A good analysis of Big Media, and the attack of the liberal left...

[USAsoccer]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html

Extended excerpts from a very long commentary...


BIG MEDIA COUNTERATTACKS: Old Media and the Left, enraged by President Bush's surge in the polls and what they view as an illegitimate examination of Kerry's record, has decided that today is the day they will counterattack hard in an attempt to reopen the Bush National Guard story as an issue in the campaign.

The Boston Globe unloads an above the fold, front-page story: "Bush Fell Short on Duty at Guard: Records Show Pledges Unmet." The Globe's parent corporation, The New York Times Company, gets into the action with Nicholas Kristof 's "Missing in Action." Then of course there is the headliner with CBS's Dan Rather interviewing former Democratic Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes II later tonight.

Kristof writes wistfully:
.......

I love it when post-hippie 1970 liberals indignantly throw around words like "evaded service in Vietnam." Of course for eight years while Bill Clinton was Commander in Chief this was a non-issue, but suddenly they are enraged that somebody might have "evaded service in Vietnam" by serving in the National Guard. Now liberals will say the issue is not that Bush served in the National Guard, but rather how he got into the National Guard. But Kristof's own words accuse the President very directly of "evading service in Vietnam."

The hypocrisy here is so stunning and the gall of baby boomer, anti-war lefties getting all self-righteous about "evading service" is a joke. The fact the Left has decided to go back to the trough on this issue just shows how few attractive avenues of attack they have left against the President. This is a sign of weakness, not strength.

.....

But they are missing two key points to why this re-attack on President Bush's National Guard service will not have nearly the effectiveness of the swift boat attacks on Senator Kerry. First, and this is not a small point, George Bush has not made his stint in the National Guard one of the primary reasons to vote for him as President. Bush is more than happy to run on his 6-year record as Governor of the second largest state in country and his four years as President of the United States. It is Senator Kerry who decided to make his four-month service in Vietnam the prime qualification to lead this nation in war as opposed to his twenty-year public record in the United States Senate.

Second, and it is this point that infuriates the elites in the media, there happens to be quite a lot of substance in the swift-boat attacks. The Kerry campaign and their friends in the press like to pretend that this is all just a pack of lies conjured up by the right-wing slime machine, but the facts seem to suggest a different story. The reason the swift-boat controversy continues to resonate is there is significant evidence supporting the charges.

The media did their best to cherry pick one story here and another story there in an attempt to discredit the swift-boat veterans, but when you have over 90% of the people Kerry served with corroborating the story, at some point it becomes difficult to suggest the whole thing is all a pack of lies. As Bob Dole said very devastatingly just a couple of weeks ago:

Not every one of these people can be Republican liars. There's got to be some truth to the charges.

[Claymore]

I'd say the bigger issue is how Bush not only evaded service in Vietnam, but evaded service in Alabama and Massachussetts as well.

[bojendyk]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html

I love it when post-hippie 1970 liberals indignantly throw around words like "evaded service in Vietnam." Of course for eight years while Bill Clinton was Commander in Chief this was a non-issue, but suddenly they are enraged that somebody might have "evaded service in Vietnam" by serving in the National Guard.


Clinton didn't serve in Nam? I didn't know that. You'd think that someone would have brought that up when he ran.

Oh, wait, they did. They called him a pot-smoking draft-dodger. Contstantly.

Reeps made drug use and Nam service an issue with Clinton. In case you missed my point, it is that Reeps made this an issue. Reeps made the bed, and they made it with low-thread count sheets, a cheap mattress, and synthetic pillows. Now they should enjoy trying to lay in it.

[USAsoccer]

Reeps made drug use and Nam service an issue with Clinton. In case you missed my point, it is that Reeps made this an issue. Reeps made the bed, and they made it with low-thread count sheets, a cheap mattress, and synthetic pillows. Now they should enjoy trying to lay in it.

And I presume you said THEN that it was NOT an issue?

Well, which is it? Or are you simply flip flopping?

[yossarian]

And I presume you said THEN that it was NOT an issue?

Well, which is it? Or are you simply flip flopping?

The same question can be posed to Republicans based on their previous attacks on Clinton. At the time it was justified as a legitimate question concerning his character.............well, which is it?

[USAsoccer]

The same question can be posed to Republicans based on their previous attacks on Clinton. At the time it was justified as a legitimate question concerning his character.............well, which is it?


Since Bush has been President for four years, and we know how he will act as a commander in chief, explain to me how this is NOW relevant?

[Claymore]

Since Bush has been President for four years, and we know how he will act as a commander in chief, explain to me how this is NOW relevant?

Because it is further proof that his demonstrated pattern of screwing things up and blaming others for his actions is deeply rooted.

[Chicago1871]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html

But they are missing two key points to why this re-attack on President Bush's National Guard service will not have nearly the effectiveness of the swift boat attacks on Senator Kerry. First, and this is not a small point, George Bush has not made his stint in the National Guard one of the primary reasons to vote for him as President. Bush is more than happy to run on his 6-year record as Governor of the second largest state in country and his four years as President of the United States.

I must have been sleeping the last couple months. When exactly has Bush run on his record as govenor or President?

[cocu]

"flip flopping"
this kind of rhetoric WILL NOT STAND.. ;)

[Mel Brennan]

Since Bush has been President for four years, and we know how he will act as a commander in chief, explain to me how this is NOW relevant?

What's the statute of limitations on truthful information in a republic flirting with democracy?

[John Galt]

Again, I am simply dumbfounded at the cognitive dissonance. How many logical hoops are you willing to go through to argue that your side is being intellectually and logically pure and it is only the other side who is violating all the rules of the game? As yossarian quite ably pointed out, it's impossible. The twisted contortions you go through to show that it's somehow necessary for truth valor and honor and the fate of the Republic that mud be slinged at one candidate while it is the highest form of treason, despicable rapscallionism and chicanery to have the other candidate's honor truth and valor submitted to any form of questioning is simply pitiful.

Can Republicans really not see themselves in the mirror?

[yossarian]

Since Bush has been President for four years, and we know how he will act as a commander in chief, explain to me how this is NOW relevant?

I don't know....I suppose the same way it was relevant when the question was re-visited during the Clinton/Dole campaign despite Clinton being in office for four years.

Look, I am not arguing that this type of mud-slinging is furthering a point worthy of debate but, as John Galt stated, it's a bit silly (if not disingenuous) for the Republicans to cry "foul" on this issue after using it as a bludgeon against Clinton for 8 years....despite the author you cited saying it was a "non-issue."

[Casper]

Isn't there a slight difference between a Republican-funded organization criticizing a candidate and the Boston Globe doing it?

[USAsoccer]

I don't know....I suppose the same way it was relevant when the question was re-visited during the Clinton/Dole campaign despite Clinton being in office for four years.

Look, I am not arguing that this type of mud-slinging is furthering a point worthy of debate but, as John Galt stated, it's a bit silly (if not disingenuous) for the Republicans to cry "foul" on this issue after using it as a bludgeon against Clinton for 8 years....despite the author you cited saying it was a "non-issue."

Yossarian...

That was a good answer to my question, deserving of rep!

Notwithstanding Mr. Galt, who is playing dumb-smart (trust me, he knows of what I speak), it is an issue for Mr. Kerry because he has made his 4 months in Nam the centerpiece of his campaign (to avoid answering questions about his 19 years in the senate).

As for whether Bush reported for weekend drill in May, (you normally do not drill in June), July, and August of 1972, it seems pretty flippin weak to make an issue out of it in light of the fact that he is ALREADY PRESIDENT!!!!!! But beyond that, Let's stipulate that it is completely true...that Bush did not report.

That is called failing to repair, not awol, and the fact remains that his chain of command did nothing, and if his chain of command did not see the issue in the Summer of 1972, then I don't see the issue now.

As for Kerry, it would appear that 264 of his fellow officers and crew-mates find his service to be questionable.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

Please find for me officers/and or enlisted members, willing to make the same claims against Bush. And even then, I still would come back and say, it just does not matter in light of the fact that he has been President for 4 years.

Look, if the tables where turned, I would still feel the same way. If Kerry were President, I would say that all this stuff about Nam and the Swift boats was completely and utterly irrelevant, because Kerry has been in office as President, and thereby, we have 4 years to judge him by.

With Kerry, all I can judge him by is his 19 years in the Senate, his dishonorable conduct after the Vietnam war, and his conduct during the war, and only because Kerry made it THE issue of this campaign...

[USAsoccer]

Isn't there a slight difference between a Republican-funded organization criticizing a candidate and the Boston Globe doing it?

You mean the Boston Globe, which is owned by the New York Times... :D

And I presume you are just as upset at Harold Ickes, formerly of the DNC, and ACT spending 14 times what the Swifties spent....

Or Moveon.org who has in its employ several former Kerry employees, to also include a lawyer similiiarly situated to Ginsburg, but who has yet to resign...

I mean, 68 million to 3 million...c-mon... :confused: :rolleyes:

[Barbara]

Yossarian...

That was a good answer to my question, deserving of rep!

Notwithstanding Mr. Galt, who is playing dumb-smart (trust me, he knows of what I speak), it is an issue for Mr. Kerry because he has made his 4 months in Nam the centerpiece of his campaign (to avoid answering questions about his 19 years in the senate).


Once again you've failed to address the point that the Republicans were the first to make service in Vietnam an issue and now that they've been hoisted on their own petard, they find that they don't like it.

As for whether Bush reported for weekend drill in May, (you normally do not drill in June), July, and August of 1972, it seems pretty flippin weak to make an issue out of it in light of the fact that he is ALREADY PRESIDENT!!!!!!

What difference does that make?



But beyond that, Let's stipulate that it is completely true...that Bush did not report.

That is called failing to repair, not awol, and the fact remains that his chain of command did nothing, and if his chain of command did not see the issue in the Summer of 1972, then I don't see the issue now.

Hypocrisy, pure and simple. The gall of Bush to try to impugne John Kerry's service after failing to fulfill the service he signed up for is just unbelievable.

As for Kerry, it would appear that 264 of his fellow officers and crew-mates find his service to be questionable.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

Wrong.

There are at least 264 people who saw Kerry serve. No one except the dentist in Alabama remembers seeing Dubya at all.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

[superdave]

USAsoccer, in fairness to your side, Quayle took some shots for his NG service.

But that just points out what, in my eyes, is the real issue. Quayle and Bush II both supported the Vietnam War, and both actively avoided going. (OK, in Bush's case, his role compared to his father is unclear.) Clinton was against the war.

You can make whatever case you want to about cowardice, and that goes for all three of them. But the charge of hypocrisy and elitism, Clinton walks on that one. That only sticks to Quayle'n'Bush.

You mean the Boston Globe, which is owned by the New York Times... :D

And I presume you are just as upset at Harold Ickes, formerly of the DNC, and ACT spending 14 times what the Swifties spent....

Or Moveon.org who has in its employ several former Kerry employees, to also include a lawyer similiiarly situated to Ginsburg, but who has yet to resign...

I mean, 68 million to 3 million...c-mon... :confused: :rolleyes:
Are the moveon ads true, or not true? For me, that's the critical distinction.

[yossarian]

Notwithstanding Mr. Galt, who is playing dumb-smart (trust me, he knows of what I speak), it is an issue for Mr. Kerry because he has made his 4 months in Nam the centerpiece of his campaign (to avoid answering questions about his 19 years in the senate).

Kerry may have made his service the focus of the convention...but that premise does not automatically lead to your next assumption that this was done "to avoid answering questions about his years in the Senate."

Kerry has been talking about his record and what his vision for the country is, however, to some extent this has been drowned out by the din of the purple band-aid brigade and Kerry's subsequent attempts to refute them.


As for whether Bush reported for weekend drill in May, (you normally do not drill in June), July, and August of 1972, it seems pretty flippin weak to make an issue out of it in light of the fact that he is ALREADY PRESIDENT!!!!!! But beyond that, Let's stipulate that it is completely true...that Bush did not report.

That is called failing to repair, not awol, and the fact remains that his chain of command did nothing, and if his chain of command did not see the issue in the Summer of 1972, then I don't see the issue now.

As for Kerry, it would appear that 264 of his fellow officers and crew-mates find his service to be questionable.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.


You cite what you consider to be a difference....but isn't it true that Kerry's chain of command and those with whom he served did not have a problem with his awards/medals at the time they were given. Even as late as Kerry's last Senate campaign, you had a couple of the swiftboat folks praising his service. Why does Bush get a break for the acquiescense of his commanders 30+ years ago but Kerry does not?


With Kerry, all I can judge him by is his 19 years in the Senate, his dishonorable conduct after the Vietnam war, and his conduct during the war, and only because Kerry made it THE issue of this campaign...

First, you consider Kerry's conduct after the war to be dishonorable. This is not some objective fact but your subjective views regarding actions others subjectively view as quite admirable. As for the rest....I thought you had stated in other threads that you did not consider Kerry's actions during the war to be anything but admirable? Regardless, while I have already stated that Kerry's service was certainly a big focus of the convention, do you honestly believe that the swiftboat ads would not have aired if Kerry's service had been more downplayed?

Finally, as far as the distinction being in office versus running for that office, that may very well factor into your decision-making calculus....I have no reason to doubt you....but as I mentioned in my earlier comments...that distinction mattered not to Republicans looking for leverage during Dole's run against Clinton in 1996. And, despite the fact that Bush's whereabouts during those few months is a non-issue to you, it is not surprising to me that others would be curious as to how committed/serious he was regarding his service in light of his status as commander-in-chief and the concomitant power to commit those currently serving toward future conflicts.

[nicephoras]

Notwithstanding Mr. Galt, who is playing dumb-smart (trust me, he knows of what I speak), it is an issue for Mr. Kerry because he has made his 4 months in Nam the centerpiece of his campaign (to avoid answering questions about his 19 years in the senate).

Please show me one instance of Kerry avoiding answering questions about his Senate record with any Vietnam references. Otherwise, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call that a lie.

As for whether Bush reported for weekend drill in May, (you normally do not drill in June), July, and August of 1972, it seems pretty flippin weak to make an issue out of it in light of the fact that he is ALREADY PRESIDENT!!!!!!

So does that mean you completely opposed Whitewater, since Clinton was already president?
Also, if we're going to use "he's already a President", does this mean those 7 people Bush killed in a coked up rampage in 73 can't be an issue?

But beyond that, Let's stipulate that it is completely true...that Bush did not report.
That is called failing to repair, not awol, and the fact remains that his chain of command did nothing, and if his chain of command did not see the issue in the Summer of 1972, then I don't see the issue now.
As for Kerry, it would appear that 264 of his fellow officers and crew-mates find his service to be questionable.
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

Um........no one in Kerry's chain of command saw anything amiss either. You're making no sense.

Look, if the tables where turned, I would still feel the same way. If Kerry were President, I would say that all this stuff about Nam and the Swift boats was completely and utterly irrelevant, because Kerry has been in office as President, and thereby, we have 4 years to judge him by.

But we have had 19 years to judge Kerry as a Senator. In what way does his Vietnam service matter if he's running for President?

With Kerry, all I can judge him by is his 19 years in the Senate, his dishonorable conduct after the Vietnam war, and his conduct during the war, and only because Kerry made it THE issue of this campaign...

You're a lost cause anyway, so what you judge him by is largely irrelevant.

[Chris M.]

And I presume you said THEN that it was NOT an issue?

Well, which is it? Or are you simply flip flopping?

I am going to pretend this was directed at me, ;) and say that you presumed wrong.

I always consider a persons past when make an important decision about who to vote for for high office. I do think that in many ways, tiger's don't change their stripes, and if you were brave, truthful and honorable when you are young, that will most likely carry forward.

There are youthful indiscretions which I factor out, but not real character issues.

Having said that, I DID consider service in earlier elections. I gave Clinton a negative tick for deferments balanced a little by what superdave wrote about -- his opposition to the war. I gave Bush Sr. and Dole positive ticks for their service with little reservation on either.

I give Bush Jr. and Cheney negatvie ticks equal to Clinton on the sole issue of avoiding a draft. I give them additional negative ticks -- again, thanks superdave -- for avoiding a war they publicly support.

Finally, I give Dubya a huge negative for welching on his commitment that got him out of the war in the first place. If I were his age, and I had the opportunity to get a pilot slot in the Air Guard, I likely would have taken it. That is not the heroic position, but a realistic one. Having said that, I KNOW that I would have shown up for duty every single time. I would have stayed current as a pilot so that I could have flown every single time.

Personally, I like my system, because I see some of these character flaws in Dubya today. His false machismo. His waffling on questions where he doesn't want to give an answer ("Mr. President, have you made any mistakes?") His lack of genuine curiosity.

As far as whether or not this is an issue, I agree with you that Kerry needs to address anything that comes his way because he chose to highlight his military career. I do not give Dubya a pass on this, however. He had several opportunities to denounce the swift boat ads where he could have affirmatively stated, "his record doesn't matter, my record doesn't matter" and he didn't do it. Instead, he said "Kerry should be proud of his service, and I am proud of mine." Oh, really?