notice how the tone of a pro Kerry Boston Globe reporter is starting to shift.

The anti-Kerry quote was the last one in the article.

========

Why was John Kerry mistaken about Christmas eve in Cambodia? Because poor John’s brain was seared. He has never been the same since. He said so himself.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Aug 18, 2004 - 9:59 am 207. richard mcenroe:

Charlie (Harkin) ó FWIW: It turns out Harkin was a shuttle pilot, assigned to fly jets from Vietnam back to higher-echelon service depots in Japan. This would not have involved take-offs and landings at night and in inclement weather, since the need was not essential to the mission, unlike the air-defense missions ANG units in the states were flying. Also, even though the planes were being flown to Japan for servicing, they would have been certified as flight-worthy before being released from Vietnam. And the F-4 and F-8 Crusader both had vastly better safety records than the F-102.

Aug 18, 2004 - 8:13 pm 208. Sandy P:

–The blindness is in those who say it is just doing its job. It is not. It is accumulating excess power. What right is protected when a judge takes over a school district (Kansas City) and runs it down to the last detail, even creating new facilities and raising taxes (without representation) to pay for it?–

Quadrupled prop taxes, they had stuff that almost any school district would drool over, and after between $2-$4 BILLION and about 16 years, STILL couldn’t get accredited.

Anyone tells me more money for schools, I ask them to explain KC, MO.

They don’t even know what I’m talking about.

Aug 18, 2004 - 8:38 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: