Kerry Death Spiral

[Ed]

I have, through my superior political acumen, foreseen serious problems for John Kerry even prior to the Republican convention. These problems, I believe, largely result from incompetent "handling" by cynical advisors.

The situation is not unrecoverable but the Senator needs to do something now.

What characterizes this process is an ever increasing volume of what his advisors will call "bad news" which will be called "partisan" publicly but which the Kerry group is virtually entirely responsible for due to their 1) ingoing arrogance that ABB will win and 2) that forceful and direct and unequivical statements are not as effective as spin.

The latest can be found

here

As the Telegraph puts it:

Quote:

In a fresh blow to John Kerry's flagging presidential campaign, the Pentagon has ordered an official investigation into the awards of the Democratic senator's five Vietnam War decorations.

Look for words like "flagging", "not caught fire", and most ominous "moribund" to be used with mounting frequency as time goes on.

He can still recover so there is time before we should get the popcorn and settle in to watch the unfolding disaster. But, there is not a whole bunch of time. Whipping up crowds, appealing to the "unfairness" of it all and trusting to automaton like die hard followers to rescue him are actions that reek of flop sweat.

If and when you hear the phrase "partisan politics of the worst sort", stock up on popcorn. If this is followed by "the actions of a desparate campaign" (directed at GW) kick the cat off the couch and settle in. If after these utterances you hear anything that that uses the words "republican", "Bush" or in fact anything other than words that are self referential and not in the passive voice, it is over.

It means he just don't get it and he cannot rise above the non-committal and cover your ass characteristics of a 20 year Senate veteran. It will be as I feared. Dumb ass.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

n a fresh blow to John Kerry's flagging presidential campaign, the Pentagon has ordered an official investigation into the awards of the Democratic senator's five Vietnam War decorations.

This is unbelievable. The armed forces are now doing the dirty work of the republicans. WTF cannot go wrong in US politics.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
This is unbelievable. The armed forces are now doing the dirty work of the republicans. WTF cannot go wrong in US politics.

Read the article. It was requested by an independent group:

Quote:

But to the consternation of campaign strategists, the US navy has now agreed to a request by Judicial Watch, a bi-partisan lobby group, for a full inquiry.

Some of there cases are here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases.shtml

This is simply politics and you are bleating as I hope Kerrys group will not. You do see that your response is part of the problem, yes?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Read the article. It was requested by an independent group:



Some of there cases are here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases.shtml

This is simply politics and you are bleating as I hope Kerrys group will not. You do see that your response is part of the problem, yes?

Bi-partisan my @ss.

Quote:

Judicial Watch is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization dedicated to reforming the legal and judicial systems and fighting government corruption. Judicial Watch is led by, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, a well known conservative activist. Utilizing the court system in a creative manner, Judicial Watch seeks to expose corruption at all levels of government and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

One of their current cases

Quote:

13. AIM v. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - Civil Action 97-2109. Judicial Watch filed these three related cases on behalf of Accuracy in the Media to uncover documentation behind the Clinton Administration's investigation into the death of former White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster. Despite these investigations being officially closed, the Clinton Administration has continued to refuse to release relevant documents.

14. JUDICIAL WATCH v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) - Civil Action No. 97-2026. Judicial Watch has filed suit to challenge the implementation of the Family Responsibility Act provisions on abstinence education by the Clinton Administration. According to media reports and concerned religious groups, the money is not being spent as Congress specifically directed and may instead be going to condoms and sex education.

Goddam, was the heathen administration trying to stop teen pregnancies with sex education. No wonder these guys are on the case.

Non Partisan these days appears to mean, Anything the Republican Party wants.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Bi-partisan my @ss.



One of their current cases



Goddam, was the heathen administration trying to stop teen pregnancies with sex education. No wonder these guys are on the case.

Non Partisan these days appears to mean, Anything the Republican Party wants.

It means whatever it means. The point is that this is Kerry's doing from the gitgo and if they engage in the same lame responses that you do they are toast. That was the point of my original post. If Kerry after 20 years in the Senate is surprised, I submit that he is simply not competant to be president.

OK, that's the way it is. Get over it. What will Kerry do to not loose it?

[aerocontrols]

AUP found anecdotal evidence. CASE CLOSED!

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Non Partisan these days appears to mean, Anything the Republican Party wants.

I have an anecdote of my own:

I doubt the Republican Party wanted this case to go forward.

[CFLarsen]

What if they find out that Kerry deserved his medals?

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
AUP found anecdotal evidence. CASE CLOSED!




I have an anecdote of my own:

I doubt the Republican Party wanted this case to go forward.

Good point but still it is irrelevant to the problems that Kerry has.

If his people take a rather annelid view of the proceedings and respond the way AUP did, the Republicans will rejoice. You see that, AUP, I trust? If nothing else this is an example of forward defense and it is the kind of thing that you can expect doctrinaire, unthinking proponents to react to.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What if they find out that Kerry deserved his medals?

RIGHT!

The results will be whatever the results are and only Kerry really knows. At this point only an unequivical finding will be "good" for Kerry. I say "good" because he will be back to where he was months ago on this issue. He has lost on this one already (because of juvinile advice). He must, as I have been braying for some time now, marginalize this whole issue.

This board is a micocosm of the country. Note how we focus on trivial stuff at the expence of the biggies. The republicans count on that (so would the Democrats if they could get their underwear on). Look at AUP, predictibly going "oooo oooooo partisan".

As Mr. Burns would say "Excellent".

Anyone who does not apprehend that politics is misdirection on a grand scale is a child. AUP just got his watch lifted

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
RIGHT!

The results will be whatever the results are and only Kerry really knows. At this point only an unequivical finding will be "good" for Kerry. I say "good" because he will be back to where he was months ago on this issue. He has lost on this one already (because of juvinile advice). He must, as I have been braying for some time now, marginalize this whole issue.

Nope, he isn't back to square one. The Republicans can never again even breathe on this issue, and every Republican who already has raised doubts about his medals will look like a scandal-monger.

If, however, there are raised doubts about his medals, then it will create a feces storm: Then, the whole system of awarding medals will be questioned - you simply cannot trust that those who got their medals also deserved them.

Every US soldier, who has ever been awarded a medal, will - and should - have his merits questioned and investigated. All the awarded soldiers will be under suspicion.

That will not go down well, even in Republican circles...

Kerry wins? He wins.

Kerry loses? The whole idea of rewarding medals for military bravery is questioned at its very core.

[Frank Newgent]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed

This board is a micocosm of the country.

Are there that many people in jail here?

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nope, he isn't back to square one. The Republicans can never again even breathe on this issue, and every Republican who already has raised doubts about his medals will look like a scandal-monger.

By that time they have moved on. He has been sullied. He will have lost even if he wins.

Quote:

Norfolk : Cut off my head, and make me a martyr. The people will always remember it.
Walsingham : No... they will forget.

....and our memory cycle is shorter than the Elizabethians.....

If, however, there are raised doubts about his medals, then it will create a feces storm: Then, the whole system of awarding medals will be questioned - you simply cannot trust that those who got their medals also deserved them.

If they run for president. No one will remember, everyone will forget.

Every US soldier, who has ever been awarded a medal, will - and should - have his merits questioned and investigated. All the awarded soldiers will be under suspicion.

Right, Bush will make that a top priority during his new term. Never happen.

That will not go down well, even in Republican circles...

never happen. This is a micro issue that Kerry screwed the pooch on. Rather, his people.

Kerry wins? He wins.

Kerry wins he lost 10,000 troops in the process for an objective that should not have been an issue in the first place....

Kerry loses? The whole idea of rewarding medals for military bravery is questioned at its very core.

Kerry looses, he is unemployed. Perhaps we need our heros more than the Danes, even if they are cardboard, no one will care about medals beyond the election. The point would be "don't claim it if you ain't got the goods". Didn't you say that a few days ago on another thread. The point that I am making is that Kerry's people made a blunder of monumental proportions. This is a bit like the Hart poppings.

A point that just occured to me. We'll never have another voting debacle like we did in Florida in 2000, right? After the election we jumped on the problem and fixed it, right? Claus, no one is going to care about these issues post 11/2 except for those that can make money on it or get face time on talk shows where they can quivver in rightious indignation.

Watch, now. If Kerry or his minions raise Bush's service record in the slightest it means they are scrambling and devoid of ideas. Oddly, they will look partisan and petty. Professional should not make that kind of mistake. We'll see.

[Dogwood]

My impression has been that Kerrys focus on his veteran status was to put a face on his candidacy. As conservative and liberal pundits were saying for months since he became the presumed nominee, most people in this country didn't know who Kerry was. I believe Kerrys intention was to fill in that blank as patriot/war hero. It was a good way to go because it invited independent comparisons to Bush and his Vietnam service. But then the SBVfT showed up. Kerry was forced to drag things out much longer than he wanted to.

I have been expecting for some time that between the conventions, Kerry would shift gears in anticipation of the debates and begin to focus on his senate voting record. There's a lot of positive history for him there that blends nicely with his Vietnam record. I then would have expected him, starting with the debates, to begin concentrating on his plans for the future, in which he would first discuss Iraq and getting the troops out safely, while announcing plans for increasing veterans benefits removed by Bush, and moving to an intelligence based war on terror rather than a military one.

This would've been a nice tight easy to remember meme for the the American people.

Phase I: Former war hero

Phase II: As Senator, helped grieving American families of veterans, "bury their dead". (plus COPS program, etc)

Phase III: Would continue to support troops in Iraq and bring them home safely when Iraq is secure while rebuilding diplomatic bridges burnt by current administration. (Then return to Economy, jobs, etc.) Will make America safer more cheaply, effeciently and efffectively.

As I say, this is what I was expecting. Whatever the real plan is/was, he's still stuck in Phase I.

As to what he needs to do now. He needs to ignore the SBV's. The media has largely taken on the roll now of investigating their claims anyway. Not very thoroughly, but he wants the media to pick up his lead, and not the other way around.

I think it's also too late to spend much time on his Senate history. That's what all his critics are hollering about now and if he answers them, he'll still be on the defensive. He needs to put Bush on the defensive. He's got to raise questions in voters minds before the debates about lost jobs, ever increasing national debt, growth of Al Qaeda, increase in Medicare costs, and focus on Bush's flip flops. Some of these questions would surely be brought up by moderators in the debates and the public should be anticipating Bush's answers when they watch.

Meanwhile, Kerry's surrogates should be undercutting Bush's surrogates falsehoods and half-truths. The Bush supporters have been very effective in introducing false information that has now become "common knowledge". (Most liberal senator, voted against 16 weapon systems, etc)

Bottom line, attack.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What if they find out that Kerry deserved his medals?

The fellow who Kerry saved from drowning definitely says so.

That's what Kerry got the silver star for. Under fire. No question.

As for the other medals, who cares?

He is a genuine war hero.

I'm voting for Bush, but I freely admit that this business of questioning Kerry's medals is crapola.

BTW, I'm a Bush voter of the Ed Koch school. I'm pro choice, pro gay marriage. But must vote Bush because I'm pro survival.

That said, I'm not a Fast Eddie dittohead either. I'm anti gum control, but that's part of being pro survival, even if Fast Eddie doesn't agree.

Guns and the war make me a 'right-winger'. Otherwise I'm 'left' by American standards.

Of course by American standards, just about every western European is a socialist, including Eric Haider in Austria, and the UKIP in the UK.

[Skeptic]

Saying that this is a "death spiral" or that Bush is "cleaning up" is, to say the least, premature. This sort of "scandal" is to be expected from both sides in a presidential race. While it is true that Kerry had been sullied lately and Bush had a successful Republican convention, this could--and probably would--mean little on election day.

But it can be said that, so far, Kerry made two mistakes (although, again, they aren't necessarily crucial).

First, he decided to run on his Vietnam record. This carries two risks. No. 1, voters might not care about your war record at all, and care more about things like the war on terror, or healthcare, or social security, etc. In 1996, for instance, the WWII combat vet Bob Dole was crushed by the Vietnam draft-dodger Bill Clinton, because voters simply didn't care: they wanted someone who would do a good work as president, not to give the presidency as a belated prize to a war hero.

If Kerry had three medals of honor and was known far and wide as the bravest US soldier in history, would that be a reason to elect him president? No! So far as I know, the last president who was elected because of his war record was Eisenhower--and he was elected because he was the supreme commander, not because of his medals or his personal heroism. Does anybody here actually know what medals Eisenhower had earned?

No. 2, people might start looking at your record a bit more closely than you would like. Apparently Kerry, over time, had--in his own mind--slightly embellished his record and, through constant retelling, came to believe he was braver and greater than he actually was. This of course is very common with war vets; but most people who do that do not use their record as a reason for being elected, and thus make it open to detailed scrutiny. The result is that every slight "fib", every inaccuracy or slip, is greatly magnified, and your story is challanged.

(I, for one, am not particualrly impressed with Kerry's record. Yes, he did volunteer for Vietnam. But--contrary to popular belief--after being wounded three times, you were not automatically sent home early. You had to apply for early dismissal--which Kerry did. Simply put, after four months, and three minor scrapes, he had had enough, and preferred to go back home. It seems to me that his "anti-war" involvement is at least partly a later rationalization of the fact that he left his men in the lurch. They, of course, did not go home with him...)

Second, his reaction to the swift boat veteran's claims was so overblown that it backfired. Two weeks before their ads ran, Kerry said that if the Republicans want to make Vietnam the issue in this campaign, he has three words for them: "bring it on!". So they did... and two weeks after the "bring it on" speech, Kerry sent Edwards to complain to president Bush, having slightly different three words for him: "Stop the ads". Does this sound like someone who "brings it on" and can handle nasty criticism? Not really.

Naturally, Bush reacted by first noting that he cannot stop the ads if he wanted to because it's an independent group that puts it on, a "527" one, and then he said that in his view all "527" organizations should stop putting ads... oops! 19 of 20 of the top "527" organizations are Bush-bashing democratic organizations, which, of course, Kerry would love to continue. Kerry came out as a whiner, as a man who can dish it out but cannot take it: I mean, you invite (or allow) the meretricious conspiracy theorist Michael Moore to give a speech in the democratic convention, but go all huffy over a single lousy ad that "unfairly" attacks you?

If Kerry learned from his mistakes, he would laugh off, or ignore, the latest inquiry; in fact, if he ignores it, he has a chance to make himself look like a victim and gather sympathy, if the investigation turns out that his citations were accurate, or that the differences between his claims an the actual citation is no more than the usual "artistic license" veterans often engage in. Or, if there are serious discreptions, he can offer a manly apology, offer a short explanation, and consider the issue closed. All of these ways could at least not harm him, and perhaps even help him.

If, however, he goes on in the conspiracy-theory I'm-prosecuted-by-the-forces-of-evil "Michael 'A Unique Person' Moore" mode, he will be greatly hurt by this in the same way he was hurt by the swift boat issue: he will greatly extend the time it's in the public view and come out as a whiner.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by dogwood
Meanwhile, Kerry's surrogates should be undercutting Bush's surrogates falsehoods and half-truths. The Bush supporters have been very effective in introducing false information that has now become "common knowledge". (Most liberal senator, voted against 16 weapon systems, etc)

Bottom line, attack.

Agree completely. The problem is, as I see it, that Kerry has a bit of a problem drawing a line in the sand.

The "liberal" think is a good case in point. The allegation that he is "most liberal" is a grotesque distortion of the facts. This is the way the conversations ran with his crack political operatives (and yes, I was there):

Kerry: What is this crap? Most liberal my ass. We gotta do something!

Grima Wormtongue, Advisor Extroadinaire: You see, we must be careful......

K: WTF? Careful?

GW: Yes. You see, if you refute this you need to use the word "liberal" and we know that there are certain words you can't use.

K: .......

GW: If you use it it becomes associated with you. All of us AE's know this. You cannot say the word. If you refute it, it seems that you have something to hide. That, and you have used the word. Bad.

K: WTF?

GW: That and the fact that if you distance yourself from liberals, your base will be really, really pissed off.

K: BS. Are you sitting there telling me that these pantywaists are going to vote for Bush?

GW: Not at all, but they could vote for Nader.

K: ...

K: ...

K: Sooooooo we ............

GW: Say nothing. It will go away, like the Swift Boat thing. Just stick you your stump speech and all will be well.

K: Well, OK, wouldn't want to take any chances, would we.

GW: Nope.

Nauseating, but true.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
By that time they have moved on. He has been sullied. He will have lost even if he wins.

If he is sullied, even if no fingers can be pointed, then you are basically saying that Americans are fickle and impressionable enough to fall for a cheap stunt like that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
If they run for president.

What's the difference? The medals are not awarded for running for president, but for military valour.

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Agree completely. The problem is, as I see it, that Kerry has a bit of a problem drawing a line in the sand.



[snip hypothetical conversation here]

When I mentally replace Kerry's political opponents with the US's real-world opponents, it scares me that Kerry might become president.

[Dogwood]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If he is sullied, even if no fingers can be pointed, then you are basically saying that Americans are fickle and impressionable enough to fall for a cheap stunt like that.

Nailed it in one.

This is precisely what people who run campaigns (In America anyway) count on.

[Ed]

First off, let me complement you on an excellent post.

I complement you.

There.


Originally posted by Skeptic
Saying that this is a "death spiral" or that Bush is "cleaning up" is, to say the least, premature. This sort of "scandal" is to be expected from both sides in a presidential race. While it is true that Kerry had been sullied lately and Bush had a successful Republican convention, this could--and probably would--mean little on election day.

Well, my political sensibilities are far in advance, more highly evolved if you will, of most people's so I can see how you would say that. However what I am referring to are the early stages of panic that my sensitive antenna are picking up. I am alluding to one of many possible futures. It all depends on Kerry's balls. Take his speech after the RNC. Bold. Stupid. Inept and amateurish. This crap cannot go on if he wants to win. Hell, even Bush waited a month to invade Afganistan.

But it can be said that, so far, Kerry made two mistakes (although, again, they aren't necessarily crucial).

Underline "necessarily".

First, he decided to run on his Vietnam record. This carries two risks. No. 1, voters might not care about your war record at all, and care more about things like the war on terror, or healthcare, or social security, etc. In 1996, for instance, the WWII combat vet Bob Dole was crushed by the Vietnam draft-dodger Bill Clinton, because voters simply didn't care: they wanted someone who would do a good work as president, not to give the presidency as a belated prize to a war hero.

Right. And I am not sure that the characteristics of a brave kid are what we want in the White House.

If Kerry had three medals of honor and was known far and wide as the bravest US soldier in history, would that be a reason to elect him president? No! So far as I know, the last president who was elected because of his war record was Eisenhower--and he was elected because he was the supreme commander, not because of his medals or his personal heroism. Does anybody here actually know what medals Eisenhower had earned?

No. 2, people might start looking at your record a bit more closely than you would like.

Full stop. And, critically, there are veterans that have never forgiven him. That he did this reflects the ineptitude that I have such concerns with.

Apparently Kerry, over time, had--in his own mind--slightly embellished his record and, through constant retelling, came to believe he was braver and greater than he actually was. This of course is very common with war vets;

Some. My Congressional, VC, Peur le Merite and Hero of the Soviet Union speak for themselves though

but most people who do that do not use their record as a reason for being elected, and thus make it open to detailed scrutiny. The result is that every slight "fib", every inaccuracy or slip, is greatly magnified, and your story is challanged.

Right. He should have known. Remember, this is a guy who has been in DC for 20 friggin' years. The meta issue with him is the ineptitude.

(I, for one, am not particualrly impressed with Kerry's record. Yes, he did volunteer for Vietnam. But--contrary to popular belief--after being wounded three times, you were not automatically sent home early. You had to apply for early dismissal--which Kerry did. Simply put, after four months, and three minor scrapes, he had had enough, and preferred to go back home. It seems to me that his "anti-war" involvement is at least partly a later rationalization of the fact that he left his men in the lurch. They, of course, did not go home with him...)

All of which is not germane to 11/2/2004. So you have to ask "why bring it up?"

Second, his reaction to the swift boat veteran's claims was so overblown that it backfired. Two weeks before their ads ran, Kerry said that if the Republicans want to make Vietnam the issue in this campaign, he has three words for them: "bring it on!". So they did... and two weeks after the "bring it on" speech, Kerry sent Edwards to complain to president Bush, having slightly different three words for him: "Stop the ads". Does this sound like someone who "brings it on" and can handle nasty criticism? Not really.

And this gaffe will come back to haunt him. You watch. It is as though his camapign is a bunch of musicions without a conductor. Hmmmm.... paging James Carville perhaps? If he had the awareness for that bold move he would go up in my estimation.

Naturally, Bush reacted by first noting that he cannot stop the ads if he wanted to because it's an independent group that puts it on, a "527" one, and then he said that in his view all "527" organizations should stop putting ads... oops! 19 of 20 of the top "527" organizations are Bush-bashing democratic organizations, which, of course, Kerry would love to continue. Kerry came out as a whiner, as a man who can dish it out but cannot take it: I mean, you invite (or allow) the meretricious conspiracy theorist Michael Moore to give a speech in the democratic convention, but go all huffy over a single lousy ad that "unfairly" attacks you?

... (sigh)

If Kerry learned from his mistakes, he would laugh off, or ignore, the latest inquiry; in fact, if he ignores it, he has a chance to make himself look like a victim and gather sympathy, if the investigation turns out that his citations were accurate, or that the differences between his claims an the actual citation is no more than the usual "artistic license" veterans often engage in. Or, if there are serious discreptions, he can offer a manly apology, offer a short explanation, and consider the issue closed. All of these ways could at least not harm him, and perhaps even help him.

The best he can hope for is a non-life threatening wound, not help. Things are moving to fast for that.

If, however, he goes on in the conspiracy-theory I'm-prosecuted-by-the-forces-of-evil "Michael 'A Unique Person' Moore" mode, he will be greatly hurt by this in the same way he was hurt by the swift boat issue: he will greatly extend the time it's in the public view and come out as a whiner.

Or, perhaps, find a real issue. Perhaps if he rolled the dice and took on national security and pointed out how bad the Mexican border is ... maybe even sneaking across But something big and bold and dangerous. Droning on about health care is a recipe for disaster.

MM was at the DNC? Really?

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If he is sullied, even if no fingers can be pointed, then you are basically saying that Americans are fickle and impressionable enough to fall for a cheap stunt like that.



What's the difference? The medals are not awarded for running for president, but for military valour.

Americans are human. If that implies fickleness or goat abuse it does not matter. There is always an aura that descends over the accused.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
When I mentally replace Kerry's political opponents with the US's real-world opponents, it scares me that Kerry might become president.

Hence my concern, personally as a voter, with the meta view.

What do you mean hypothetical? You doubt that this conversation occurred?

[Dogwood]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Agree completely. The problem is, as I see it, that Kerry has a bit of a problem drawing a line in the sand.

The "liberal" think is a good case in point. The allegation that he is "most liberal" is a grotesque distortion of the facts. This is the way the conversations ran with his crack political operatives (and yes, I was there):

I've been repeatedly surprised that Kerrys campaign hasn't addressed these accusations directly. If they'd responded immediately they might've neutralized some of them, but failing to act at all just gave the impression that they were true. Now they have a life of their own.

It seems like at least once a week Sean Hannity is corrected about the "most liberal" business, and the next week it happens again, and again, and again. Not trying to derail this into an attack on Hannity, just pointing out the superior strategy. The republican surrogates and supporters know how to hammer home the message, the democrats seem to just be flailing in the water.

There may be some words and phrases that are effectively unusable, but that doesn't make them unaddressable. It seems that the dem's are guilty of one thing that the republicans have been accusing them of, and that's counting a little too much on the Anti-Bush sentiment.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by dogwood
I've been repeatedly surprised that Kerrys campaign hasn't addressed these accusations directly. If they'd responded immediately they might've neutralized some of them, but failing to act at all just gave the impression that they were true. Now they have a life of their own.

It seems like at least once a week Sean Hannity is corrected about the "most liberal" business, and the next week it happens again, and again, and again. Not trying to derail this into an attack on Hannity, just pointing out the superior strategy. The republican surrogates and supporters know how to hammer home the message, the democrats seem to just be flailing in the water.

There may be some words and phrases that are effectively unusable, but that doesn't make them unaddressable. It seems that the dem's are guilty of one thing that the republicans have been accusing them of, and that's counting a little too much on the Anti-Bush sentiment.

The future for Kerry hangs on a thin wire. A brave approach would be to confront and dismiss and trust the American people to make the right choice. The burocrat's response (as we see in every company in the US, for example) is to do nothing so that one cannot be blamed. He is, I fear, surrounded by these burocrats.

So, Dogwood, do you doubt that that conversation took place virtually verbatim?

[Dogwood]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed


So, Dogwood, do you doubt that that conversation took place virtually verbatim?

????

...um, I'd go as far as to say that I think you've effectively coalesced the vapors of the overall relationship between Kerry and his advisors into a viable and meanigful comprehension.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by dogwood
????

...um, I'd go as far as to say that I think you've effectively coalesced the vapors of the overall relationship between Kerry and his advisors into a viable and meanigful comprehension.

Damnnation boy!!!! You work in DC?

I like the turn of phrase "vapors", may I use it?

Vapors is right because is implies lack of responsibility. Watch, no one will be held accountable.

[Dogwood]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Damnnation boy!!!! You work in DC?

I like the turn of phrase "vapors", may I use it?

Help yourself. I completely stole and then paraphrased the line from Mel Brooks. I don't think he'd mind.

[Skeptic]

One last thought, though: in the entire "swift boat" affair, Bush and his people had shown far more sophistication and understanding of how potential voters think than Kerry and his people.

I keep thinking that if it was the other way around--if Bush was running to Kerry to demand, say, www.moveon.org 's ads be taken off the air--the forum would be rolling with laughter at how Bush against shows what an idiot he is when everybody knows it's an independent group; now that Kerry had done it, of course, it is righteous anger on his part, the "Swifties" are in a conspiracy with Bush, etc., etc. etc.

I, for one, have no seen any evidence so far in the election campaign that Bush is less intelligent than Kerry. If anything, he seems to be running a far more sophisticated campaign, while Kerry keeps making beginner's blunders.

Again, this can change tomorrow. But perhaps some people here would like to re-think their "Bush is an idiot" view, considering that most of the "evidence" for him being an "idiot" is based on doing things which would be excused, if not praised, if done by a democrat.

The "proof" for Bush being an "idiot" seems to be based on circular reasoning. The Bush administrations did some thing well and some things not well. When it does something well, the credit is given to his advisors, or to him following the Democrats' example, or whatever; but when it does something badly, well, that's "evidence" that Bush is an idiot and tries to do somethign on his own. But how do we know the good thing the administration did are due to it "copying" the democrats or his advisor and not Bush himself? Well, you don't expect an idiot like Bush to come up with something succesful on his own, do you?

[American]

There was a rumor that Clinton aides were being brought in to manage his campaign. I'm sure they can be trusted to elect Kerry and not serve the interests of Hillary by making sure he loses.....

[Abdul Alhazred]

George H. W. Bush (the current president's father) was a war hero in WWII, but he didn't make it a campaign issue in 1988 when he won.

Bill Clinton was a draft-dodger and won twice (and I voted for him twice).

Al Gore served in Vietnam, but he didn't make it a campaign issue. And he won the popular vote.

Why the Hell does Kerry think what he did in the war matters? It does matter, but only because he brought it up.

[Ed]

Another example (NYT Today)

Quote:

Mr. Kerry, who has been urged by some Democrats to step up his attacks on Mr. Bush, suggested he had only begun to fight back. "If they think they've seen the wood - we're going to take the wood to them over the course of these next few months," he said. "And we'll do it nicely."

Aside from the fact that "the wood" sounds faintly obscene ("Woody" is American slang for an erection), he doesn't really have a "few months" he has two and whatever he does better be done before then.

Just tell me that I don't have to see John Kerry's wood. Brrrrrrrrrrr.......

[hammegk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed

Just tell me that I don't have to see John Kerry's wood. Brrrrrrrrrrr.......

Calm down, Teresa cut it off as a souvenir. What's left is battery powered & in her nightstand drawer.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk
Calm down, Teresa cut it off as a souvenir. What's left is battery powered & in her nightstand drawer.

Hmmmm...... so then .... Teresa and Hillary share a collecting interest?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
AUP found anecdotal evidence. CASE CLOSED!




I have an anecdote of my own:

I doubt the Republican Party wanted this case to go forward.

These are not just anecdotes, the overall impression of the site is one that is pro-republican, anti democrat. Read a little more closely. And your link does not work.

Try this, on their front page.

Quote:

Kerry Should Remove Silver Star Citation From His Internet Site Pending Review By U.S. Navy

Combat 'V' Never Awarded With Silver Star

Former Navy Secretary Lehman Never Approved Citation

Additional Questions Remain Over Service Medal and Purple Hearts

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, today called on Senator John Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his political campaign Internet site pending a review of the granting of the award by the U.S. Navy.

[Skeptic]

These are not just anecdotes, the overall impression of the site is one that is pro-republican, anti democrat.

Oh, so it isn't "anecdotes" now, it's "overall impression". Well, that settles it, then. Why bother with facts when anecdotes and impressions will do?

Silly me, when you said they are "independent my ass", I thought you had some facts to back that up. I should have known that, coming from you, that's too much to ask for.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
These are not just anecdotes, the overall impression of the site is one that is pro-republican, anti democrat.

Oh, so it isn't "anecdotes" now, it's "overall impression". Well, that settles it, then. Why bother with facts when anecdotes and impressions will do?

Silly me, when you said they are "independent my ass", I thought you had some facts to back that up. I should have known that, coming from you, that's too much to ask for.

Have a look at the front page, if you don't believe me. The word 'clinton' is the most popular one.

[Ed]

Yoo hoo .....

This isn't the issue. You are falling into the same trap as Kerry is.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Yoo hoo .....

This isn't the issue. You are falling into the same trap as Kerry is.

I thought from the start that the 'reporting for duty' was an embaressment. However I thought it was believed it would play well to the audience.

Put the shoe on the other foot. If Dubya had gone to Nam and got some medals, how would the Republicans play him?

Face it, no matter what Kerry does, he will be crucified. Look at what happened to Gore and Carter. They did their best with Clinton, but he appears to be able to beat them at their own game.

[crackmonkey]

Perhaps I missed the discussion of it, but one of Kerry's medal citations is unequivocally wrong. The Silver Star is never enhanced with the combat 'V. I believe this is the medal that's being investigated, as it should be. There have been other cases of investigations over fraudulent medals and citations, and more than one fraudulent Silver Star with V. The only exceptional circumstance here is that the vet with the problematic award happens to be a politician running for the Presidency.
I'm also curious as to why the balance of posters here seem to feel the SBVT guys are lying about their recollections, while Kerry has actually changed his story a number of times since the campaign started. I don't think there's enough evidence to satisfactorily conclude that the SBVT guys are telling the truth, but there's plenty to show that Kerry either lied or had a number of faulty recollections that he corrected after the SBVT ads began running.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Perhaps I missed the discussion of it, but one of Kerry's medal citations is unequivocally wrong. The Silver Star is never enhanced with the combat 'V. I believe this is the medal that's being investigated, as it should be. There have been other cases of investigations over fraudulent medals and citations, and more than one fraudulent Silver Star with V. The only exceptional circumstance here is that the vet with the problematic award happens to be a politician running for the Presidency.

So if the Navy screwed up, fair enough. Shouldn't they leave an investigation of a internal error to a less politically sensitive time. Out of all the errors that they have made in awarding medals, and I can bet there are many errors in the paperwork, all of a sudden they have to be investigating this. I bet if they went through all the paperwork, they would find numerous other errors. You can bet they won't be doing that.

1) it would not achieve anything except upsetting the recipients of the medals.
2) It would be as waste of time and money.