-273: 23 August 2004

« 10 August 2004 - 11:01 pm | Main | 24 August 2004 - 10:48 am »

23 August 2004 - 9:22 am

On the issue of the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth," I think this illustration from the NY Times more than adequately illustrates the connections between the Bush administration and the Swift Boat folks and the blatant lies told by the Swifties. You should study it, as it's quite amusing. For the full story that accompanies the graphic, follow this link.

But as troubling as all of this is, the part that bothers me the most is Kerry's slow response. He built his whole campaign around his status as a Vietnam veteran, but just stood aside while the Swift Boat Veterans for ... tore right into the heart of his campaign. Maureen Dowd's Sunday column addresses this issue very well, but here is the killer quote:

Bill Clinton implied two weeks ago that Mr. Kerry was acting sluggish. "Whenever they hit me, I hit 'em back," he told Jon Stewart. "And whenever they came up with a charge I didn't believe was true, I answered back."

I'm beginning to believe more and more that the only Democrat good enough at both policy and politics to ever be elected president is Bill Clinton. The last two Democratic candidates aren't very inspiring, to say the least.

John Kerry needs to buckle down and treat this election like all elections. Stop focusing on the special issues (terrorists, Iraq) and focus on the one issue that trumps all others, the economy. The communist system fell apart during the reign of George I, but Clinton still beat him by focusing on the economy. Jobs have disappeared under George II and the so-called Bush tax cuts have done nothing more than funnel money from you and I to the ultra-wealthy (unless you are ultra-wealthy, in which case you owe me some money), but Kerry continues to focus on Iraq and uses Vietnam as his credentials.

I suspect that I was one of the few Kerry supporters who was disappointed by his convention speech. I wanted more economy and less war. Politicians who base campaigns on nebulous issues like integrity, leadership, and bravery leave themselves open to nebulous attacks like the Swift Boat attack. If Kerry had focused on the economy the best Bush could have come up with would have been to point at a "recovering" economy that continues to lose jobs (relative to population growth) and shows no other traditional signs of recovery. But no, Kerry continues to focus on the "war on terror." (Is terror something you can even wage war against?)

---

Also, to address one of the claims made by the Swift Boat Veterans for ..., during the Vietnam War if you were an American soldier injured while under fire -- regardless of whether your wound was superficial or self-inflicted -- you were awarded a Purple Heart. Those were the regulations in place at the time. And Bob Dole should be very careful when he criticizes John Kerry for accepting Purple Hearts.

Posted by on 23 August 2004 at 9:22 AM

Comments

I somewhat disagree with your post. I don't think Kerry should have responded to the Swift Boat people's ads at all. It only lent them credibility they most certainly did not deserve. Also, by framing his convention speech around his service in the war, Kerry made it impossible (in my opinion) for anyone to criticize him. I know how that sounds — yes, he obviously has been criticized, by these Swift Boat people and other dumb conservatives, who think the whole issue needed a book written about it.

But do most people who haven't had their minds already made up about the election consider those Swift Boat ads to be credible? I doubt it. Kerry obviously served in Vietnam and was awarded for his heroism; many of his fellow crewmen have clearly acknowledged this. Bush does not have a leg to stand on; even he has to know those ads are irrelevant and just plain dishonest.

If Kerry had focused on a more important issue — you suggest the economy, which is always a good one — the Bushies could have counterattacked using actual facts. Economics is not an objective field of study; it seems to me you can find an economist to back up any point you want to make. Unemployment is high, inflation is bad and the stock market is flimsy — sure. But many economists are optimistic that we're on an upswing, and they have the graphs to "prove" it.

I guess what I'm trying to say, ever so inelegantly, is that smart people can see through character attacks, such as the ones being made on Kerry. Smart people have a harder time knowing whom to believe on the real issues — the economy, health care, education, Social Security, etc. We could very well lose a lot of undecideds because they were more impressed by Bush's claims that he hasn't sucked this entire time than Kerry's suggestions as to how he would do better on those issues.

It may not be politics the way it should be done, but as long as we have the Bushies focusing on the absurd character stuff (and Kerry just shuts up long enough to win November 2), that's good enough for me.

Posted by Rachel on 23 August 2004 - 4:57 PM

Unfortunately, the vast majority of voters are not "smart people" by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted by Chris Hill Festival on 23 August 2004 - 7:08 PM

That's true. And as much as I hate to admit it, we need to appeal to the morons, too. Argh.

Posted by Rachel on 23 August 2004 - 10:05 PM

Too be honest, if John Kerry can't come up with a compelling reason to support him beyond his Vietnam record, I'm not sure how strongly I can support him.

Further, when trying to select a president, I'd rather base my decision on what he's done in the past 35 years rather than what he did long before I was born. This is why I didn't agree with is decision to base his convention speech around his war record. It really doesn't resonate with a lot of voters as well as other issues, such as the economy, would have.

Also, why do you think politicians all swear up and down that they would never use negative ads and then go out and run a whole spate of negative ads? In short, it's because negative ads are amazingly effective. I suspect that the people working for the Kerry campaign really believed that his record spoke for itself; unfortunately, records don't speak. They need advocates. And the Kerry campaign waited much too long -- perhaps in an attempt to converse their limited resources -- before responding. Things like this Swift Boat ad don't go away. They never have. Just ask John McCain (about his black love child) or Michael Dukakis (about Willie Horton). Frankly, it is more than a bit arrogant to assume that everyone will see through these ads. Without knowing the back story on this particular organization -- which has been widely if a bit erratically reported -- it would be easy to mistake these ads as legitimate.

Finally, the underlying premise of your argument is false, Rachel. You argue that people will be able to easily see through character attacks. Yet the opposite has both held true historically and in this particular instance. The American people have always been easily swayed by targeted characters ads. In this case, Bush is winning back veterans who had supported him in the last election but abandoned him for Kerry. The polls are fairly clear on that. In a broader sense, these ads have had a noticeable impact on Kerry's general polling numbers. Further, you argue that the public has difficulty grasping concepts such as the economy. I don't have any particular evidence for this election, as the economy hasn't really been an issue, but historically the American people seem to do pretty well at deciding if they're living through a period of economic recession or growth. Bush knows this -- his father lost his re-election bid because of a bad economy -- and is more than happy to continue debating who would make a better "war president."

Posted by david on 23 August 2004 - 11:11 PM

It's so sad what these guys have to do to get elected. Kerry wouldn't be so much about the war if it weren't for his need to look tough next to Bush. That need isn't from the smart voters, it's from the other voters, the same ones who will be convinced by anything they see on TV.

Franken claims that if you add up all the jobs created during both Bush presidencies, you get a negative number. Is this really true?

Posted by rkc on 24 August 2004 - 9:17 PM

Ron, I can't 100% validate Franken's claim, but certainly when viewed as a percentage of population it seems to be true. Another interesting trend is that the jobs that have been created in the last few months lag significantly behind the jobs that they were replacing from before the recession in terms salary. Reading some of the articles at http://www.jobwatch.org/ can give you a better idea of the current job situation. The background documents link will take you to some good papers.

Posted by david on 24 August 2004 - 10:07 PM

Recent Posts	About the Author	Navigation
For Chad Faceridge Everyone Gets an 'A' You Should See the Other Guy HRC Thinks I'm Second-Class Natural Doesn't Mean Good I-64 Update 2005 Chateau Beychevelle The Jefferson Bottles	David is an occasional blogger, software engineer, Nintendo fanboy, liberal, news magazine addict, voracious TiVo user, and bibliophile. He was born in St. Louis, grew up in southern Indiana, and returned to St. Louis to attend Washington University. He hasn't managed to escape yet. He's a fan of free wine tastings, too many tv shows to name, and eating out. David makes his living developing web applications used internally by his employer. He doesn't blog about work because he's heard too many stories about that causing workplace troubles. There's more on the about page.	archives features links photos contact
Recent Comments
Ron, I can't 100% validate Franken's claim, but certainly when viewed as a percentage of population it seems to be true. Another interesting trend is that the jobs that have been created in the last few months lag significantly behind the jobs that they were replacing from before the recession in terms salary. Reading some of the articles at http://www.jobwatch.org/ can give you a better idea of the current job situation. The background documents link will take you to some good papers. It's so sad what these guys have to do to get elected. Kerry wouldn't be so much about the war if it weren't for his need to look tough next to Bush. That need isn't from the smart voters, it's from the other voters, the same ones who will be convinced by anything they see on TV. Franken claims that if you add up all the jobs created during both Bush presidencies, you get a negative number. Is this really true? Too be honest, if John Kerry can't come up with a compelling reason to support him beyond his Vietnam record, I'm not sure how strongly I can support him. Further, when trying to select a president, I'd rather base my decision on what he's done in the past 35 years rather than what he did long before I was born. This is why I didn't agree with is decision to base his convention speech around his war record. It really doesn't resonate with a lot of voters as well as other issues, such as the economy, would have. Also, why do you think politicians all swear up and down that they would never use negative ads and then go out and run a whole spate of negative ads? In short, it's because negative ads are amazingly effective. I suspect that the people working for the Kerry campaign really believed that his record spoke for itself; unfortunately, records don't speak. They need advocates. And the Kerry campaign waited much too long -- perhaps in an attempt to converse their limited resources -- before responding. Things like this Swift Boat ad don't go away. They never have. Just ask John McCain (about his black love child) or Michael Dukakis (about Willie Horton). Frankly, it is more than a bit arrogant to assume that everyone will see through these ads. Without knowing the back story on this particular organization -- which has been widely if a bit erratically reported -- it would be easy to mistake these ads as legitimate. Finally, the underlying premise of your argument is false, Rachel. You argue that people will be able to easily see through character attacks. Yet the opposite has both held true historically and in this particular instance. The American people have always been easily swayed by targeted characters ads. In this case, Bush is winning back veterans who had supported him in the last election but abandoned him for Kerry. The polls are fairly clear on that. In a broader sense, these ads have had a noticeable impact on Kerry's general polling numbers. Further, you argue that the public has difficulty grasping concepts such as the economy. I don't have any particular evidence for this election, as the economy hasn't really been an issue, but historically the American people seem to do pretty well at deciding if they're living through a period of economic recession or growth. Bush knows this -- his father lost his re-election bid because of a bad economy -- and is more than happy to continue debating who would make a better "war president." That's true. And as much as I hate to admit it, we need to appeal to the morons, too. Argh. Unfortunately, the vast majority of voters are not "smart people" by any stretch of the imagination. I somewhat disagree with your post. I don't think Kerry should have responded to the Swift Boat people's ads at all. It only lent them credibility they most certainly did not deserve. Also, by framing his convention speech around his service in the war, Kerry made it impossible (in my opinion) for anyone to criticize him. I know how that sounds — yes, he obviously has been criticized, by these Swift Boat people and other dumb conservatives, who think the whole issue needed a book written about it. But do most people who haven't had their minds already made up about the election consider those Swift Boat ads to be credible? I doubt it. Kerry obviously served in Vietnam and was awarded for his heroism; many of his fellow crewmen have clearly acknowledged this. Bush does not have a leg to stand on; even he has to know those ads are irrelevant and just plain dishonest. If Kerry had focused on a more important issue — you suggest the economy, which is always a good one — the Bushies could have counterattacked using actual facts. Economics is not an objective field of study; it seems to me you can find an economist to back up any point you want to make. Unemployment is high, inflation is bad and the stock market is flimsy — sure. But many economists are optimistic that we're on an upswing, and they have the graphs to "prove" it. I guess what I'm trying to say, ever so inelegantly, is that smart people can see through character attacks, such as the ones being made on Kerry. Smart people have a harder time knowing whom to believe on the real issues — the economy, health care, education, Social Security, etc. We could very well lose a lot of undecideds because they were more impressed by Bush's claims that he hasn't sucked this entire time than Kerry's suggestions as to how he would do better on those issues. It may not be politics the way it should be done, but as long as we have the Bushies focusing on the absurd character stuff (and Kerry just shuts up long enough to win November 2), that's good enough for me.
Recent Photos