When I say that substantial parts of the media are the New Reactionaries, I am not joking. That’s a heavy accusation, but I feel I have earned the right to make it because I have been a member of that media all of my adult life (longer than any other blogger that I know of). Yes, I was almost always an “imaginative writer” of novels and screenplays, but virtually all of those fictions had political content. I have no intention of disavowing any of them. Indeed I am proud of them. But somehow I have grown and changed over the years while many of my colleagues have not. Why is a big question, which I will deal with elsewhere (a book), but the results of this inability to change on the part of many have turned them into a new form of unconscious reactionaries. And like most reactionaries of the past, they are quite willing to lie and distort for what they consider a larger good.
Sometimes they are caught in their prevarications, as with yesterday’s now vanished “booing” allegations by the Associated Press, and sometimes they attempt to tell us that what any intelligent adult would know is important is unimportant (as with John Kerry’s lies about Cambodia on the floor of the US Senate), but the reactionary behavior remains.
An interesting (but small) example is how I have been distorted. In tomorrow’s Newsday there will be a number of quotes from those who blogged at the Republican Convention. While crossing the country yesterday, I received two urgent emails from a gentleman named Seifert from that newspaper. My email box gets rather clogged and, despite dodgy WiFi connections, I could easily have missed them, but I did manage to read them. They asked permission to excerpt my blog, without providing the excerpts they had in mind (a normal and professional thing to do – I would have). I smelled a rat, but gave them permission to do so as a test. And guess what? They chose the most anti-Bush remarks I made, highlighting my firm opposition to the President on the social issues. You would have to read these excerpts very closely to realize that I unequivocally support Bush in the election and would no more vote for John Kerry for President in an era of terrorism than for a protester on Seventh Avenue. (I will provide the Newsday link tomorrow, if it is available.)
Interesting times indeed. If the latest poll numbers are in any way predictive of this election, if Bush wins by five or more points, the big loser will not be the Democratic Party (it can realign like all political parties), but the mainstream media. They will have more trouble because their level of self-understanding and therefore self-criticism is practically non-existent.
UPDATE: Michael Totten amplifies.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
154 Comments
1. Connecticut Yankee:Roger–
If you’re collecting examples of lies and distortions (as if you need more, sad to say), Dale Franks took apart Richard Cohen’s column in the WaPo this morning:
“I’m wondering if he was watching the same convention I was. I saw a convention that had a few rhetorical excesses, but no personal attacks or hatred. One gets tired of repeating oneself, but, while I heard plenty of criticisms of Mr. Kerry’s record in the senate, his positions on the issues, or his public statements, personal criticisms of Mr. Kerry were remarkably muted. Mr. Cohen, of course, gives no examples of this hatred. But he knows it was expressed, so, presumably, we must take his word for it.
It’s perfectly acceptable for Mr. Kerry to allege that the president mislead us into war in Iraq. Just normal political discourse, you see. But to criticize Mr. Kerry, well, that’s just hateful. Mr. Bush has been derided as a dunce, an avatar of fascism, a subverter of the constitution, and worse. Yet strong criticism of Mr. Kerry’s public life can’t be allowed.
Is there anything for which Mr. Kerry can be criticized? I don’t ask to be snarky, I am honestly wondering. It almost seems as if any criticism of Mr. Kerry, for any reason, is beyond the pale. It’s as if no statement Mr. Kerry has ever made, no senate vote ever recorded, no policy stance he’s ever held can be criticized….
Cohen, as well as his mainstream media compatriots, is arguing for what is essentially a loaded deck against Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry cannot be strongly criticized, yet Mr. Kerry and his surrogates are allowed to spout any nonsense about Mr. Bush that they desire. The logical outcome of this would be a campaign where Mr. Kerry would be allowed to harshly criticize Mr. Bush and his performance, while Mr. Bush would have to refrain from any serious examination of Mr. Kerry’s public life.”
http://qando.net/archives/004006.htm
Roger, your blog is truly an oasis of sanity.
Sep 4, 2004 - 8:18 am 2. Jim in Texas:Roger,
The Internet has given us an Army of fact checkers to deploy on the Battalions of fact benders and that is good.
But more than that, the Internet has given us, all of us, lateral communications. We first saw that phenomenon when “Time” and “CNN” tried to shove that “U.S. used gas in Laos” a few years ago and got their heads handed to them (justifiably) The sophistication of that capability has already grown exponentially and the media still thinks they can exercise ?damage control? and regain what they have already have lost.
As the fax machine contributed to the fall of the soviet Empire, the Internet will contribute to the fall of media monoliths.
Giddy and scary times ahead!
Sep 4, 2004 - 8:19 am 3. richard mcenroe:This is the same Newsday whose publisher was just fired by Tribune for falsifying its circulation figures.
Sep 4, 2004 - 8:41 am 4. nadadoc:” your blog is truly an oasis of sanity.” Yes, a thousand time yes. I have one old friend who has changed political views with the times. The rest are still stuck in the 60’s. What bothers me the most is that they have absolutely no curiosity about how and why I’ve changed. They think I’ve been brainwashed by right wing media. On the other hand, they think Michael Moore is gospel. OMG
Sep 4, 2004 - 8:48 am 5. Sandy P:Watch your back.
Really bad statement coming, but I’m going to write it anyway.
Sometimes espousing (some) conservative beliefs is like being a Christian fed to the lions.
And every time you do, more “research” for the book.
Dare I even write, and I don’t know how it’s going to come across in this medium, that this is your cross to bear?
I’m writing these w/tongue-in-cheek.
Sep 4, 2004 - 8:50 am 6. Connecticut Yankee:Roger, were you and David Gelernter separated at birth? I just read his new column in the Weekly Standard, in which he takes on “the reactionary left.” Gelernter first makes a case for describing the Left’s hatred of conservatives as “racist,” and then adds this conclusion:
“Reactionaries recoil from new ideas and try to suppress and defeat them. They want things to stay the same. Hence their racist hatred of uppity white conservatives, who have developed the cheek to threaten the left’s cultural power. Such institutions as Fox News and the conservative Washington think tanks are hugely disturbing to reactionary liberals. The president faces the same thinking as he tries to set policy for post-Cold War America. Reactionary liberals want everything to stay just the same. All trends must continue just as they have been. (Judges must continue to subvert democracy; Congress must continue to create new entitlements.) We must treat the new totalitarians just the same as we once were forced to treat the Soviets–gingerly. Our goal must be not to liberate their victims, not to defeat and disarm their military machines, but to arrange dÈtente with their dictators–just as we once did. (DÈtente with Saddam was French and Russian policy until we screwed things up.) Our antiquated pre-cell phone, pre-microchip laws and regulations must stay just the same (kill the Patriot Act!), and we must sit still and wait politely for the next terrorist outrage, just as we always have.
Bush has a simple message for the reactionary left: The times change and we change with them. He is a progressive conservative–and a progressive president in the best sense. And he has established his greatness in record time.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/580vwath.asp
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:03 am 7. Barry Dauphin:Well, there’s more to come. Check out this story from the Guardian: George Jr sent out of Texas by father as a ‘drunken liability’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1296350,00.html
Wow is Susan Estrich prescient or what! Of course, does anyone not already know that Bush drank too much and carried on in his 20s & 30s. It will be interesting to see how this plays. If Bush handles this all calmly and confidently, they’ll wish they had never done this. This seems to be done more to try to rattle Bush & Co than get the public questioning. If fact it’s so transparent and ham fisted that it gives the impression that the Kerry campaign is so inept, they don’t even know how to throw dirt.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:05 am 8. Charlie (Colorado):Is there anything for which Mr. Kerry can be criticized? I don’t ask to be snarky, I am honestly wondering. It almost seems as if any criticism of Mr. Kerry, for any reason, is beyond the pale. It’s as if no statement Mr. Kerry has ever made, no senate vote ever recorded, no policy stance he’s ever held can be criticized….
Of course not. He was in Vietnam, don’t'cha know.
In the mean time, The Guardian has discovered, breathlessly, that George W used to drink; CBS is about to reveal that the once Lieutenant Governor of Texas helped George W get into the Guard — some months before he was elected; and Susan Estrich says the Democrats are now going to go negative, “fascist moron chimp” not having been negative apparently.
All to try and get the topic off Kerry.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:09 am 9. OldManRick:The Newsweek poll just came out and it matches the time poll exactly.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=3&u=/ap/20040904/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_polls_glance
Strange but comforting. I like to believe that the American people can see through the BS. I don’t think the press realizes that they have made the internet more powerful by their slanting the news. It first started with talk radio. It was almost too easy to find an article where the press had distorted the story, report the distortion, and then spin from there. This was a major portion of Rush Limbaugh’s schtick. Once people started to find that what they were told in the press was suspect, Rush took off. Th internet is even better at it. A million eyes watching out for distortion and the ability to quickly coordinate individuals who would not otherwise know of each others existance. the smart talk radio hosts (like Hewitt) are using bloggers as their researchers. An interesting synergy.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:11 am 10. dougf:I had already read Cohen’s tendentious drivel before it was linked here in an earlier post. I was intending to send him an anti-polite e-mail pointing out his flaws as a journalist and as a person,but my system was too slow at the time and I decided it simply was not worth the effort.And I had previously told him in how much regard I held him ,to no effect whatsoever.
Cohen is a ‘highly rated’example of what is wrong with the media.He has zero intellectual honesty.Zero.In fact he has such a lack of that trait that he would not even think to examine his beliefs or actions if you were to get in his face and tell him that he was in fact dishonest.It it only HIS outlook that matters;if you do not agree—- you are a boob and therefore he simply ignores you(ever so tolerantly and condescendingly of course).The media simply cannot ever be reformed.Like the current incarnation of the Democratic Party it will have to,in effect,disappear and be re-invented after the brain dead segment of the boomers dies off.It maddens me that I am a BOOMER myself and have to witness these creatures continue to run amok with the truth.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:14 am 11. Rick Z:An oasis of sanity indeed–and a remarkable virtual community as well. Living in the radical new-age “fever swamp” of Marin County, California, this site is currently my only intellectual lifeline.
RE topic: Just as a system is defined as a process controlled by one or more feedback mechanisms, the cultural and political institutions of our civilization must be open to negative feedback to adapt, evolve and grow. Institutional failure, by extension, happens when channels for useful feedback fail to accurately reflect contrary opinion.
It has been apparent for quite some time that the Democrats and their MSM and cultural/academic auxilliaries just don’t get it. They’ve become monocultures incapable of resisting the power of new ideas and perspectives. They condescend when they should be making every effort to comprehend, and crudely vilify those who live outside their bubble. In the process, they are alienating ever larger segments of the market that supports them.
Failure can be highly instructive. The US auto industry learned and adapted from the success of foreign competition in the 1980s, just as the US military reinvented itself after Vietnam. The old media will get it, or perish. This election will (to mix metaphors) hopefully prove to be their Toyota/Tet offensive.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:20 am 12. Charlie (Colorado):Just by the way, I’m normally fairly even tempered about politics, on the basis that I’ve seen all this before. But I’m beginning to really get pissed off.
Oh, eeek. And as I type Fox is reporting an explosion at LAX. Roger, I hope you’ve got a kevlar fedora.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:20 am 13. Charlie (Colorado):RE topic: Just as a system is defined as a process controlled by one or more feedback mechanisms, the cultural and political institutions of our civilization must be open to negative feedback to adapt, evolve and grow. Institutional failure, by extension, happens when channels for useful feedback fail to accurately reflect contrary opinion.
Folks, I think we’ve found another true geek.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:23 am 14. Connecticut Yankee:Here’s another example of contemporary journalism at its finest: Beldar (a trial lawyer in his day job) is dissecting Michael Kranish’s biography of Kerry. By page xxvi in the Intro, Beldar has his doubts about the accuracy of the bio:
Do these actions reflect the conflicts of a powerful intellect, of a man who appreciates nuance in policy and deeds but sometimes has trouble translating it to a mass audience? Do his statements and votes on military force reflect the natural caution of a man who was severely wounded in combat, who watched men under his command die, who lost five of his best friends in a war that ended in U.S. withdrawal? …
Beldar comments, “I’m wondering if maybe this book is actually about former Sen. Bob Kerrey. I’m almost certain that John Kerry wasn’t ever ’severely wounded’ because I Google-searched his campaign website for that phrase and got zero hits. Maybe he was ’severely wounded,’ and just didn’t tell anyone on his campaign staff, d’ya think? I’m in suspense ? must resist the urge to skip ahead in the book to find out whether he survived or not!…. And I’m pretty sure that if Kerry’d had a crewman die in his arms, Doug Brinkley would have already written the major motion picture movie script and Spielberg would have rushed it into production.”
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/09/kranish_book_ma.html
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:24 am 15. Connecticut Yankee:Er, Roger, I don’t think Beldar meant to imply that Brinkley would be any competition for you!
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:27 am 16. Charlie (Colorado):Here’s the Guardian story.
I was going to write something to the effect of “have they no shame?”, and then I realized it was just a rhetorical question.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:30 am 17. Connecticut Yankee:Charlie (Colorado)–
What’s this about an explosion at LAX? Fox just says now that there was “a possible security breach and a separate incident at an international terminal security screening station,” and that planes were being diverted from the airport.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:35 am 18. Samuel:This is why I said I am honestly going from being not simply a Neocon Jew which for me has been…
“a liberal with sanity”
to a bonified South Park Republican. This as I described yesterday and paraphrased by the creator of South Park is…
“I really don’t like Conservatives but I just hate fucking Liberals.”
Not one ounce of exaggeration in that statement, my contempt is that high.
Roger, I so look forward to your book as I am and have always been more the lover of non-fiction, the liberal-left seems to loves things stranger then fiction.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:41 am 19. cdhall:The link points to a related example. Redwood Dragon (Dave Trowbridge) links to a months-old blog entry, by a self-professed Bush-hater, describing Bush flipping off some protestors. Trowbridge’s conclusion: What a pathetic, fragile, little man our president is. I’m surprised he hasn’t commented on the evil booing republicans yet.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:51 am 20. Charlie (Colorado):Yankee, I’m just reporting what I heard. I’m listening to CSPAN waiting for Zell Miller’s speech (which I haven’t actually heard yet, just read.)
He’s coming on directly.
On another topic, I hit on a thought a couple of threads previously that probably belongs better in this thread — although I don’t have more thoughts to add yet.
That notion is that people like VD Hanson, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, effectively are part of the same “new reactionary” group. Well, maybe not Pat Buchanan, he’s probably an old reactionary, but you know what I mean: the people for whom change is so threatening that they can’t help but see change as collapse and death.
Robert Anton Wilson called them Homo neophilius and Homo neophobus. Maybe that’s it: fear of novelty and change.
Sep 4, 2004 - 10:09 am 21. Rhod:Roger:
If the Democrats lose by five or more percentage points, they will “realign”, as you say, but it will be a bloodbath of recrimination and resentment this time around. Realignment indeed, with purges, power struggles and new public faces.
For that matter, there is scant distinction between the thinking (on things that matter) either in the media OR the Democratic Party. Reactionary is the kindest word for it; it is clearly isolationist, with a large dose of revanche to keep the blood boiling.
Sep 4, 2004 - 10:25 am 22. Samuel:I am sure Fox News beating the major news networks in ratings during the RNC Convention (an all-time first), is going to drive these guys nuts, but they are just too blind with hatred to address it properly.
Zell Miller accused the Democrats of having an obsession to bring down our President that crossed the line of risking the destruction to our nation. I see the same thing in the MSM. I see a group that wants to destroy political enemies and media competition through aggressive negative means yet did Fox News become #1 by those very means? No it did it the old fashioned way, it outflanked them and put forward a better product.
When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 it was because they brought forth an agenda, anything the Republicans did negative came back to bite. The Contract with America was simply 10 points of policy goals. Democrats and the MSM’s obsession in those days of referring to it as a “Contract on America” just seemed cute to them yet it didn’t do the job for them did it? These types of mistakes are exaggerated in today’s media. I’ll tell you how sick it is becoming for me.
When the Republicans call Kerry the most Liberal Senator in the Senate is that a smear or is it simply how he is most recently rated by a legitimate system of rating? They sure act like it is a smear. When they say Kerry missed certain key votes, is it a smear? When Kerry is called for supporting cutting the Military and Intelligence gathering capabilities, is it a smear? George Bush said that in Texas that “swagger” we see is called “walking”, well what the MSM calls smears, I call truth. Truth sets free the innocent and condemns the guilty. John Kerry and the MSM can’t hide their guilt so they will continue to attack the messengers.
When more often then not Democrat voting Swifty O’Neil refers to John Kerry as “Unfit for Command” is that a Republican smear? If 250 former Vietnam Vets came forward calling Bush unfit due to his skimpy National Guard service even without much further information, would the MSM declare them “Arms of the Democratic Party”? No way! These Swifties have multitudes of facts on their side and for every one inconsistency that might be found in their testimony, multitudes of other facts more then outweigh such inconsistency, yet the media focuses on the one to the favor of Kerry.
I give you Democrats some advice my father gave me. I was a good Athlete, but I can also have strong feelings about what is fair. He said, “Don’t waste your time arguing with Referees and Umpires complaining about things you can’t change, it wastes time, steals mental sharpness and just makes you look like a damn sore loser.” I give Democrats that very same advice. Play the rules fair and square, the Referees are already on your side. When the calls going your way prove to not be enough anymore, don’t go even further by crying, cheating, and acting like you are being robbed because you feel victory is a birthright. QUIT BEING SORE LOSERS.
People like winners, I will predict that many fence sitters are going to hop off of some fences and go with which ever Party wins the next big victory in a Presidential election. We have not had a Popular Vote winner (greater than 50%) since the 1980’s and that is pretty damn significant if one thinks about it. I believe we see this day arriving.
It has been predicted that demographically the Democrats are poised for majority status as the demographics of population is changing to the favor of Democrats, however this is based on assumptions that should never be made. Who would have predicted 90% of African American’s voting for Democrats, the Party of the Confederacy and Southerners for the Party of Lincoln? The truth is the Party that embodies progress and hope is the Party most deserving and that Party is not the Democrats, well not to this ex-Democrat that is for sure. They peddle fear and hate, and don’t play fair. They are spoiled brat losers and I have no desire to be part of such.
Sep 4, 2004 - 10:48 am 23. Charlie (Colorado):Re: the explosion.
The last I heard was that a leaky flashlight battery had exploded, injuring seven people.
??!
Sep 4, 2004 - 10:49 am 24. kodis:Newsweek also seems to have some fairly severe accuracy problems. Remember the Rumsfeld memo that was leaked a few months back, in which Rumsfeld asked his staff a series of rhetorical “What can we do better?” type of questions?
In a Newsweek article published on the MSNBC web site, Eleanor Clift distorts or misquotes Rumsfeld in order to translate these attempts at self-improvement into admissions of failure.
Now, thanks to the web, we can fact-check Ms. Clift’s, uhm, article. Here’s what Rumsfeld said:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/rumsfeld-memo.htm
… and here, for your fact-checking pleasure, in an article ironically titled “Rare Candor”, is what she said he said:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/984733.asp
It’s beginning to look like Newsweek has given up on reporting on the news of the week and has remake itself into a weekly journal of fiction. That’s quite a loss, but one that seems to be becoming more common.
Sep 4, 2004 - 10:57 am 25. Catherine:Guys, guys, guys—–
Come on!
Bush jumps to a double-digit lead in two polls and we’re moaning about the MSM?
We’re getting into Sore Winner territory here.
I don’t hate liberals.
I don’t hate liberals under any circumstances, though I get plenty Conflictual with liberals & they with me, but I certainly don’t hate liberals when my team is winning.
Daily News quote of Roger
Well, I haven’t seen the article yet, but to me it seems like a patented Roger Simon Bush-sucks-on-social-issues quote is a fine development.
a) I don’t see where it does any harm whatsoever to Roger or any of the commenters here (it would be good for me if anyone I know were to see it).
b) It suits my purposes just fine in terms of the Republican Party, because it’s one more little bit of pressure on the Party to stick to the center where I want it to be.
c) I think it’s fantastic for the Democratic Party, because, again, I want the DLC folks to TAKE THE WHOLE THING OVER. Enough with Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, blah-blah-blah: I would like the Democratic Party to take a serious look at the people they’re losing (i.e. Roger & me & Samuel & Terrye & various others here) by hewing to the Michael Moore line on life.
As long as Michael Moore is running things, I’ll be here, not there.
Put Mickey Kaus in charge; then we’ll talk.
So . . . I’ll have to see what the article looks like.
ownership society
Have people read David Brooks today?
I’m completely, totally, 100% behind the ownership society.
The huge irony for me is that, increasingly, I first came to support President Bush on national security.
Now I’m less confident in his approach to the WOT, but I’m sold on his domestic policy!
He’s pretty amazing.
http://nytimes.com/2004/09/04/opinion/04brooks.html?hp
Sep 4, 2004 - 10:59 am 26. Michael J. Totten:So Newsday made you appear more “liberal” than you are. Others make you out to be more conservative than you are. I guess you can’t win. Does anyone ever describe you as a centrist?
The very concept of centrism seems to have been annihilated. I guess its inevitable at a time when we’re supposed to take sides in an election, but still. Lame.
At least they didn’t call you a cheerleader (or a member) of a cabal.
Sep 4, 2004 - 11:30 am 27. Lapsed Randian:Roger:
Re: your specific post, Thomas Sowell’s 1987 book, A Conflict of Visions, comes to mind. One of the premises of the book is that people will do almost anything for their vision of the world, except think about it. Thinking about one’s vision of the world is obviously the first step in changing one’s vision. Thus the scant number of people who ever really change their minds and/or visions.
If I may say so, one of the most interesting things about your perspective on the world as set out in this blog is that it is driven by a changed perspective, seperate and apart from the content of that perspective.
There is a great quote from Betrand Russell that explains this phenomena: “Every man, whereever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.” The bare fact is that most of us are content with our same old squadron of flies.
That old coot Russell sure had a way of putting things.
Sep 4, 2004 - 11:36 am 28. jdwill:Catherine:
The Brooks article is very good. Seems I saw somewhere that the Republicans are going all ‘Hamiltonian’
I’m pretty open to the social policy, but I really liked the term “Liberty Century” and am hoping it will take off as a meme.
As to sore winners, well chicken, count, watch. I am very interested in anyone who can point out a good link for tracking MSM stuff like
1. AP’s Boo-Boo
2. Lapham the magnificient sees all in the future
3. Swifties sink 100 million tons of 527 shipping with a 500K torpedo – NYT can’t be reached for comment
4. Evans assigns 15 point margin to MSM tailwind
Glenn Reynolds, who is no chicken little (sorry about the chicken thing) said that he thought that a MSM dedicated to controlling an election was a VERY BAD THING.
Sep 4, 2004 - 11:48 am 29. Catherine:jdwill
As to sore winners, well chicken, count, watch
LOL!
OK, point taken, so I am going to Change Cliches in the Middle of the Stream:
No kicking a man when he’s down.
In the case of Kerry himself I’d probably make an exception to the rule.
But in the case of liberals, I’m all smiles while the numbers stay good.
I can always get mad later.
meanwhile back at the ranch
oooooo . . . . this is good.
From Michael Moore’s column “Why Democrats Shouldn’t Be Afraid.”
Yeah, Mike.
Give me a reason.
Make my day.
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:03 pm 30. Syl:Catherine. Thank you. As always you are a breath of fresh air. I consider Bush’s foreign policy vision breathtaking, now I feel that way about his domestic policy too.
——-
As for the media, I feel positive here too. The MSM is still very strong and eternal vigilance is a necessity. But they aren’t the only voices anymore.
I’m proud of Foxnews. I remember a year ago talking to Joe about Fox and saying they have so few viewers it’s depressing. I have never considered Fox a Republican outlet nor an arm of the administration. Foxnews may or may not be literally ‘Fair and Balanced’ but it gives voice to the ‘other’ POV without ridicule and gives these views respect by neither belittling nor ignoring them.
Joe said it didn’t matter how few viewers, it still has an effect.
And so it does.
And I believe Foxnews has had more effect than talk radio and bloggers because it is, afterall, a visual medium, but put them altogether and there is a revolution of sorts happening.
And it’s not a revolution in the sense that people are changing their minds and acting out, it’s more an empowerment in that respect. Many Americans are discovering that their views are okay to have and express and stand up for. In fact some Americans are finally discovering what their views really are.
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:09 pm 31. Catherine:Rick Z
Failure can be highly instructive. The US auto industry learned and adapted from the success of foreign competition in the 1980s, just as the US military reinvented itself after Vietnam. The old media will get it, or perish.
Wonderful!
That’s why I think this election, if Bush wins significantly, will be good for the country & good for the Democrats.
Samuel
You betcha.
That sentiment exactly was a Big Passage in my “Big Talk” with my husband.
In his Real Life he would never argue with the ref, and I don’t think it had crossed his mind that that’s what the Dems are doing when they react to the Swifties by calling foul.
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:13 pm 32. Catherine:Syl
Great post!
I have to start paying more attention to Fox News (I don’t watch much TV these days . . . )
I should probably read the book about them, assuming I can remember the title.
BTW, I’ve begun to wonder whether the C-Span airing of Kerry’s 1971 testimony has had a big effect.
This massive 13-point bounce can’t be from the convention alone, can it?
We’re all focused on the Swifties’ ads, but let me tell you: the testimony was a Big Mack Truck in the china shop, that’s for sure.
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:18 pm 33. Catherine:Well I’m hoping Rick B &/or Samuel will show up here soon (we need some kind of special Bat Cave signal here on the blog) because I am seriously not getting what’s going on.
Why is there a 13-point bounce?
Why is there a 13-point bounce when there weren’t 13 points out there to pick up?
Why is there a 13-point bounce when incumbents never get 13-point bounces?
Why is Bush suddenly Doing A Good Job, Deserves To Be Re-elected, and why is the Country suddenly Headed In The Right Direction?
How did all this stuff change overnight?
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:21 pm 34. Priscilla:“So Newsday made you appear more “liberal” than you are. Others make you out to be more conservative than you are.”
Newsday didn’t cherry-pick those quotes to make Roger appear more liberal that he is – the point was to make it appear that he would not be likely vote for Bush because of those liberal views.
The MSM is choosing to ignore the overwhelming evidence that many liberal hawks are choosing to be single issue voters in 2004 – this despite high profile examples like Ed Koch and Ron Silver. Apparently, the concept of national security trumping other issues in a wartime election doesn’t “resonate” with them……
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:21 pm 35. Jamie Irons:Charlie, you wrote:
To that I can only say:
“We fear change.”
//”Garth” in “Wayne’s World”
Jamie Irons
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:22 pm 36. jdwill:Catherine:
I must say that Moore is actually very good at connecting with people. He has a common man touch. That makes him dangerous, though if proper fact checking is published, he may be a very big liability for some Dems.
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:22 pm 37. Terrye:Roger:
So are you going to write a nasty letter stating they failed your test?
I will if you want. Just think how surprised people will be if they link to your blog and find Dennis or John Moore or the convert Samuel. Scare those poor liberal reactionaries to death.
As for the Guardian, why bother reading them? I honestly do not know any American who will base their vote on what the Guardian had to say about Bush being a drunk. After all if Ted Kennedy is still in Washington how big a deal can it be. And the whole Tang thing: I think most people will be divided between who cares and why are we hearing about this now?
I suggest the Dems should make up bumper stickers that say the National Guard is for pussies and see what how far that gets them.
I am with Catherine here, there is not enough room in that party for me and Michael the crazy man Moore. And I don’t really hate liberals.
I just think they have a weird perspective and like Samuel said they are sore losers.
Nobody likes a sore loser.
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:24 pm 38. Catherine:linked to by instapundit:
I wonder if this is it?
My husband has thrown in the towel on Kerry and he’s not a quitter. If he liked Kerry, he’d go down fighting.
But he doesn’t like him.
He said today, “It’s the Wisdom of the Crowds. Nobody wanted John Kerry in the primaries. He was a pure default candidate.”
Of course we all knew that, Democrats & Republicans alike, but I guess I’ve never seen what happens when a candidate who has no fans at all gets in trouble in a race.
So . . . let’s just hope John Kerry is no Paul Hamm.
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:33 pm 39. inkling:Terrye, the Guardian is a classic set-up man in the media bullpen. When you have a pure ad hominem, National Enquirer-type story like this one, patrician outlets like the New York Times and the major networks are reluctant to be the first to break it. The hyper-partisan Guardian has no such scruples. Now the door is open to the Times et al. to run with it, by using the lead, “A British newspaper is reporting that….”
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:46 pm 40. Knucklehead:Can Bush’s relection bid survive this?
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:46 pm 41. jdwill:Really good link by the professor.
shut up, they explained.
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:48 pm 42. Catherine:jdwill
I must say that Moore is actually very good at connecting with people. He has a common man touch
Well, Moore’s got the same problem Bush does: the MSM loathes the guy.
Loathes him.
You may not have noticed the fact that Moore spends as much time bashing the media as we do . . . and given what a BFL he is (Big Fat Liar) he’s been dismantled by probably every mainstream publication & radio/TV news show out there.
I’m not anti-MSM exactly. I’d like to see publications like the TIMES & NEWSWEEK, etc., adopt the “fair and balanced” approach Fox uses; I think that might go a long way towards dialing down the culture wars.
What I like about Fox’s “fair and balanced” is that the policy concedes that the network may in fact tilt conservative, but there is a commitment to represent the other side of any issue seriously, and not as a straw man. (I’m not sure Fox lives up to this, but I think they do at least on occasion, right?)
But forget Fox, Michael Dobb’s very long investigative piece on the Swifties in WAPO is the model for me.
The headline was slanted to Kerry (Kaus has said the TIMES has a “headline problem” over and beyond a reporting problem, and he’s right).
But the article itself was fine. It was great, in fact.
The entire point of the article was to look into everything the Swifties have said, look into the records, track down the witnesses, and give everyone a fair hearing.
Good enough.
And: here’s a datum.
My husband’s attitude towards the Swifties after reading the TIMES’ piece was basically: lying scumbag Republican tools.
After reading Dobbs in WAPO the Swifties were people entitled to their opinion.
Big difference.
He still thought the Swifties were over the top, out of line, and secretly working with Karl Rove.
But after reading Dobbs, he knew they weren’t lying, and he knew that some of what they were saying was probably true.
That’s all it takes to restore sanity to a conversation.
So I’d like to see the MSM simply make a commitment to a serious, fair, non-straw-man representation of the Other Guy’s view in its coverage. Listing liberal while being fair at the same time would be a big improvement.
But even if no major media organs make changes of that kind, we do have diversity in voice and ideas now. Evan Thomas is almost certainly wrong about the ability of CNN & Newsweek to deliver a 15 point bounce to John Kerry or anyone else.
I want diversity.
I’d like to see the MSM move to a fair-and-balanced model, but even if they don’t, the NPR takedown of Moore is reason enough to have them around.
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:53 pm 43. Terrye:If you look at the Guardian there is a poll on there for president. Maybe if a few thousand yanks signed on to vote for Bush it would freak them out.
Catherine:
I think the bounce came about because Americans remembered how they felt about Bush after 9/11 and before the character attacks and political back stabbing and anti war demonstrations. I think most Americans believe that Bush will do whatever he can to protect us. I think the tears in eyes when he spoke of the dead soldiers and their families gave people one of the rare moments of truth. They thought “We are seeing the man.”
And that makes the Kerry people with their distrust of freedom of speech seem tacky and trivial and pathetic in comparison. But who knows what will happen? Obvioulsy things can change.
Syl:
There were demonstrators carrying signs that said Shut down Fox. One more reason to watch them.
Sep 4, 2004 - 12:56 pm 44. jdwill:Catherine:
Wow, you type fast.
Re the 13 points:
Kerry’s Perfect Storm
(or how I learned to quit worrying about getting elected and love things that go BUMP in the night):
1. Swift Vet Story
2. Hasn’t interviewed with press for a month (see 1)
3. Some moderate criticism in the GOP convention
There wasn’t 13 points of undecided to pick up. That would mean IMO that Kerry lost some people.
I agree with Kathleen Parker that they were Jacksonian Democrats, or something like that.
Sep 4, 2004 - 1:04 pm 45. Jamie Irons:Catherine (12:53 Post):
You’re too damn fair-minded!
Jamie Irons
(He who has become unfair and darn near unbalanced in his views of the MSM since, oh, March, 2003)
By the way, does anyone want to join my new 527, which I am thinking of calling BPSTPDOTTCT, “Blog Posters Supporting The Painful Death Of The TypeCast Timer”?
Sep 4, 2004 - 1:08 pm 46. Terrye:inkling:
Even if the Times publishes something like the Guardian piece what will it do?
Democrats have tolerated the serial womanizer Clinton, the drunk with the dead girl friend Kennedy, the KKK Byrd. They obvioulsy have a high threshold in terms of moral indignation and thanks to their antics the rest of us are kinda burned out by now.
After you have said or implied that the president of the US let thousands of Americans die for money, what else is there?
So Bush drank and Jackson killed a man in a duel and Thomas Jefferson had children with a slave and JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe and FDR had a mistress for decades.
What od these uptight progressives want, a celibate preacher who does not drink? I thought people like that scared them.
Sep 4, 2004 - 1:10 pm 47. Terrye:Jamie:
Just tell me where to send the check.
Sep 4, 2004 - 1:11 pm 48. jdwill:Catherine:
I’m a Vietnam era veteran. That is, I didn’t go there, but served in the Army from 70-73. I was skeptical about the Swift Vets story because, well, why 30 years later? I have since read a lot on this and am less skeptical. At minimum, JFK showed enormously bad judgement in parroting the Winter Soldier lies to Congress. For that alone, I could not vote for him.
As to the NYT on this issue, if the shoe fits:
Vladimir Bukovsky’s description of how people in the Soviet Union gleaned their facts. Describing Pravda and Izvestia he said:
They often denounced ”anti-Soviet lies.”
These lies had never been reported by them.
Nor were they lies.
And their exposure was the first that readers had been told of them.
Sep 4, 2004 - 1:12 pm 49. Catherine:Jamie Irons
You’re too damn fair-minded!
Well let me tell you: my husband would NOT say the same.
And he would, unfortunately, be at least 50% right.
I just love love love these polls.
OK, I read the GUARDIAN article. No problems there, and the 60 MINUTES show will look dumb, obsessive, & OT.
The abortion story is the problem, potentially.
Mark Steyn has a great passage on the Bush “narrative”:
Sep 4, 2004 - 1:15 pm 50. Jamie Irons:jdwill:
Thanks for the Kathleen Parker…right on!
(Have to go out and oil mah weapons and change a tahr on the Chevy…)
Jamie Irons
Sep 4, 2004 - 1:16 pm 51. jdwill:Jamie Irons,
Waell, I’m a Meechigander with Kaintuck roots, and when Zell cranked it up, I was ready, let me tell you.
:->
Sep 4, 2004 - 1:24 pm 52. pst314:“Hence their racist hatred of uppity white conservatives…”
That hatred pales in comparison to how they feel about black conservatives. (Uncle Tom, race traitor? Wishing Justice Thomas eats too much butter and dies of heart disease? Without a doubt the center of racism in the West today is “progressive” politics.)
Sep 4, 2004 - 1:41 pm 53. Terrye:Catherine:
The whole abortion issue could backfire on the Democrats too.
I read some time ago that Bush changed because in part Laura would not have anything to do with him if he did not.
Now Bush’s private life in those days is none of my business and I don’t need to know this anymore than I need to see Kerry’s divorce papers unsealed.
Sep 4, 2004 - 1:53 pm 54. Catherine:hi Terrye
I put a lengthy post-query to Rick B on an earlier thread about the abortion issue . . . I think I’ll just re-post the relevant part here.
Given the 11 point spread, and assuming a large lead holds up, the abortion story probably doesn’t matter.
original post:
This morning’s FT reports that Rove believes Bush lost 4 million evangelical votes when revelations of drunk driving came out on the eve of the election. Those 4 million people stayed home instead of voting.
back to the future: The question is whether those same 4 million will stay home when they get wind of a George Bush-sponsored abortion (and I have no idea whether the story is going to be pre-religion or post-. If it is said to have happened before he “came to Jesus,” my guess is that the Rove 4 million will still vote for him, but that’s assuming I understand their view of forgiveness & redemption which I may not.
For everyone else in the country, the image of the Dems pursuing an abortion story is going to be seriously bad news.
These are the folks who are supposed to support a woman’s- right-to-choose.
They can go after him on hypocrisy, I guess, but few will care.
Most folks are “hypocritical” when it comes to revealing abortions, including evangelicals.
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:22 pm 55. Catherine:everyone
THE ECONOMIST just arrived, with a story on the protesters:
Now that’s my idea of Fair and Balanced coverage.
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:25 pm 56. lindenen:Honestly, while the abortion thing is possible, at the least it can’t be disproved, it’s so over the top sounding that it sounds made up. Like they’re going to accuse Bush of drowning kittens with his bare hands.
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:28 pm 57. Catherine:go here if you can
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/images/20040828/20040828issuecovUS400.jpg
It’s the cover of last week’s ECONOMIST.
Wonderful!
It’s a picture of Bush holding his Stetson aloft, and the headline is Je ne regrette rien.
“SPECIAL ISSUE ON THE BUSH PRESIDENCY”
I love it!
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:28 pm 58. Catherine:lindenen
Unfortunately, the abortion story isn’t over the top, and doesn’t sound made up when you hear it the way I heard it, which was thirdhand, from friends of friends of the Bush family (and I’m not referring to the member of the family who lives here, in my own town).
I have no idea whether it’s true or not, but it sure sounded plausible.
I also have no idea what Kitty Kelly was able to track down, but she’s persistent.
The problem is the evangelicals. Rove, everyone says, has based his strategy on rounding up the 4 million evangelical votes he lost or didn’t get the first time around.
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:32 pm 59. Charlie (Colorado):Catherine, I think the essential point is that the abortion story has been around, literally, since Bush ran against Ann Richards. As someone or other noted, Jerry — ah, hell, the guy that publishes Hustler, I was going to type “Jerry Falwell”, I know that’s not right — offered a million dollars to come forward with proof of the story and nothing ever came of it.
(You may recall this is the last guy who was willing to spend every penny of his personal fortune to defeat Bush in the last election.)
I suspect that we are seeing some of this starting — just as I suspect we saw some of the “brown book” material come out about the Swift Vets. But this isn’t a DUI that Bush never particularly mentioned and that no one knew about — this is something that’s been put up and extensively researched, and no proof has ever come out.
Oh, I’m sure that you’ll find people twenty years from now who think it must have been true, just as you’ll find people now who believe Jack Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA so that Johnson could take over and start the Vietnam War in order to make his friends rich. But I really do think that if there were any evidence for it, even limited evidence, it’d have been on the pages of the NYT for years.
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:36 pm 60. Trebek:Is this the same abortion story that Larry Flynt tried to float in 2000?
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:36 pm 61. Trebek:Thanks Charlie.
The fact that Bush’s National Guard Service popped back up again is proof that what’s old is new again as far as finding stuff to smear the Prez with. Short of the woman or the doctor saying she had the abortion, I don’t think the MSM is going to touch it even now.
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:41 pm 62. lindenen:Hmmm… I wonder what Samuel will have to say about this.
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:45 pm 63. Jamie Irons:Catherine
I had one of those very plausible sounding, friend of a friend type stories that came my way early in 2001 (when I was rabidly, and probably very stupidly, anti-Bush).
My brother had returned to Garrettsville, Ohio, the tiny town where I was born, to be with my father after my mother died. The next door neighbor had a cousin who was (allegedly) very high up in Bush circles. The story was rather complicated, and I no longer remember it exactly, but it purported to demonstrate that Bush was very, very drunk, and obnoxious, at a party in (I think about) 1998, long after his committment to sobriety.
I doubt the story now in retrospect. I think my skepticism at the time was rendered dull by my BDS.
Jamie Irons
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:47 pm 64. insatty:Roger’s Newsday problem is just another symptom of the disease that chased me from the Democrat party: The big-lie disease. The Dems are purveyors of the big lie accepted as fact. Consider: Gore really won Florida; Tax cuts cause deficits; Raising the minimum wage creates properity; The USA spends too much on the military; Corporations are evil; Poverty programs reduce poverty; Socialism works; Afghanistan and Iraq are quagmires; The Iraqis never greeted American troops as liberators; Drilling in ANWR will kill Moose (though none can live there); USA’s support of Israel caused Muslim extremism.
Since the Repub convention, Richard Cohen and his journalist ilk now accept newer lies as facts: The SBVs are Republican beards (even though O’Neill is a Democrat trial lawyer that gave thousands to Edwards); Zell lied; Kerry is no liberal; The Republicans are negative; today’s 5.4% unemployment-rate economy is much worst than Clinton’s 1996 5.6% economy.
The MSM is sick with this disease. If Bush wins, he will be the first elected president that had to overcome a $150 million propagandist-lie movie, independent expenditures against him at a 8 to 1 ratio, a star-studded concert tour, and the entire MSM and Entertainment industries. And what did Bush do to deserve these odds stacked against him? His increased government spending, even giving more to education and the arts? No. What makes Bush hated is that he took this nation to war against the islamofascists that declared war on us. Even if the Belsan School evil happened in New York, Chicago, or L.A., the Democrat big-lie disease would blame it on Bush or “Amerika.” These people must be defeated.
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:47 pm 65. Catherine:Jamie Irons
Well, I didn’t have Bush Disorder Syndrome at the time, and neither did the people who told me.
And they got it from a Bush family member, not a person high up in Bush circles.
That doesn’t make it true, and that’s not my concern in any case.
My concern is with the “Rove 4 million.”
Let me put it this way.
Kitty Kelly is extremely good at what she does. And she doesn’t make stuff up. (That I know of.)
OK, John Kerry is finished
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=kerryspitchbetteroutshin&prov=tsn&type=lgns
Sep 4, 2004 - 2:56 pm 66. Catherine:OK, I’m sorry, I have to Post This For Posterity:
Is it too late to get that into NEWSDAY?
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:00 pm 67. Catherine:So let’s just say the Bush video did its job:
Ummm . . . what is the right-hand batter’s box?
Of course, I realize that in posing this question I am conceding the fact that I personally will not be serving as our country’s First Woman President.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:04 pm 68. Catherine:o my god
OK, I just Googled up all the photos of John Kerry pitching at Fenway——–
How did this happen?
How is this guy running for president?
How does he have a staff who can’t tell him you don’t clutch the ball with your all-five fingers?
EVEN I KNOW HOW TO HOLD A BASEBALL.
I almost know how to pitch one.
And btw this matters, because baseball is the Church of America.
I’m serious.
It is the only American sport in which the President pitches the first ball of the season; the baseball stadium is the place where assemble to practice “civil religion.”
Forget Winter Soldier.
He probably lost the election on the pitch.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:13 pm 69. Catherine:Jamie Irons
Alright, have I succeeded yet in demonstrating the not-noticeably-fair-minded aspect of my character?
This Fenway thing has got me obsessed. Jeez. I just had no idea.
Here’s Kerry the Morning After:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040726-023652-7782r.htm
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:18 pm 70. Jamie Irons:Catherine
I hope my BDS friend of a friend story wasn’t offensive to you. I did not intend that way at all.
The batter occupies one of two (usually obscured by foot traffic over the “chalk”) batter’s boxes. The right-handed batter occupies the one to the right of the plate, as seen from the pitcher’s mound.
Jamie Irons
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:18 pm 71. penwil:Catherine,
The abortion story has been around as a rumor for years.
Re Rove’s 4 million . . . In 2000 they were affected by the DUI story because they didn’t quite trust the sincerity of Bush’s faith, given that his father had long been viewed by them as too much of a secularist. I don’t think they doubt any more that Bush is truly “born again” and that God and prayer play a part in his life. And complicit in the idea of being “born again” anyway is that you once were lost and now are found, so the abortion story would probably only matter if it came out that it was after his conversion and marriage to Laura.
But maybe even more than Bush himself, the biggest issue with Rove’s 4 million today is gay marriage. They are on fire over it. They are afraid that if gay marriage becomes the law of the land, their very faith will be attacked next, that the govenment will force their churches to conduct these marriages or loose their tax exempt status. Would this really happen–who knows? But the point is they believe it will happen and they find that intolerable, so Bush’s support of the man/woman marriage amendment is going to trump any abortion story that they’re probably heard about already and either aren’t inclined to believe in the first place because it stinks of a Dem smear campaign, or they figure it’s pre-conversion and if God’s forgiven it, then so can they.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:19 pm 72. Tom O'Bedlam:One version of the abortion story, by the loonie left, is found here:
http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=159
Not surprisingly, given the source, it’s pretty incoherent. First it says that a woman Bush was dating became pregnant by another man named Smirk, and Smirk arranged the abortion. Then it says a man named Chandler arranged the abortion. Having said all that, it then concludes in the last paragraph that somehow Bush arranged the abortion, even though the only fact cited that even remotely connects Bush to the abortion is the claim that (at some point, apparently — the time frame is unclear too) he dated the woman who underwent the abortion.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:21 pm 73. DennisThePeasant:Catherine-
Had you been paying attention in Uncle Dennis’ class, you would understand the 13 point bounce. Since you been sleeping, I will repeat it just this one time…
The only polling that matters is the internal polling done by each campaign, and it has been quite evident since early August, and prior to the SBVFT book/ads that Kerry’s internal polling was telling him he was in trouble.
If you go back and look at Kerry’s foreign policy speeches during that month, you will detect as very clear drift towards the right…towards the positions held by Bush in the areas of the WoT and Iraq. This was not done for funzies. It was done because Kerry’s own polling was telling him his foreign policy positions were not playing with the citizenry. Continuous shifts and nuanced positioning are as sure a symptom of bad polling as you will find.
Also note that during the entirety of August Bush’s positions did not change one iota. What he did do was acknowledge some mistakes in execution, which seemed designed more to humanize him and show him as ‘thoughtful leader’ than to signal any sort changes…if anything it signalled quite clearly that there was no intention of changing policy positions.
If Bush’s polling was telling him he had to rework policies, he would have done so in August, prior to the convention, and then reinforced the validity of those changes during the convention, and that didn’t happen. The Bush team went in and hit on the exact same themes they have been hitting on for months. Their polling is telling them they are right on the policy issues.
The unrelenting negativity towards Bush over the past year did nothing more than bring the Democratic challenger into a dead heat. Kerry needed to be up by a substantial amount prior to the convention…if for no other reason that to show his message had some legs. But there was no lead, and , as in the past, once Bush was able to come forward and make his case for himself, he blows the opposition away.
I have been saying for a year that it would be Bush with 40+ states and 53+% of the vote, and I think the way Kerry, his staff, and morons like Susan Estrich, Chris Matthews and Frank Rich are acting tells me I’m right. When you see John Kerry bitching from a stepladder in front of a Howard Johnson’s in Springfield, Ohio at midnight on a Thursday, and all three of the MSM bozos in full meltdown mode, it tells you more than any poll…
And by the way, did anyone else notice on Friday that several senior members of Kerry’s campaign publicly stated that for all intents and purposes they are giving up on getting out their message on foreign policy and will now focus on ‘domestic issues’? You don’t do that when your polling is telling you good things.
Stop paying attention to Zogby and Time and Newsweek and focus in on what the professionals are doing. What they have been doing for a month is telling us that John Kerry isn’t going to win.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:26 pm 74. Beldar:Connecticut Yankee, after kindly linking one of my posts, commented above,
I’d never so imply! Brinkley gets high marks for imagination, as does Kranish (at least as far as I’ve gotten yet in his book), but good mystery/suspense writing must also have plausibility, which seems to be sadly lacking from their writing (and their subject). I do, however, have a tentative title if either Brinkley or Kranish want to convert their books into a screenplay: “Audie Murphy was an Insensitive Wuss Compared to Me: The John Kerry in Vietnam Story.”
By contrast, Roger’s blogging shows that he can handle nonfiction superbly — not only with his clear prose, but with his integrity.
Catherine commented above,
I entirely agree that so far, at least in the newspaper section of the MSM, Dobbs’ coverage in that article has far outshone anything anyone else has done by way of investigative journalism and reporting. But he, and WaPo, have been woefully short on follow-up. Dobbs’ August 21 article doesn’t use the words “stonewall” or “coverup” in describing Kerry’s position on his military records, diaries, and archives, but the facts he reported would have made those words precisely apt. He concludes that at least with the Bronze Star incident, the documents Kerry is blocking might solve what Dobbs describes as a mystery.
So why is the WaPo not running daily articles — with at least some of them front-page stuff — on this cover-up? Isn’t that their specialty?
Instead, Dobbs’ article in today’s WaPo is about Ben-freakin’-Barnes. The big news: Barnes will be on “60 Minutes” to reaffirm his sworn affidavit testimony about Dubya and the TANG from 1999.
I despair of the blogosphere’s ability to break through the stonewalling by itself. Ironically, my main hope for the MSM to continue having some interest in the Kerry-in-combat controversy comes from Kerry himself, who still seems to be popping off M-79 rounds that hit him with his own shrapnel.
Finally, Roger, hat’s off from this blogger on your RNC coverage. I enjoyed the heck out of it.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:26 pm 75. Tom O'Bedlam:Well, okay, the antecedent of “he” is unclear. It says “Miss Lowman became pregnant by Smirk and he arranged for her to have an abortion.”
The “he” could refer back to Bush, mentioned in the prior sentence. On the other hand, it might not, too.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:28 pm 76. syn:jdwill
The thought that our returning Vietnam soldiers were required to fight another war, defending their honor, upon their return to America saddens me. That being said, I do believe the Vietnam Veterans addressed Kerry’s alleged Winter Soldier war crimes in 1972 in a debate between John O’Neill and John Kerry presented on The Dick Cavett show. O’Neill was immediately accused by the anti-war movement of working for Nixon and was discredited. After that, the majority of Vietnam veterans were forced to live with the burden of Kerry’s fabricated lies and simply wished to forget Vietnam altogether.
I can understand why Vietnam veterans are raising the issue today, some thirty years ago they returned home to a country which had been led by Kerry and his Winter Soldier movement to believe our Vietnam Veterans were something they were not, war criminals.
Today, thirty years later, John Kerry is now a candidate for President. I expect many veterans are recalling many forgotten pains kept hidden these past thirty years.
I support the Vietnam Veterans request that John Kerry apologize for the dishonor and suffering he brought to their lives these past thirty years.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:31 pm 77. DennisThePeasant:Oy.
Now they have a picture of Kerry shooting a shotgun over on Drudge.
Is it just me, or is all this Viet Nam chest thumping, shotgun shooting, windsurfing, snowboarding, football passing, baseball bouncing stuff getting a bit creepy.
It’s kinda like reading Hemingway…Yes, Ernest, you’re a manly man…No, Ernest, nobody thinks you’re a girly man…No, Ernest, nobody thinks you should be in a dress…Yes, Ernest, flex your pecs…
When Gore and his family played football in front of the cameras, it was hokey but you could understand it. One look at Tipper and you realized she had played linebacker somewhere during her college days.
But Kerry? Come on, the guy is in his 60s. I’m 47 and pulling muscles (in uncomfortable places) just trying to do a little martial arts…am I supposed to buy into the fact that this guy is out climbing the Matterhorn on his days off?
Getting creepy…
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:38 pm 78. Samuel:Catherine
I was going to comment on other things but first I must say if the Democrats decide to go after Bush on the issue of Abortion, especially in a personalized way, then Kerry is absolutely finished. I mean dead! Kerry needs to talk about a bright future under Kerry leadership if he has any hope at all. Making Bush the focus, negative or positive, making Abortion the main issue, like making the WOT the main topic, no matter how negative, Bush wins..
Concerning abortion? As a Democrat in a strongly Democratic district I FEARED ABORTION! I will tell you flat out abortion is why Republicans are in a majority PERIOD. To those that doubt me, follow my link at the end of my post, but I knew this long before this article and this nation is getting more pro-Life by the day.
My district has a strong contingency of Catholics of whom I would say 70+% are Democrats, but I would guess 70+% percent are Pro-Life. This is not something that is my main hot button issue but it is a fact. The main problem is that being pro-choice by default is being ambivalent by comparison. All Pro-Lifers abhor abortion but also probably half the Pro-Choicers do as well and both aren’t sympathetic to pro-Choice hardliners any more than pro-Life hardliners. The intensity among Pro-Lifers is absolutely monstrous compared to Pro-Choicers. This is the main reason Republicans have even a chance in some Battleground States.
There are many pro-Government Pro-Lifers that just can’t live with themselves and end up voting Republican on that issue alone. The is especially true in the Mid-West. These people are Social Conservatives that don’t mind Government. If you are from the Mid-West you ought to know. There are many blue-collar Union Hard Hat Democrats that absolutely hate social liberalism yet have been loyal Democrats. When push comes to shove these people are what we call Reagan Democrats. If Democrats want to create even more Bush Democrats, castigate a person who has repented become extremely responsible in his life, sincerely religious and personally changed, and we will enter McGovern territory and a minimum of 45 States. I mean Bush might actually approach 60%.
I also remind voters that Latinos are collectively the most Pro-Life group there is. These are the classic case of “I like a Big Government” but am “Religious with Conservative Social Values”. They are the fastest growing voting block. Bush will make Democrats pay and big if they make social issues center and front. If you think Terrorism is a weapon in Bush’s hands, just hand him Social Issues on a silver platter and watch what happens, he just might carry States we never imagined. Be sure Bush can’t start that fight, but he sure will be given room to finish it by a public not looking to make that fight.
Catherine it is not a question of would it backfire on the Democrats, it is a question of how badly. A hypocrite is a person who lives a double life, not a person who has made mistakes and changed, so even if true it is Bush’s issue. Bill Clinton was a hypocrite, George Bush is not and I guarantee you the majority of people understand this. -JSF
Here is the link for skeptics about how abortion has worked to the Democrats destruction and loss of a majority. THis is by Nat Hentoff an Athiest ACLU Jew who is intellectually honest and happens to be Pro-Life.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff040104.asp
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:39 pm 79. Catherine:Charlie
I’ve never heard the abortion story before, but that has to be the one, don’t you think?
I hope this means the “4 million” have heard it before, too.
If anyone could dig up the woman, assuming there is a woman, it’s Kitty Kelly.
The TIMES won’t run a story like that, and obviously have not run it for lo these many years.
This makes me see Susan Estrich’s intervention in a new light.
Although I don’t know the “chain of command” in mainstream journalism, while the TIMES will not run an abortion rumor based on Kitty Kelly I don’t think (though she has a reputation for accuracy), I’m not so sure when it comes to Estrich, who is a recognized “figure” in the Democratic Party.
My guess is that her column at least makes it possible for the MSM to write something about it if they want to without violating their own standards.
With the Swifties, it would have been interesting to see if the MSM would ever have broken its silence if Kerry had not broken his.
The Swift Boat campaign moved up in status from “tabloid” to “legitimate” when Kerry himself reacted to it.
That’s why Clinton got away with murder in his first campaign.
The MSM doesn’t run rape-and-womanizing stories; the Clinton’s shenanigans were too tacky to make the TIMES.
If Clinton had held a press conference denying the rape rumors, they would have become “fair game” for the MSM.
OTOH, I assume that the TIMES isn’t a huge factor in the evangelical vote, though I don’t know.
BTW, my experience with rumors has been the opposite of most folks here, I think.
My experience with rumors is that they’re almost the opposite of conspiracy theories.
Rumors tend to be more in the where-there’s-smoke-there’s-fire category.
Of course, I lived in LA for 20 years.
And then there was Clinton.
(I think it was either Broder or Dionne who wrote a terrific column near the end of Clinton’s presidency saying that the press had heard every single one of the rumors–all of them later shown to be founded–about Clinton when he was first running for president. They’d dismissed them all because they were too outrageous.)
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:46 pm 80. jdwill:syn,
Apologies in advance for the long post.
I now think the discussion of what happened in 1971 is pertinent, because if you look closely, many of the same players/ideologies that wanted us out of Vietnam, want us out of Iraq.
Setting the stage for slander
This review of ‘Conversations with Americans’ would seem to be a genesis of the WSI. Check out the photo of Mark Lane with Jane Fonda in 1970.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htm
A key exchange between Sheehan and Lane shows the thinking of the left:
On to 1971 and connecting Jane Fonda to John Kerry
Re: Snopes says photo of Kerry at rally with Fonda is true
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp
The New York Times covered the Valley Forge in 1970:
Jane Fonda:
Some more material (proof is in the eye of the beholder of course) from a Marine who served in Vietnam 68-69
http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401270825.asp
Connect the dots, Mark Lane, professional muck-racker, Jane Fonda, unprincipled activist, John Kerry (???), VVAW visits to Paris and meetings with NV and VC representatives such as Madam Binh
http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=23
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040609201851205
Summary
This was my work up to understand why the Swift Vets had a reason to reopen the wounds. More on the VVAW activities Kerry was in is here:
http://qando.net/archives/004012.htm
Its not just the slander of his band of brothers, its the willingness of the VVAW and others to use any device, any slander to acheive their goal, ie., the Winter Soldier ‘Investigation’.
I went to this trouble because the stakes are huge. If America backs down again because of self-doubt, egged on by activists with questionable association and dubious honesty, the ‘dialogue’ we are having with Islamofacism could be set back 50 years.
So its not just about John Kerry, its about undoing a dishonest left turn foisted on America.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:48 pm 81. Catherine:hi Samuel
Thanks!
Do we know the story is pre-reformed George Bush?
And what about evangelicals specifically?
I just don’t know enough about them to be sure my perception is right.
…..
Wow. Great article. Thanks for the link.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:50 pm 82. jdwill:Oh, and when the Swift Vets are done, there’s another group lining up …
http://spinswimming.blogspot.com/2004/09/pows-to-have-go-at-kerry.html
POW’s will tell their stories of NV interrogators passing along Kerry’s sayings to them.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:54 pm 83. Catherine:jdwill
Well, I’m starting to fade here, but without having followed your links I can say that I’m feeling incredible relief that (knock on wood) it’s not going to be John Kerry.
For every reason in the book.
The vets who said his defeat will be the parade they never got are right on many different levels, one of which is the majorly important level of: how-we-support-or-oppose-a-war.
Because people are going to be doing both, and are doing both.
The Dems should be just as relieved to have him gone as I am.
They’re dodging a bullet.
After the Democratic convention I told my husband (and Jamie Irons: this is a Seriously Non-fair-minded moment): Congratulations. John Kerry has just hung the Vietnam War around the Democrats’ necks.
He’s not the guy.
Sep 4, 2004 - 3:57 pm 84. jdwill:Catherine:
Congratulations. John Kerry has just hung the Vietnam War around the Democrats’ necks.
I think you hit that out of the park. Not only hung the war around their necks, but the dishonest way the war was ended. I’m not saying either way that the Vietnam War was the right or wrong thing for America to do, but the way we were induced to end it and the way we ended it was not honorable.
Sep 4, 2004 - 4:11 pm 85. Terrye:Catherine:
I don’t have a lot of faith in rumors, even when they are repeated by people who are supposed to be friends.
A rumor like that very nearly wrecked my own life and guess what? It was not true. So sometimes where there is smoke, there is just people who don’t know what they are talking about.
That is why something like this can backfire on the Dems. The evangelicals are sorry that let that whole DUI thing stop them from voting for Bush before, if someone comes out with something like this now it might seem just a tad self serving.
Sep 4, 2004 - 4:20 pm 86. Charlie (Colorado):Catherine — I don’t know.
From Estrich’s column, it sounded more like she was threatening to “out” Cheney as an un-reformed drunk, with many DUI’s etc. But that’d be dumb — the worst-case result wopuld be that Cheney would politely excuse himself and Powell or McCain would become the VP candidate. The complexities of that would be somewhat simpler than replacing a presidential candidate, I suspect; they’d just leave Cheney on the official ballot and promise a Carnihan-esque replacement.
And what else can they cover? If Bush is really 10+ percent ahead in the popular vote, some evangelicals aren’t going to make much difference. If the abortion story had anything behind it, Gore would have used it the same time as the DUI story came out; if it’s less well supported than most of the Clinton stories, it’s liable to backfire big time.
So … you know, I don’t know Bush personally, and I’ve got no inside information, and I guess there could always be something I’ve got no idea about — like the “George W was a CIA assassin” stories that the fringe moonbats have been telling. But barring that, I can’t imagine George W ever having done anything interesting enough to be worse than the things they already say about him.
Sep 4, 2004 - 4:27 pm 87. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Catherine,
I think that talk radio has had more effect that Fox News. For one thing, it has a vastly higher audience.
However, since conservative talk radio has been around for a long time (Clinton provided LOTS of ammunition), it isn’t causing a new shock, whereas Fox this year is seriously powerful for the first time.
I don’t see Fox as conservative. However, I think it did turn out conservative on the Yale study. I see Fox as a network with a whole different attitude – it is just different, very different. It uses anchors who know things and aren’t bubble heads (it’s hard to get a law degree as a bubble head). For military correspondents, it adds Kelley (current Marine reserve pilot whose father in NYC police commissioner) and Oliver North who is morphing into a military historian, but can walk into the middle of a battle and know what he’s doing.
The taking heads also switch jobs. Sometimes you find Judge Napolitano as the anchor. Or Neil Cavuto doing interview duty about international affairs.
The thing I find so amazing this year is that Kerry has any backing. You’ve got a guy who has never done a damned thing as a politician, who never did a damned thing before politicis, before that was viciously anti-American and viciously anti-Military, and before that did four months of combat duty with real bullets flying around, but couldn’t resist the opportunity to hype that experience with forged paperwork, and who abandoned his brothers in arms by arranging a phony purple heart and di di’ing out of there.
This guy has the worst imaginable resume. And yet in some fit of total insanity, the Democrats chose this turkey. And in further sanity, almost half the country would vote for this worthless sack of dubious achievements.
What the hell? Has the country gone insane?
Sep 4, 2004 - 4:28 pm 88. Samuel:Catherine
I will further say, if Bush brought up Abortion out of nowhere and started beating up people with it, he would properly be painted as hard, divisive and lose more then he would gain.
If on the other hand he is attacked on this issue, an issue Kerry can carry no water with either, then those very same Reagan Democrat Mid Westerners I had talked about will come to his defense. I would bet a million dollars on that and start spending it in advance.
In his own defense, Bush would be given every right in the minds of people to come back swinging in ways they never would had he been the instigator, and trust me it would be to his benefit.
In truth it is this simple. The typical nature of a battleground state is this…
1) I don’t mind government. Social Security, Medicare and Education are important issues for me and the Government can help solve certain problems. In fact Government services are necessary to me. I find the Democrats seem more favorble on these issues…
2) I am extremely patriotic have no shame in being American, and don’t you dare burn that flag. I also find no offense in Rush Limbaugh and tend to watch Fox News and can’t stand people talking down America. I believe in God and I find Social Liberalism to be contrary to my better instincts. While I am tolerant , I do want people to stay out of my face about such things. I find Republicans to more champion such things.
–
Now if this President is the aggressor or instigator in this fight then they would hold it against him, however if this is thrown in the Presidents face, these battleground Midwesterners will only find respect in him for fighting back and defending his honor. Only if he can be proven a true flip-flopping hypocrite would they turn on him, I doubt that will happen.
Further, if it is proven false then most negatives from here on out will stick to Kerry and roll of Bush like water off a ducks back. Obviously this would be much to the dismay of Democrats, they just might spontaneously combust. Also notice how much the Mid-West was part of Nat Hentoffs findings. In truth the Democrats sold out on this issue to the elites and allowed the Republicans in the door. The Republicans basically said, “You take Rockefeller and we’ll take Reagan”. I think the Republicans got the better of that trade.
Sep 4, 2004 - 4:29 pm 89. Charlie (Colorado):Or, I suppose, it could be Kitty Kelly’s book she’s thinking about:
(From an indymedia site via Swimming through Spin.)
If that’s really what Kitty Kelly’s book says, I’d say it’ll have a dramatic effect on the election: we might see the first unanimous electoral college since the first George W.
But it’ll be pro-Bush, because nobody’s gonna buy that one.
(I mean seriously — George HW is a child molester and George W is gay? As to “male hookers” — okay, so barney Frank visited the White House. So what?)
Sep 4, 2004 - 4:37 pm 90. jdwill:CC,
Holy Sh*t-Storm, Batman! How long do you think the ultra-dignified NYT will refuse to deal with this story?
;-}
Sep 4, 2004 - 4:51 pm 91. Jamie Irons:Catherine, you said:
OK, Catherine. I surrender. You are only very, very fair-minded.
Jamie Irons
Sep 4, 2004 - 4:56 pm 92. Rich Blinne:Catherine, I am an Evangelical so let me give you some inside perspective. Your sense was correct about the DUI because of it being before GWB’s conversion. Even after the conversion you can gain sympathy if there is repentance shown. Hypocrisy and denial is the way to incur our wrath, but confession is good for the soul. For example, if Kerry had apologized about his 1971 testimony as a Bush-like youthful indiscretion and attributed the rest of the controversy to the “fog of war”, it would have put it to bed for many Evangelicals (at least for me).
I don’t buy Rove’s excuses, though. The real reason why Evangelicals sat on their hands is because of our being taken for granted by the GOP. Evangelicals are to the GOP what African-Americans are to the Democrats. My analysis is this:
1. The father’s more tepid faith was imputed to the son. We didn’t know if it was real.
2. We had been taken for granted by the party.
3. GWB was perceived as more moderate than he was.
This will NOT repeat in 2004. GWB is a known quantity and has proven himself to Evangelicals. Because of this, Bush should be able to move more to the center in his second term and be given a lot of slack by Evangelicals. We certainly won’t take an October surprise story based on the word of the NYT or 60 Minutes. Not only are Evangelicals skeptical of the MSM we are almost always contrarian to it. My own personal opinion is that a healthy skeptism of all media is good, particularly when the story is just too convenient. Therefore, I will wait and see on the current poll numbers.
Sep 4, 2004 - 5:12 pm 93. Terrye:I will be glad when this is over myself. The suspense is killing me.
But then again my Daddy told me to never wish away time.
We have to remember these guys are just human and while none of us expect them to be perfect I think Kerry has shown a distinct lack of judgment in the way he has conducted his campaign and if he can’t run a campaign any better than this how can he run the country?
So as far as Bush and the whole abortion thing, that is none of my business. Kerry is 60 years old and if all he had going against him was some personal scandal I would not be scared to death of him winning this thing.
Sep 4, 2004 - 5:20 pm 94. Jamie Irons:Rich, you wrote:
I have the most vivid memory of my (Presbyterian) grandfather saying exactly those words to me while we walked on an Oregon beach when I was about seven years old.
Jamie Irons
Sep 4, 2004 - 5:22 pm 95. Terrye:Rich:
What do you mean you will wait and see on the current poll numbers?
Sep 4, 2004 - 5:26 pm 96. Barry Dauphin:So 60 Minutes wants to trot out Ben Barnes again. Hey, why not bring back the Macarena while they’re at it. It seems ole Ben Barnes has been a busy boy since he last popped up on the smear radar screen. To wit, via Captain Ed, it appears for some time that Barnes has been saying, “me likey Kerry.”
Contributor…….Total 1999-2002………..2004 Cycle
Alan Solomont……….$612,327……………..$82,500
Orin Kramer…………$425,835……………..$83,500
Ben Barnes…………$389,750……………..$74,500
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002430.php#trackbacks
And if the Kerry campaign hopes to engage its CBS surrogates to use Barnes to hurt Bush, well let’s say Barnes is a gift which keeps on giving. http://blogspirator.blogspot.com/2004/08/exclusive-dirt-on-ben-barnes-claims.html
In fact CBS News itself did a story which noted Barnes’ role in the Kerry campaing back in June: Kerry keeping eye on Big Donors http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/politics/main624711.shtml
Kerry is standing a better chance to make the pitching staff of the Red Sox.
Sep 4, 2004 - 5:29 pm 97. ambisinistral:Samuel,
If the Kerry camp floated a rumor about abortion and Bush spent any significant time on it he would be a stupid as Kerry refighting the Vietnam War. This election is no more a mandate on abortion than it is a mandate on Vietnam. It is about the WoT.
We know what the right and the left think about abortion. The center is for the most part content with the compromises that have been forged regarding the issue.
Sep 4, 2004 - 5:58 pm 98. penwil:Since when does Kitty Kelley have such a sterling reputation for scholarship, anyway? Rightly or wrongly, I’ve always been under the impression she was considered more of high-priced gossip monger, than a serious biographer. Too many sources “who prefer to remain nameless” to be taken all that seriously.
It was quite a few years ago now, but I seem to remember the Kennedys really trashing her over the Jackie O book. And she did a bio on Nancy Reagan that was not at all well-received by conservatives. Rove’s 4 million either won’t read her or won’t believe her.
Sep 4, 2004 - 6:28 pm 99. jerry:When I hear the health crazed Democrats talk about how much Bush and/or Cheney drink or have drunk I respond in the same way that I used to when Gorbachov groupies would sneer at Boris Yelsin for his drinking habits..
Several Senators came to visit Abraham Lincoln to demand General Grant be dismissed because he was a drunk. Lincoln responding by telling them to find out what brand of Whiskey Grant drank so he could send it to all his Generals.
So if Cheney is a drunk, then lets find out what he drinks and give to the Democrats. They may find a backbone and a sense of honor.
Have we forgotten Moby? Remember that earlier this year he advocated going into internet chat rooms and telling lies about Bush to turn off his “fundementalist” supporters. Looks like the Democrats are about to do a Moby. Don’t worry, this is just another sign of the collapsing Kerry Campaign.
Sep 4, 2004 - 7:45 pm 100. Terrye:penwil:
Well hell if I know but I don’t think the American public is going to be real happy if the Dems visit Michael Moore, Viet Nam and some old abortion gossip on them in one campaign.
Sep 4, 2004 - 7:51 pm 101. Samuel:ambisinistral
First, before I respond I must ask. What do you base your statements and predictions on? I must politely add that I would have preferred you to address my posts more specifically because I feel as if you somewhat spoke past what I said and really addressed a completely different point all together.
Secondly, I am Jewish and pro-choice. I am definitely not speaking out of self interest to say the least on this issue but from experience. The link I left if you followed it is pertinent in any election, especially if the issue comes forth in high drama. It does and will cut against the Democrats especially in the Mid-West if the Democrats make an issue of this. The fact is it only would hurt him in states he would not carry anyway, if it hurts him at all, my guess is it would not hurt him much, unless his credibility gap grows to Kerryesque proportions, but that would require two things…
First it would require him to be a total hypocrite and fruad incapable of factually defending himself.
Second he would need to be as personally deficient as Kerry in fighting back. On both counts I doubt it to be the case.
–
So I will address why you are right and wrong, and why you completely missed my point…
If the Kerry camp floated a rumor about abortion and Bush spent any significant time on it he would be a stupid as Kerry refighting the Vietnam War. This election is no more a mandate on abortion than it is a mandate on Vietnam. It is about the WoT.
Let me stop here and say you actually made my point for me. It is not about Vietnam or Abortion yet we in fact know that it will still changes voters opinions and you readily acknowledge this. Vietnam should not be central yet it is and is effecting the race much to Kerry’s detriment. My question to you is by what evidence do you have that it would cut against Bush? With that evidence dynamics need to exist to make it that way need to be addressed.
I’ll also ask why should Vietnam cut against Kerry? In truth it shouldn’t at all. If Kerry were a true Patriot who acted out of good faith then the Swift Boats would be absolutely killing Bush politically and not Kerry, yet they hurt Kerry. It is because of Kerry and not because of the Vietnam issue.
Why would it be stupid for Bush? In truth it was not stupid for Kerry to fight back at all. What is stupid is that Kerry is incapable of fighting back because he has a severe character deficit on the issue, that is what his true problem is. But the most stupid thing is that it is Kerry who introduced Vietnam into the campaign, if it had been someone else then Kerry might have some moral highground, so let me go back to what I actually said, my exact words…
I will further say, if Bush brought up Abortion out of nowhere and started beating up people with it, he would properly be painted as hard, divisive and lose more then he would gain… If on the other hand he is attacked on this issue, an issue Kerry can carry no water with either, then those very same Reagan Democrat Mid Westerners I had talked about will come to his defense… I would bet a million dollars on that and start spending it in advance… In his own defense, Bush would be given every right in the minds of people to come back swinging in ways they never would had he been the instigator, and trust me it would be to his benefit.
—
What I said above is an important qualifier. So you in my opinion, generically applied value to both sides, yet that would be impossible if one made it central (Kerry and Vietnam) and one didn’t (Bush on Abortion). Character deficit is in truth the issue and not Abortion or Vietnam. But the character issue allows vehicles for rippling the water with multiple issues. Abortion as a topic if introduced by his enemies would unnecessarily add fodder and to Bush’s favor in an area of the country that has more registered Democrats, but are more Pro-Life voters (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri, West Virginia, Ohio, Iowa).
Why shouldn’t Bush knock them on their ass for pulling such a dirty sucker punch? Bush did not sucker punch anyone, Kerry was blindsided by fellow vets he had offended and betrayed. Kerry brought up Vietnam. DId Bush make an issue of Abortion? And I must address the following…
We know what the right and the left think about abortion. The center is for the most part content with the compromises that have been forged regarding the issue.
Center has nothing to do with it. The term Battleground State does not = Centrist State. The term swing voter does not = Centrist. A swing voter could be a single issue voter who is passionately behind an issue like the WOT. Bush is not going to lose me or Ed Koch by responding to an Abortion attack. It is how issues cut that favor one Party over another with swing voters.
I have been involved in many campaigns, done much polling and I have a Brother-in-Law that does it for a living. This is not about the political center, it is about the intensity of issues. To many Pro-Lifers abortion is a War on Terror, peak those sentiments is to play to the hands of Bush. My characterizations of the Mid-West is accurate I assure you.
Also when I say Bush would make him pay it does not mean Bush would go hog-wild with it as an issue. Has he done it with the Swift Boats? No as he did with that issue he would just smartly put himself in a position to take advantage. What you said is much too simplistic to be used to reject out of hand a topic I addressed with so much specificity.
Sep 4, 2004 - 8:17 pm 102. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):ambisinistral
We know what the right and the left think about abortion. The center is for the most part content with the compromises that have been forged regarding the issue.
A correction. The center is content because they don’t know the law. There are no compromises today. Any female, at any age of gestation, may have an abortion. Period. Furthermore, parents need not be notified.
Now I cannot imagine that being a compromise because it would be hard to get more pro-abortion that the current state of the law.
Most people think the law is Roe v Wade with its trimester system. They are ccontinually mislead by the MSM into believing this. And it turns out that RVW is an accepted compromise. However, it is only a historical anecdote and has nothing to do wiwth the actual state of law.
I believe that abortion is a significant issue in this election. There are a lot of people who would vote against any president who might damage abortion “rights.” Likewise on the opposite site.
Everyone knows that the next president will probably appoint 3 Supreme Court judges. This counts a whole lot.
It may explain why Kerry has numbers above 20%. I cannot imagine anyone voting for him otherwise. He is a zero – no accomplishments at all in his career, most liberal Senator, an anti-war radical to the point of working with the enemy (which is very far from your typical protestors).
Sep 4, 2004 - 8:48 pm 103. Trebek:I might be wrong here, but I don’t see how Ben Barnes entering the picture is anything but terrible for Kerry.
First of all, one would think that Kerry should prefer that the American people not learn of his existence. I mean, given his history, it just don’t look good that he has access to Kerry and is raising all this money for him. This type is useful and common in politics, but you sure don’t trot them out.
Next, if this is the person you have to use to do a hatchet job on the Prez, he damn sure better have something close to an airtight case. But here you have a partisan hack contradicting his earlier version of a story, with his credibility the only thing propping the new version up.
This would would be fine for Kerry if the American people were never going to learn of Barnes’ background. After the SBVFT story broke they should know that this isn’t going to happen. Normally, I’d assume that there would have to be more to the story, but I think Kerry’s campaign/surrogates are so incompetent/desperate that I doubt it. They’re just throwing stuff at the walls hoping it’ll stick.
If the charges are as unsubstantiated as they seem, I can see the main thrust of this going from a GWB/National Guard story into a John Kerry/shady political donor/dirty tricks story very quickly. The MSM might be slow to register this, but they were forced to play catch-up with the Swift Vets story and there’s no reason it’s not going to happen again.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:08 pm 104. richard mcenroe:Please do it.
Please publish Kitty Kelly’s book. Spread all the rumor about Bush buying an abortion and Cheney driving Teddy-style.
Two words.
Governor Schwarzenegger.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:17 pm 105. ambisinistral:Samuel,
My point was rather simple. You’ll perhaps notice I said “Bush spent any significant time on it” it would be a mistake. No where did I imply he should ignore it, rather I was implying he should not get distracted off of his strength.
Kerry’s campaign went off the rails, well, if it ever was on the rails in the first place, when he left his domestic agenda get side-tracked into a debate about Vietnam. IMHO Bush would be making the same mistake is he spent a significant amount of time discussing abortion.
Yes, Bush has to play to his base. However, as for your appeal to authority about knowing polling and campaigning — the Bush campaign just spent a Convention successfully focused on security not abortion. I’m imagine he calculates his base will vote for him this election and that the largest group of new voters he can garner are the moderates unhappy with Kerry’s weakness. If he pushes the Right’s social agenda too much he risks driving some of those moderates back into the Kerry camp.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:36 pm 106. ambisinistral:John Moore,
This is admittedly anecdotal, but when I hear people discuss abortion — something they rarely want to do — the always say something like, “I would prefer a girl not get an abortion, but… ”
It is the word “but” that carries the day. Choice is largely accepted as a pragmatic compromise. The laws you claim people don’t know are the hashings out of the word “but” allows.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:44 pm 107. ambisinistral:Samuel,
BTW, in rereading my first post I realized my first sentence “My point was rather simple.” came across sounding little more than snotty. Sorry about that. By the number of my mistypings, and by my sometimes tortured grammar, I hope you’ve figured out I’m not a copy editor by trade. I must try to recheck these posts more carefully.
What I was trying to point out in that sentence is that I was talking about campaign strategy as opposed to the Pro Life/Choice debate. I did not have a desire to get myself side-tracked into a different debate.
Sep 4, 2004 - 9:52 pm 108. flenser:ambi
“Choice is largely accepted as a pragmatic compromise. ”
A compromise between what? You are suggesting that “choice” is a middle ground between two extremes. What are the two extremes?
Sep 4, 2004 - 10:34 pm 109. Samuel:ambisinistral
First, I did not take you as being snotty at all. I hate arguing about things one agrees on, I do that with my brother all the time, but I must say concerning…
the Bush campaign just spent a Convention successfully focused on security not abortion. I’m imagine he calculates his base will vote for him this election and that the largest group of new voters he can garner are the moderates unhappy with Kerry’s weakness. If he pushes the Right’s social agenda too much he risks driving some of those moderates back into the Kerry camp.
If it is he who pushes the right agenda you are correct. However, if he does so by responding to an attack defending such agenda, most swing voters will not hold that against him, some might. Remember Dubya is known to be an incredible poker player. That he is a risk taker and a gambler should be obvious. He will instintively weigh the gains and move forward. I have predicted long before even when he was down that he would probably out perform his mid-term successes and again be under-estimated.
Also one important item to point out. An energized base voter trumps a swing voter by a mile. If Bush could energize his base risking 2 vote gains from his base compared to one loss from a swing voter he would be a fool not to. The reason is the lost swing voter has a higher percentage of “just sitting this one out”. Once elected the base voter is less likely to abandon him. There is also many more base voters to get then swing voters to lose. Bush is smart he knows this, yet he wants it all and I believe he will split the difference perfectly, this guy is shrewed and learns. First energize base, Second register new voters, Third go after independents. That is the order of importance.
Sep 4, 2004 - 10:35 pm 110. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):ambisinistral
I am not trying to start an abortion debate or hijack the thread, but rather to inform. My statement was based on the true state of abortion jurisprudence and polling.
What people on average want is the ability for a woman to get an abortion in the first trimester. Very few accept the Supreme Court imposed rules preventing parental notification, which in the case of abortion is an extremely strong interference by the government into parental rights.
People don’t want abortion past the first trimester except when the health of the mother is at stake (and they don’t mean some minor psychological discomfort – they mean serious stuff). People also believe that the law in fact places that restriction on abortion. It did in Roe v Wade but not in subsequent rulings.
If “choice” is the compromise, what are the poles of the argument? On one site we have total prohibition of abortion. On the other we have what? Infanticide? Wuthanasia of kiss who get bad scores in their fourth grade exams? Show me how the current situation is a compromise rather than a court imposws farthest possible extreme.
If you doubt my assertion of the state of the law, feel free to look it up. The internet is a marvelous thing.
Sep 4, 2004 - 11:10 pm 111. craig mclaughlin:Roger,
I’m glad you and Eugene and Glenn Harlan and Hugh and Hinderaker and them others up in Minnesota have taken this on. Y’all give the argument a credibility that me and booger can’t pull off.
I knew the worm had turned even before 9/11 when I saw an NBC segment called, It’s Your Money, to showcase the wasteful defense department. In this case the Marine Corps. The segment was about how the Marines refused to buy cheaper newer H-60 helo’s, instead insisting on buying outdated, and more expensive H-1’s.
What wasn’t mentioned was that the H-60 was too big and too heavy to land on the back of many Navy ships then in service. Plus the Blackhawk didn’t have a rotor brake or automatic bladefold which is required for ship board ops.
So, there was no story there. The H-60 was not suitable for ship board ops. Period. If NBC had bothered to ask ANY Navy or Marine Helo pilot they would have known that.
Then we get Sebastian Junger on Nightline allowing as how the Taliban had a winning strategy and had dug their bunkers so deep no bomb could find them. Two weeks later they couldn’t be found anywhere. Except for the dead ones left in the bunkers.
Then there was the BBC Gilligan mess…
I stopped watching after that.
As far as the politics: The networks were pushing Howard Dean for a solid year. What does that tell you?
Craig
Sep 4, 2004 - 11:11 pm 112. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Euthanasia of kids is what I meant to say above.
Sep 4, 2004 - 11:11 pm 113. ambisinistral:John,
I actually agree with your second paragraph as being a fair description of the current compromis on abortion.
BTW, both you and Samuel are correct in scratching your head over the “Choice as pragmatic compromise” sentence. It was very poorly worded on my part. I was thinking of my earlier sentence, “I would prefer a girl not get an abortion, but…” when I said it.
What I was trying to drive at is that the balance arrived at between the two poles of the debate was that while, in a perfect world people preferred woman not to have abortions, they did accept that there were circumstances where abortion was an acceptible option for pragmatic reasons.
From the debates and articles I’ve seen, and I tend to avoid the now ancient and tedious abortion debate as much as possible, I find your assertation that people don’t know about late term abortions and parental notifications to be a bit suspect to saty the least.
Sep 5, 2004 - 12:25 am 114. ambisinistral:John,
I’m a little busy monitoring Frances, but I did mean to address the abortion points also. Many years ago I did pay attention ot the abortion debate. One of the millions of arguments put forward, both for and against, ended up clarifying the issue in my mind at least.
The argument, which was made by a doctor, was that it could often be very difficult to medically determine exactly when a person died as they went through the process of dying. Since the person sooner or later ended up clearly dead, except in rare cases such as a person on life support, determining an exact definition for death had no moral imperitive.
In birth the transition from a single cell to a baby was a gradual process. He argued the same difficulties in defining exact benchmarks for the end of life — for example brain waves, body temperature, heart beat, etc. — existed for defining the beginning of it. However, since this process led from nothing to a child the exact definition of when life began was weighed with moral baggage.
He did not presume to provide a moral answer as to when life began. Rather he pointed out that the debate was being waged with out real regard to the realities of the egg, the zygote or the foetus. That inspite of all the trappings it was frequently wrapped in, it was largely a social matter.
I think a baby a day away from birth is still a baby, and I think a fertilized egg is just a single cell. A line has to be drawn somewhere in the gray between the two, but I’m more than content to let other people push that line back and forth.
By the way, in Florida there is a brain-dead woman who has been hooked to tubes for years. Her husband wants to disconnect her, while her parents don’t. The courts and legislature are both involved, and have been for years. On both the ends of life the puzzle over what is a live human and what is not persists.
Sep 5, 2004 - 1:14 am 115. Dean Esmay:For several years now I’ve been saying that the people we call “liberals” are not, in fact, liberal at all, but are left-wing reactionaries who’ve forgotten how to think for themselves and question authority, and who no longer know what introspection is.
Thus we have this class of people wrongly classified as “conservatives” now being called “right wingers.”
This was visible before 2001, but it’s been jaw-droppingly apparent since then.
We’re in the middle of a major political realignment. Political scientists will point to the first decade of the 21st century as one of those eras where everything changed.
As you say, Roger, the Democrats will realign themselves. It seems to me that nothing will bring that on faster than a crushing defeat for them in November. A Kerry Presidency will, in the end, only stave off the inevitable.
Sep 5, 2004 - 2:19 am 116. Charlie (Colorado):Two words.
Governor Schwarzenegger.
Seems rather incredible that only two words have that many letters.
Sep 5, 2004 - 3:55 am 117. Annalucia:Yeah, that sounds like Newsday.
I grew up on Long Island in the 50s and 60s and Newsday was my parents’ newspaper. One day in late ‘65 or ‘66 I read one of their editorials attacking the local Catholic Bishop, Walter Kellenberg. The tone was “Well, we see that the Bishop sent out a letter attacking birth control again,” and supplied some fierce quotes therefrom denouncing the “Pontius Pilates” who would coldly decide who was allowed to live and who would die, and suggesting that the Bishop get off his high horse and stop pushing his views on other people.
Trouble was – the Bishop had sent TWO letters to the parishes – I’d been at Mass the previous Sunday and heard them both read aloud. The first dealt with artificial contraception, to which the Bishop affirmed opposition in conventional terms. The second concerned the legalization of abortion (then being debated in New York State) and for THAT the Bishop dragged out the heavy artillery and the furious denunciation. But the editorial writer, whether through stupidity or malice, conflated the two.
I was thirteen at the time, and I haven’t trusted Newsday since.
Sep 5, 2004 - 5:57 am 118. syn:From this 42 year old, 21st century feminist, I believe abortion has transformed into a barbaric form of female empowerment.
Watch out boys, Medea is freely and legally slaughtering your off-spring.
NOW took the wrong direction, human females are not the Goddesses we were led to believe we were.
I am women NOW hear me roar: abortion is a vile approach towards empowering females!
Sep 5, 2004 - 6:34 am 119. Terrye:Guys:
The point of this is not some academic debate on abortion, it is about a personal attack on the personal life of the president.
The Dems think they have to get nasty, as if they were not already and so they are going to say George is a coward that screwed around, Cheney is a drunk, the old man is a child molestor, the twins are promiscuous and Laura is a bitch.
No more Mr. Nice Guy for the much abused and used Democratic party. That is what they are talking about. They are going to either defame George or die trying. They want to make sure that if their candidate can not win, all of us will pay.
I think someone should put a muzzle on Estrich and the rest of them. The Democrats do not walk on water and what goes around, comes around.
After all they are attacking Bush’s service in the National Guard like it was some secret society for the rich and famous when 33,000 Guardsmen are currently serving in Iraq. But the leadership of that party does not know squat about the military so they don’t begin to understand how this stuff really works.
So let’s not give the assholes anything to work with by spreading gossip.
Sep 5, 2004 - 6:54 am 120. DennisThePeasant:It’s interesting to note that with days of Susan Estrich’s call for the Democrats to get dirty, you have people like Christopher Dodd and Bob Graham coming out to publicly state that Kerry needs to develop themes, address issues and drop Viet Nam. What they did not call for is for the Kerry campaign to follow Estrich’s advice.
It is also interesting to note that Dodd and Graham are successful politicians who have, for the most, completely ignored Kerry and his campaign up to this point. For them to be suddenly offering advice indicates to me that they are signalling to Kerry that they do not want and will not endorse the kind of strategy Estrich is calling for.
At a different time, and under different circumstances, going after a candidate with allegations of abortions and drunk driving and the rest could actually work. But this is neither the time or the circumstance. To come out with this on the heels of a major voter shift to the opposition simply comes across a pure desperation, and coupled with the fact that these ‘relevations’ are emerging now on a sitting President simply reinforces that arua of panic.
I’m guessing that you will see more Democrats coming out over the next week urging Kerry to clarify his positions and develop an issues-oriented theme. I don’t think any of them care about Kerry or his campaign, but a veering towards serious sleeze could negatively effect other races…Senate, House and state-wide…and that is what pros like Dodd would be worried about.
It will also be interesting to see if Estrich does any backtracking on this…I cannot imagine that she hasn’t received a few calls, from people like Chris Dodd, telling her to shut the f**k up.
Sep 5, 2004 - 7:18 am 121. holdfast:When does llife begin? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Seriously, my personal take is that it is when the baby, if born prematurely, would have an 80% chance of survival with only the support of common medical technology. Of course this is arbitrary, but I have tried to ground my morality is both science and morality. I also feel that this is an approach that a large chunk of the center could agree with, or at least not violently disagree with. Most of my soft-left friends actually do agree with this. They don’t actually object to the terms of the new Partial Birth Abortion law – they just think that it is Bush’s opening shot in a new general offensive againt abortion, and I’m not entirely convinved that they are wrong. I know that Bush takes his faith very seriously, but I also know that he does know how to compromise when necessary.
Sep 5, 2004 - 7:43 am 122. richard mcenroe:For reasons known but to God and John Kerry’s pharmacist, the Democrats trotted out Dick Gephardt to defend Kerry on Fox News Sunday. Chris Wallace went to town on him with Kerry’s own memos and Geohardt’s own primary statements, There is an old and vulgar description of Gephardt’s expression for most of this from my wild and imoptchus yoot: he looked like he was being told to “eat a s**t sandwich…”
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:21 am 123. Jamie Irons:Let’s drop the discussion of abortion, please.
There are countless fora on the Internet for this subject.
I mean no disrespect to anyone engaging in the discussion, all of whom I respect, and I think the subject is a worthy and very difficult one. I just don’t think it is a discussion that belongs on this thread. Abortion is obviously a highly divisive topic; once having formed his (her) views , a person is extremely unlikely to be moved by argument.
It is an issue too deep for argument.
“Too deep for tears,” as the old sheep of the Lake District might say.
Jamie Irons
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:22 am 124. Terrye:Jamie:
I second the motion.
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:41 am 125. syn:Partial BIRTH Abortion, in itself, implies that abortion is the extermination of life. One cannot call it Partial Birth without acknowledging therefore that inside the womb there exists Life.
Pulling out the baby just halfway from the womb for the purpose of extermination, Partial Birth Abortion, is simply legal jargon for outright murder.
I once believed in abortion as a female right, but after thirty years of ‘rightful abortions’ which NOW has lead to today’s idea that even selective reduction is an acceptable choice because some females in our society simply believe that ’suburbia sucks’, I realized just how ignorantly wrong I was to support Abortion barbarism in the first place.
Also, I do not accept the barbaric premise of Planned Parenthood’s attempt to praise Abortion by giving t-shirts which declare “I Had An Abortion” to young females. Pro-Choice is a deceptive tool use to hide the truth of what Abortion really is, barbarism.
Medea is here in NOW and she is very ugly.
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:42 am 126. syn:Terrye and Jamie, the topic is ugly…isn’t it.
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:45 am 127. Samuel:Terrye, DTP
First I wish to commend two of my favorite purveyors of sarcastic wit.
Now for the life of me I don’t know fully what has gotten in to Susan Estrich, we actually are acquaintances. She is usually pretty thoughtful and reasonable but she has just snapped. I think it must be partly due to flashbacks of 1988 and Michael Dukakis, a campaign she managed. Either way quite a bit of personalization going on here in my opinion. You know I do believe that I know partly what is in play. I don’t want to overly psychoanalyze but I do believe a deeper inner-conflict is going on in her case that I can relate to.
I had a Republican friend of mine, a somewhat Evangelical type, who upon hearing the long version of my travails and descent into Neocon/Southpark Republicanism (that’s right Dennis I really am beginning to despise liberals more than being conservative). Anyway he said, “Gee, sounds to me like you just were just ‘kicking against the pricks’ and finally came to your senses.” I inquired “Kicking against the pricks, what in the hell is that?” He explained that he didn’t want to offend me but it was the only example he could think of and explained, “I am talking about the Apostle Paul of the New Testament.” He added, “Deep down the Apostle Paul knew that Christianity was the future and in some sense he was fighting against what he knew was actually for him a good thing. How did Paul handle it? By endeavoring to destroy it before he had to deal with it and himself. He then received a heavenly manifestation and was asked, ‘Why do you kick against the pricks?’ or in other words, ‘Why are you are fighting against what you in know in your heart is right.’?” We all know that Paul reversed direction on a dime and payed the ultimate price for doing so, yet he never showed regret.
After September 11th I became bipartisan and tried to be open about things, I remember Susan being the same way. Susan is Jewish and Pro-Israel, I know the inner-conflict that brings. She has to hate Likud because as a lefty she is suppose to, but she also knows that in a sense this can be against her interests. I saw her in segments with Benjamin Netanyahu after 9/11, she fawned over him. Believe me there is just as much a gap with security issues and economic issues between Likud and Labor in Israel as here between Republicans and Democrats, in some ways greater. After I got my head handed back to me on a platter after midterms I literally snapped. Susan seems to be know Kerry is doomed and has snapped, but the inner conflicts and tugs within compound such feelings, so her frustration deepens.
Also I know that Susan like myself really struggles with the unethical behavior of the Clintons much more then most. She had to defend them, it can make one sick. I know Susan is an ethical person and is just trapped in her feelings. Getting back to my political snapping, I had an experience that helped snap me out of it, but I also had an easier out and I fear change less than most. I had other outs as well. I had moved just after midterms into a new district. I cut my political ties and disappeared. I also had other experiences that helped me. I am out of politics to never return I assure you. Susan is so much more politically tied, and I doubt she is the nuanced person who rather uniquely makes decisions in black and white like I do. I don’t fear change, but I did care for others affected by my decisions. I don’t hold much hope for Susan unless of course like Paul she recieves some heavenly manifestation. I am beginning to realize that I am more unique than I thought, which is unfortunate. There are many others like me, don’t get me wrong, but as a percentage it is shamefully low.
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:53 am 128. Rick Ballard:Hear, hear, Jamie, abortion is simply not an issue in the campaign and there are indeed many sites where personal views can be made known.
Chris Lynch provides an excellent chronology of a catastrophe covering the Kerry campaign’s stellar performance in August.
I completely agree with Mr. Peasant’s post above, that from this point forward the main DNC interest will be protecting the downticket. No one (at least in modern times) has ever recovered from the point that Kerry has managed to reach. As Mr. Peasant has cogently observed, public polls are a lagging indicator of results already known to the insiders via private non-dislosed polls. I expect to see the DNC redirect advertising dollars from the presidential campaign to still salvageable Senate and House races very soon. I also expect that Dem office seekers will keep a very, very respectable distance from Kerry as the campaign continues. His spatter radius at impact is still unknown even though the trajectory and increasing velocity hint at a rather decisive conclusion.
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:53 am 129. Terrye:syn:
The point is this is the internet, God only knows who reads this stuff and there is an attempt on the part of a lot of sore loser Democrats to use this issue and blogs like this to damage the president. I say don’t give the bastards anything to work with.
No abortion talk. No talk about a friend of a friend said something etc.
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:57 am 130. jerry:Craig:
I evaluated the H-1 rebuild versus buying new H-60’s for the Navy in the mid-90s. Your information on the deficiences of the H-60 is in error or as likely a product of HQUSMC disinformation. The Navy already flies H-60s. The blades fold, they operate off of ships as small as the FFG-7 class frigates or Bear class Coast Guard cutters. The Navy has chosen the HH-60 as a replacement for the CH-46 VERTREP mission. The aircraft is faster, has more lift and is much more survivable then the H-1. In fact the UH-1 rebuild does not really by back as much lift as advertised. If you add the ESSS pylons to an H-60 you have an attack capability equal to the Apache with more speed and maneuverability then AH-64 at the same weight. When I mentioned this at brief to Nora Slatkin, who was ASN for Acquistions at the time, the Marines said that configuration was too slow and could only operate at 90 knts. I was well prepared for this because I had already talked to the Army about their use of an AH-60 variant for special operations. Army aviation had also told me that when they were doing OPEVAL for the UH-60 they were specifally told they could not qual the aircraft for the gunship mission…it would have killed the Apache program.
Sep 5, 2004 - 9:07 am 131. Terrye:Samuel:
I remember Estrich trying to calm down Dems in California during the recall. Maybe she should take her own advice in this case.
Sep 5, 2004 - 9:11 am 132. Charlie (Colorado):Jamie:
I mean no disrespect to anyone engaging in the discussion, all of whom I respect, and I think the subject is a worthy and very difficult one. I just don’t think it is a discussion that belongs on this thread. Abortion is obviously a highly divisive topic; once having formed his (her) views , a person is extremely unlikely to be moved by argument.
Yes. What’s more, it’s another one of those things that almost always depends on nuances of one’s axiomatic assumptions. These disputes generally really don’t lead to a lot of new insight.
Sep 5, 2004 - 9:17 am 133. Charlie (Colorado):…hips as small as the FFG-7 class frigates or Bear class Coast Guard cutters. The Navy has chosen the HH-60 as a replacement for the CH-46 VERTREP mission. The aircraft is faster, has more lift and is much more survivable then the H-1. In fact the UH-1 rebuild does not really by back as much lift as advertised. If you add the ESSS pylons to an H-60 you have an attack capability equal to the Apache with more speed and maneuverability then AH-64 at the same w…
Wow.
Jerry, I’m impressed. I thought I spoke DoDese as well as just about everyone, but you just whupped me.
Sep 5, 2004 - 9:22 am 134. flenser:I attended a wedding for a relative recently. Lots of relatives from across the country were in attendence. Some of these people suffer from BDS. Inevitably, they could not keep their feelings bottled up and started in with the usual infantile name-calling about Bush. I suffered in silence for several minutes, then jumped on them hard, at which point a number of other people other people joined me, and things got a little unpleasant. We all finally dropped the matter, after which the moonbat aunt who had started the whole fracas was heard to comment on what a shame it was that people brought up politics at a wedding.
At the Manhattan office where I work, things are worse. My colleague’s seem to suffer from some strain of Tourette’s syndrome, and are appearently quite unable to control what comes out of their own mouths. I have politely informed them that I have differing opinions, and tried to tactfully suggest that they leave their political views outside the office. You can imagine how successful that has been.
Some people, while possessed of a superficial level of intelligence and sophistication, are simply lacking in basic common sense, decency, and empathy. I think there is an underlying societal problem here, and BDS and abortion and the rest are merely manifestations of it.
If we want to drop the topics of abortion and gay marriage, then fine, let’s drop them. But it seems to me that it is the self-styled “social liberals” here who keep bringing them up. It’s like an itch you people have to scratch.
Sep 5, 2004 - 10:48 am 135. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):I got into abortion here as a response to a comment.
I have not argued the issue at all – just pointed out that the public opinion (which is that Roe v Wade is the law) is a compromise but is not the law, and that the current state of the law is not a compromise – there is nothing that the pro-choice side hasn’t won completely in the courts.
In any case, abortion is a factor in this election and denying that won’t make it go away, There are people of strong opinions who care about Supreme Court Justice nominations primarily because of the potential impact on abortion law (which is completely handed down from on high by SCOTUS). 4,000,000 evangelicals sat out the 2000 election. I don’t think they will sit out this one.
As far as the media going nuts… so what’s new? Conservatives encounter this all the time – and not just during elections. Look at all the lies about the Iraq War, and the quickness to hop on bad news (a dust storm turned it into a Vietnam quagmire).
Strangely, the left has not made abortion a big issue. Estrich has not gone into the usual abortion arguments. That’s fine with me.
Sep 5, 2004 - 10:59 am 136. richard mcenroe:Swing State Swings Back See “Kerry picked the wrong Ohia Town” with the usual AP follies noted…
Has anyone in the Democratic party noticed yet that the unions can deliver money and endorsements, but they can’t deliver their voters anymore?
Sep 5, 2004 - 11:29 am 137. Charlie (Colorado):Um, flenser, when you’ve established that you consider a belief in individual rights as something not established by a government’s grant as being “socially liberal”, and take a the suggestion that an unsubstantiated rumor about George W having procured an abortion 30 years ago doesn’t mean that we need to have this thread taken over by another pointless argument about the morality of abortion as “socially liberal”, I’ve got to wonder if you don’t have the gain on your “social liberal” sensor turned up a little too high.
Sep 5, 2004 - 11:29 am 138. Charlie (Colorado):Has anyone in the Democratic party noticed yet that the unions can deliver money and endorsements, but they can’t deliver their voters anymore?
Doesn’t seem so.
You’d think Dick Gebhart would have put the stake in that one, but no.
Sep 5, 2004 - 11:31 am 139. Terrye:Dlenser:
I don’t have a problem with discussing abortion in general, I just dopn’t want to discuss it in terms of people’s personal lives. I don’t really want it to become part of the campaign because I think it diverts from more immediate problems.
But one thing I have noticed about people who hate Bush. [This is a generalization of coruse] but they tend to be obnoxious, pushy, intolerant and narrow minded. As such it never occurs to them they may be offending others. A lot of Bush supporters think of these people as spiteful and vindictive and don’t want to argue with them for fear things will get out of hand.
At least that is what I have noticed. If Bush wins it will be a profound shock to the BDS folks because they have been so busy listening to themselves for the last four years they could not hear the rest of us.
Sep 5, 2004 - 11:32 am 140. richard mcenroe:Charlie(Colorado) ó Perfectly understandable techspeak… but to translate:
The upgrade of the H-1 does not provide sufficient improvement over the old model to make it competitve with the HH-60 (the navalized version of the UH-60 Blackhawk the Air Force, Army and Navy already fly. So continuing to try to improve the H-1 is a classic case of putting lipstick on a pig. Also, having one service fly a separate system when there is no pressing need for it complicates logistics and acquisitions decisions and raises costs.
The external stores pylons (ESSS) mean you can convert a cargo craft into a useful helicopter gunship. While this may not be as good as a dedicated gunship, it gives the commander on the scene the option of dramatically increasing his local ground-attack airsupport, most of which is still provided by aging Sea Cobra helicopters.
ASN is Assistant Secretary of the Navy, OpEval is an operational evaluation designed to test a system for its use in a specific mission, and the politicking Jerry described is total Washington. “The UH-60 is not suited to the gunship mission.” “Did you test that?” “Uhhh…. um… ah! No, because the UH-60 is unsuited for the gunship mission…”
Sep 5, 2004 - 11:45 am 141. DennisThePeasant:Samuel-
Sarcastic wit?
And by the way, once you have purchased and read all of P.J. O’Rourke’s books, your journey will have reached its’ conclusion.
Regarding Bush Derangement Syndrome-
At this point, much for it seems to be a completely ritualistic response to utter helplessness, intellectual and personal. This obsessive need to display certainly isn’t something designed to impress undecideds/nonpartisans, and it is clear when you listen to a Susan Estrich, Al Franken or Michael Moore that converting the noncoverted is the last thing on their minds. Five minutes of the acts of any of the three and one can reasonably assume that they are about half a step away from hiring witch doctors and reading the entrails of sacrificial goats to figure out how to appease the angry politics gods. Introspective is not what you think of first when you describe these three
Thus, what you do not see from them, or from dimwits like Kevin Drum or Josh Marshall or Frank Rich, is any attempt to understand why they cannot find a candidate who can clearly articulate the policy positions they support…or why the policy positions they support simply do not resonate with the majority of voters at this time. If Andrew Sullivan really thinks we should set aside the War on Terror to deal with the critical issue of his wanting to marry his boyfriend, that’s fine. But in doing so he should hold no illusions as to just how that is going to play on Nov. 2. I have no problem with Sullivan having such an opinion, my problem with the fact that he ascribes Republican Evil as the reason most voters disagree with him.
Sullivan’s fundamental problem, which is shared by people like Estrich, is that they have those exact illusions…anything that does not confirm their reality much be ascribed to evil forces. Having found that they cannot convince that Iraq was wrong and that the War on Terror need not be a war, they have simply retreated to a space where every defeat, every reverse is due to the machinations of a vile enemy. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is indeed Vast when everyone who doesn’t tow the line is viewed as a confirmed opponent rather than a potential convert. And it certainly becomes a Conspiracy when you cannot or will not look at the reactions of the electorate dispassionately and rationally.
I go back to Zell Miller’s speech…Yes, it was devestating, but it was also rebuttable. At some point some Democrat within 50 miles of the Kerry campaign has to point out that if Democrats are serious about winning this election, they have to grow up, get serious and start rebutting the Republicans on the issues being raised by people like Zell Miller.
Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum and Frank Rich are journalists (to a degree, I guess). They are not political professionals and never will be. Susan Estrich is a political professional of proven incompetence. The Democratic Party has to realize, at some point, they have to stop sounding like Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, Frank Rich and Susan Estrich and start sounding like…(gasp) serious adults.
Sep 5, 2004 - 12:02 pm 142. richard mcenroe:Can we have a moment of sympathetic silence for Michael Totten and his board here? He has a really bad case of Tano infestation…
Sep 5, 2004 - 12:13 pm 143. Terrye:I wondered where Tano was. I thought that Republican thugs had done away with him. He is sop bi and brave speaking power to truth and all. I swoon.
In truth it still ain’t over. Rasmussen today had the candidates closer than they did yesterday. I don’t know why their poll is so different from Newsweek and Time but clearly the race is still on.
Sep 5, 2004 - 2:05 pm 144. jerry:Charlie: Sorry about the jargon. It is a natural way for a DC bureaucrat to speak/write when he is time pressed.
Richard: Excellent translation.
Sep 5, 2004 - 5:17 pm 145. craig mclaughlin:Jerry,
I know the HH-60 and other Blackhawk variants now operate off Navy ships of all kinds. But at the time that NBC segment aired, I don’t believe the HH-60 variant was in production.
My understanding, wrong perhaps, was the Marines were being forced to chose between something proven and buying a “pig in a poke.” Without or without lipstick, the chioce seemed clear to me AT THE TIME. Plus they needed the Helos right then, not five years later.
But I could be wrong. My larger point was that you’ll never, repeat never, hear Dan Rather say that.
And BTW, what will replace the H-46 for the Marines? Those birds are old…
Semper Fi.
Craig
Sep 5, 2004 - 6:12 pm 146. jerry:Craig:
The CV-22 Osprey will replace the 46. It is just a pig and expensive one at that. The Marines would have been better off selecting a high speed tandem design that Boeing had experimented with in the 1980’s. It could lift 25000lbs 50 miles and cruise at 180 kts for half the price. But once the Marines locked in the Osprey they could not be moved.
Sep 5, 2004 - 6:46 pm 147. richard mcenroe:Craig ó I think they’re still holding out for the Osprey. But if that comes up short, a navalized CH-47 or -53 would be pretty mission capable.
Sep 5, 2004 - 6:49 pm 148. craig mclaughlin:Jerry:
Oh yeah, The Osprey. I’d forgotten about that piece of crap. The Corps has been screwing around with it for twenty years.
A guy I went to school with, John Brow, crashed an Osprey. 19 Marines were killed. Including John. Vortex Ring State, what can I say?
But none of this has anything to do with Roger’s point about reactionary media, does it?
Do you wanna talk about abortion?
Craig
Sep 5, 2004 - 7:00 pm 149. Charlie (Colorado):Vortex Ring State
??
All I know about Ospreys is that they looked kinda cool when they used to fly them at Moffet NAS during the airshow (I used to live right off the threshold) and they seem to prang them pretty often.
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:03 pm 150. craig mclaughlin:Charlie:
The rotor blades of a helicopter, any helo, create a ring of disturbed turbulent air underneath them—a vortex ring. If you are foolish enough to descend into that disturbed air with insufficient forward airspeed you will drop like a set of car keys.
If you have enough altitude you can fly out of the bottom of it. If you don’t you’re dead…
Craig
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:17 pm 151. M. Simon:You guys also need to focus on this:
Al Sharpton & Willie Horton Ads by Marks
Especially see my posts interspersed between #107 & #118 Also links to the Blogspirator.
We are going to have to get ready to deal with this stuff. Back in action again. Yee Haaa.
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:35 pm 152. M. Simon:What you want to look into is the LAMV Skycar.
The Osprey is dead.
Sep 5, 2004 - 8:42 pm 153. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Charlie
You trigger memories. I spent a lot of time stationed at Moffett NAS, with my office in the great big blimp hangar and our aircraft on the ramp in front of it.
This was way pre-Osprey days, although the did have some sort of flying car that looked like a flying saucer. We also used to see the guppy a lot, although the last time I saw it was this year at the boneyard in Tucson (when they also let me sit in the cockpit of an SR-71!)
Sep 6, 2004 - 1:16 am 154. Lisa:Wow. Floating in here from Captain’s Quarters, I just wanted to see what the response to Newsday’s “misrepresentation” was in this corner. Quite the journey from the beginning of the comments. I appreciate the level of intensity and knowledge among those posting here. It is refreshing. As I was reading, I noticed something on which I would like to comment. Seeing as the subject has been banned, I’ll be brief: the thought put forth regarding Midwestern beliefs on abortion is correct as far as evangelicals are concerned. When I was less informed than I am now, which there is not much difference
, I voted straight Republican due to the party’s stance on abortion. Now I am a couple years older and want to know “why” I vote the way I do. I am pleased to note that still I have more in common with the Republicans than the Democrats. Unless there are some major upheavels, I forsee the future of my vote staying the same.
Please do continue your efforts of spreading the truth so that others may come to the conclusion, as I did, that the majority of “news” we hear (or read) is a form of liberal brainwashing.
Sep 6, 2004 - 9:13 am