It’s time for bloggers to watch our backs. I’m not kidding. If the Jayson Blair Scandal resulted in a wholesale reshuffling at The New York Times, where will the Kerry/Swift Boat Vets Scandal lead? One of the most important elections of modern times hangs in the balance and we are in the middle of it.
Who’d a thunk it? Certainly not me. But consider this: the Blair Affair was about some extreme neurotic making up stories in a newspaper and getting away with it. Pathetic, but oddly excusable if you think about the nightmare of trying to get a giant paper to bed every night. The partisan obscurantist reaction to the Kerry/Swift Boat affair is completely different because it is deliberate. The mask is off the “impartiality” of the mainstream media as never before. The meetings in the editorial rooms of NYT, WaPo and LAT are not hard to imagine, the coded discussions. A war is on, ladies and gentlemen, and as with most semi-normal people involved in a war, I don’t feel particularly comfortable in it – and not, obviously in this case, because I might get shot. I have friends and colleagues at those institutions. I wish them to remain so. But that cannot stop me from telling the truth. They are wrong. Their avoidance of this story was unconscionable. Their treatment of it now… as if the messenger were more important than the message… is worse.
If it turns out the Swift Boat Veterans were right in many of their accusations… and there probably will be more, stronger ones, to come… and Kerry does get elected anyway because the truth was blunted… that same truth will come out eventually and we all (on every side of the tetrahedon-like political spectrum)will pay for it.
Oh please Roger. This sort of paranoia is the
kind of craziness the right used to wallow in
during the Clinton presidency.
The press is no more or less partisan now than
it was, at least as far back as I can remember –
you’re just on the other side of the issue now so
you notice it more.
I don’t mean to change the topic, but the deeper problem here is the political degradation wrought by our two major parties. The corruption of the mainstream media is just a symptom of a debate and a process that are frozen in a mindless, my side-vs-your side porn loop without end.
Moderates in this country are now effectively voiceless.
If you’re a reasonably sensible, educated American– not very religious, deeply concerned about the islamist threat and also about our deficits and dependence on foreign capital, and committed to the kind of intelligent and aggressive interventionist policy that sustained this country from Truman until McGovern– then you have nowhere to go.
One party’s in the grip of idiots like Mikey and Howie and Jimmah; the other’s shamelessly pandering to the evangelicals and thwarting one of the most innocuous– and important– biomedical advances of our time.
Start a new centrist party that appeals to the millions of disgusted moderates in both these corrupt, incompetent parties. Give voice to Republicans in California and New York, Democrats in Texas, and moderates everywhere.
A pox on both parties. Neither Mikey nor Mel. Spread the word!
rgds,
lex
[ps - sorry for venting, Roger]
To be clear, this is not a plea for Senator McFlake of Arizona to wade forth again. He and Feingold bear as much blame as anyone for making campaign finance reform a bad joke.
Let’s wipe the slate clean. Organize at the grass roots. Sweep the religious nuts and the trial lawyer/public employee idiots out of local and state office and build up a national movement with new blood.
The most fertile territory lies in the huge states that are considered write-offs by each party: appeal to California and NY Republicans and Texas Democrats. And then sweep the libertarian votes in the mountain states, the northeast and the Pacific northwest.
The final part of the equation is to bring into our political process the most rapidly-growing, and most consistently misunderstood or ignored, groups in US society: latino and Asian immigrants. These types don’t give a shit about the religious right’s agenda, but they also hate protectionism and could not care less about our relations with Europe.
By talking up free trade and expanded immigration (for anyone with a college degree), and by shifting the foreign policy focus to the Pacific Rim and Asia generally, we could attract enough latino and Asian voters to tip the balance across Calif, Texas, NY, AZ, CO, NM and perhaps Florida and as well. A truly centrist party that’s serious about national security, committed to free trade, expanded immigration and low deficits, and not in thrall to our own home-grown religious wackos would be nationally competitive in no time.
Anyway, it’s far better than the current miserable choice. A plague on both your wretched houses
thibaud,
Sounds good, but it also sounds like the Libertarian party only with a different name. You’ve got to find non-cranks to run for office, and even the two major parties can’t find enough non-cranks-who-want-public-office out there to fill congress. AFAICT the Libertarians don’t have even one.
Mr. Parker, you may have missed the point of Mr. Simon’s post. He should correct me on this, but I don’t believe he was saying the press is now more partisan than it was. He was pointing out that the situation has changed radically and that there is now a “war” of sorts I suppose between bloggers and the MSM which changes the terms greatly. That is why I am here. How about you?
Roger has a valid reason for concern. As several of the posters last night noted, Clinton at least knew when he was lying. What is unnerving about Kerry–and I have seen comments to this effect on several blogs–is that his falsehoods have a delusional quality to them. The possibility that citizens misled by the media might elect someone with a loose grip on reality is genuinely worrisome.
Not libertarian, absolutely!
I agree that’s the kiss of political death. The libertarian tag is false anyway because the point is not to adopt nutty, extreme stands on core issues. Of course society should intervene to protect certain groups in certain areas: the elderly, the disabled, kids generally. Of course we should go after pushers and Big Tobacco.
My point in the economic area is simply to get back to a sensible, Rubinesque position in favor of low deficits, free trade and reductions in all manner of egregious pork, be it for farmers, teachers or the energy industry.
The electoral strategy is obviously to appeal to very distinct groups concentrated in about 15 or 16 very populous states. I don’t care if we don’t get a critical mass in the unionized, blue-collar midwest, the farm belt, or the deep south. I want to sweep California New York Texas and Florida, and add to this the yuppified border states that have a high concentration of either immigrants or independents: AZ, NM, WA, OR, CO, NH, ME.
What’s really new and different, and I think compelling, is the focus on Americans of Asian and latino origin and a foriegn policy that is focused on Asia (incl the near and far east) rather than non-allies from a region that’s increasingly irrelevant to the Asian Century.
Ahead of the curve? Maybe. Maybe not. Whoever can seize the imagination and capture the votes of latinos and Asians will have the upper hand in the next two decades.
Thibaud: Interesting idea. The problem is that if you blow off the religious right you won’t find 50% of the remaining population which supports the type of vigorous anti-Islamist foreign policy that you’re looking for.
A friend of mine from Saginaw, Michigan (Detroit Free Press/Detroit News territory) sent me an email with a question which I fear is typical. She was responding to a post in my blog, titled My Magic Hat, an attempt at humor concerning Kerry’s “secret hat”. She didn’t know what I was talking about (neither she nor her husband spend any time on the internet except to read my blog, in spite of my incessant urgings that they do so). I sent her a 4 or 5 paragraph synopsis of the Kerry-Cambodia Christmas-CIA-black ops-fraudulent medal issues along with various links to support my synopsis. She wrote back as follows, “We had heard something about this but didn’t know all the facts. Thanks.”
“We had heard something about this…”? These two people follow the news through their newspapers and TV and cable media. This affair is not something about which Mitch Albom is going to comment, nor his newspapers allow to become part of the public debate, nor, obviously, will ABC-CBS-NBC.
My friends in Saginaw, Michigan do not have access to a reliable source of information, coming from Big Media, that presents the “he said” and the “she said” in an unbiased manner so that they can make up their own minds.
Neither do the citizens of Moscow, Beijing, Tehran or Pyongyang. Hmmmm.
You cannot count on the mainstream media to grasp this because, even if they’re hip to the Rubin economic agenda, they’re completely clueless about the Asian Century.
Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller, Paul Krugman, EJ Dionne and co still think fondly of France and Britain as the culture playground of their youth, the model polity toward which a smarter and more refined America should aspire. What the aging 1968ers who clog our newsrooms (and State and CIA, for that matter) fail to see is that neither the world nor this nation is Euro-centric anymore. Hence the mainstream media’s complete idiocy on the troop withdrawal issue, and the repeated idiocy about stroking the “allies.”
My new party would state the obvious: The Atlantic Alliance is dead. Europe cannot help or hurt us in the only region that really, deeply matters to our security: Asia.
In Silicon Valley and Wall Street you are twice or three or ten times as likely to hear urdu or mandarin as French or German. We need to bring into State, the CIA, and the mainstream media a new generation of talented Asian-Americans who will bring about a sea change in this nation’s orientation.
“Libertarian”? Ha! No, this is a vision of a New Opportunity Party focused on Asia for an Asian Century. Spread the word.
thibaud,
It is very inexpensive to start your own blog. On your own site you can ride your hobbyhorse as hard as you wish. Your comments here, this morning, are a waste of Roger’s bandwidth and do not pertain to this post. Some people may tend to feel that you are trolling should you decide to stay.
It’s Roger’s call.
Ouch !!!
The shoe must be pinching for The War Hero to shout this loud.
The Times chimes in today; a few days, the WashPo addressed it; now Drudge is saying that the Kerry campaign is asking Regnery, the publisher, withdraw the book. Small chance.
What is the strategy here ?
These decisions are not made in a vaccuum. First, the Kerry-istas want to paint Karl Rove as being behind it. They believe that the papers will back them up.
But should they really want to make this an issue. All these old facially honest Swift Boat vets telling their tales on TV just does not make a lot of strategic political sense to me. Americans do make personal judgments about personal credibility and it could backfire.
Roger brings up an ominous point. What if Kerry wins? The Left plays hard and as Carville says “They don’t forget and they don’t forgive”. Kerry and the MSM will remember that the bloggers caused them so much trouble. Once Kerry has the power of the presidency, he is likely to do such things as sic his attorney general on his enemies or push for legislation to such down blogger sites. The MSM would support whatever he does.
Johnny:
There is the right of free speech.
Please, Roger, is just playing with your mind.
thibaud:
You keep going on about your god, moderation. Here is what you get when the moderates are in charge: The Democrats are the party of evil and the Republicans are the party of stupidity. The moderate solution is to split the difference and in doing so you get a product that is Stupidly Evil.
I agree with Barry Goldwater, who was advocate of a political realignment into a conservative party and a liberal party. In 1964 there was a moderate me-too Republican Party and moderate (except on race) neo-New Deal Democrats. At the end of day the System produced Richard Nixon. A me-too Republican who was more liberal then LBJ.
Goldwater’s taxonomy has long broken down because the left is no longer liberal and has embraced the anti-democratic ideology of Socialism. I think the “moderate” Republican Party of Richard Nixon is one of the major cause of this breakdown. To be left meant you had to reject Nixon from the left and this opened the gates in the Democratic Party to the socialists.
The natural division today would be between a Conservative Republican Party (Madisonian Federalists) and a Libertarian Party (Jeffersonian Anti-Federalists). This realignment cannot take place until the Democratic Party comes to grief and either turns to its roots as an anti-Federalist Libertarian Party or dies off which will allow a natural division of the Republicans into two parties.
Remember this: Moderation = Nixon
Polarization = Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Lincoln and TR.
Roger might want to be scrupulously careful when filing his income tax returns, though.
M. Ribera — I was aware of Mr. Simon’s concern that the press’ attitude is more dangerous “now that there is a war on”.
However, there was also a war on in Vietnam, Grenada, GWI, not to mention this Islamic war that has been going on since the Iranian revolution. During this entire time the press was roughly as partisan as it is now. I am amused that Mr. Simon is only realising this now that he is on the other side. I do not share his and your belief that this bias in the press is any more dangerous now than then, partly because I believe it has been very dangerous since the beginning, and partly because I do believe that the free market will eventually solve the problem — the problem has been ameliorated to some extent already with the rise of conservative talk radio in the late 80′s and with Fox in the late 90′s, and with the interactive internet (weblogs and online magazines — eg NRO) of the early 00′s.
I am much more concerned with the noises coming from democrats in congress and other members of the left that these corrective developments be eliminated by force of law by stripping their broadcast licenses. I am not sure how they will stop the interactive internet, but the “hate speech” laws are a good starting point, and there’s enough interest in restricting content from the democratic backers (RIAA, MPAA, etc) that I am concerned that the dems will push through laws requiring technological censorship which these “hate speech” laws can piggyback onto.
Not an advertisement. Not a contentious statement put forth in the midst of a heated campaign. Not something from MSM. Rather, US military documents contemporaneous with the events described. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html
Moderation = Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr, Clinton-Rubin (after 1994), Bush Jr (pre-2001), a plurality of American voters in 2004.
If Kerry were to be elected, I’m sure he & his crew would try to shut down a whole lot of stuff.
But I have faith in our institutions. We would still have the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and Congress. And we would still have the blogosphere, because it would impossible to shut down. Consider that the samizdat survived in the Soviet Union, and there the authorities had a great deal more power than any US president.
In the last four years, I’ve witnessed the Left talk & act as if George W. Bush was the be-all and end-all of US power, as if GWB had the power to destroy 220 years of democracy and was in fact doing so.
This is hysteria. If our system were that frail, it would have been trashed long, long ago.
Having said that, I think that Kerry, if president, would try to take revenge of some kind. It would be (another) very bad mistake on his part.
Thibaud,
I still like my plan of convincing the left wingers that if they join the Green Party they’ll have enough votes to create a Worker’s Paradise in California and some of the Eastern States. Then, shed of the nuts in our party we can lure moderate Republicans away from the Religious Right. Divide and conquer, muuuhahahaha…
Yea, yea, I know it is a far-fetched scenario, but we all need to have our dreams. Either way, I’m with you in the new Party.
Ambi, I agree.
If you’re part of the Bush-lied-people-died “anti-war” crowd, then Nader’s your candidate. Get the !@!@$^&%#&$#%!! out of my party.
Johnny,
You may want to check out this November 3, 2004 press release issued by Kerry and Edwards:
http://www.nopundit.com/archives/2004_08/12/000099.html
thibaud:
Truman = Liberal
Ike = me too Republican (liberal) Some high points but more failure then success
JFK = Failed Presidency independent of politics but actually he was more conservative issue by issue then liberal
LBJ = liberal and despite Vietnam pretty successful
Bush Sr: Moderate and failure
Clinton: Fake Moderate and failure (9-11)
Bush Jr. Always has been conservative. He moved to moderation as President. Close to failure.
Case Closed
Michael Parket: excellent point; the dems that approached Murdoch with a thinly veiled threat about taking legislative action got absolutely NO coverage in the MSM–can you imagine if Tom Delay had approached the NYT?
mp:
“The press is no more or less partisan now than
it was, at least as far back as I can remember –
you’re just on the other side of the issue now so
you notice it more.”
Exactly, Mike, and that still supports Roger’s point. The MSM has always been Leftish.
oops…mistaken again…the more failure then success belongs to Truman not Ike.
On topic, I don’t think Roger is talking about media bias as much as he is talking about the MSM being blindsided by the influence of the internet in distributing information and driving a story.
To that I might add that news rooms are also oblivious of talk shows on cable news channels. This morning some of my coworkers were screwing around. Whenever one would be accused of doing something wrong, they would hold up four fingers and say, “Hey, I served four months in Vietnam and I’ve got the rice in my butt to prove it.”
Great hilarity was being had by all. When I asked them about it — BTW these guys aren’t overtly political — one of them said he had seen the Swift Vets on TV. The point is, they didn’t care about the funding of some ad they never saw nor did Kerry calling the Swift Vets liars resonate. They just believed the story when they heard it told.
Kerry has got to give a convincing rebuttal or he is going to end up the punchline of more jokes.
Michael P.,
You may be right that this partisanship in the MSM is neither unprecedented nor nor dangerous than in the past. I’ve had my eyes opened the last year, but for all I know, it’s always been like this.
Something historic, however, is happening to the MSM. Maybe it’s just a feeling I have.
Has there any been any point in history when the claims made in the MSM could be so thoroughly double-checked, cross-referenced, examined, dissected, and (often) exposed as is possible now? Has there ever been a time when so many people could collaborate on research, testing ideas and poking holes in each other’s theories & claims? And when before has it ever been possible for so many people to find up-to-date information outside the mainstream outlets?
I honestly do not know what’s going to happen next.
Yes, this is a totally different media situation. It’s the end of the MSM’s monopolization of the timing, format and selection of the news.
The readers now own the printing presses. They can do their own fact-checking. They get multiple sources and multiple views, in real time, from all over the world.
In some ways it’s similar to the pamphleteering craze that swept this country in Peter Zenger’s day. We all know the political implications of that development….
Roger – back in 1981 “Commentary” published an article by Joseph Kraft entitled “The Imperial Media.” The one simile he used which still sticks in my mind 23 years later is that he likened the media to an occupying army – in that it controlled the flow of information to a populace to which it was basically hostile.
That sure hasn’t changed, has it?
There were cracks in the wall even then, of course – magazines like Commentary and National Review were alive and well – but now we’ve got the Internet, and *anybody* can say his piece, and everyone can read it. No wonder the Timesmen are apoplectic. How DARE they say things we don’t approve of?
Which makes it all the more imperative, of course, for us to be truthful. We can’t risk our credibility by wild accusations and ad hominem attacks. Somebody has to be the grown-up, and it looks like it’s us, so we’d better make sure we do it right.
Where were you on the night of December 25th, 1968? What about december 26th? 27th? I’m out of order? You’re out of order! This whole court is out of order.
He said. She said. I’m never gonna know. Wake me when it’s over, mommy. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Look at how much cyber-whining is being consumed over something that’s allegedly being ignored. I’m from Massachusetts. I don’t like Kerry. The swifties have been hectoring Kerry for years, and the bottom line is that the axe they are grinding is that they’re still pissed about what they they see as the disloyalty of his opportunistic grandstanding regarding wartime atrocities.That’s all this is. I’ve seen stories on these guys on multiple occasions in the extremely liberal Boston Globe over the years. So much for the media ignoring the story.
Is the magic hat story a fiction in part or in whole, a date misremembering, or what? We’ll never know, but we all know exactly what this brouhaha means anway, right? I suppose everyone out there can think of several events in their life that are “seared into their memory.” And I bet each and every one of you can tell me the exact date when each of these events occurred, right? Sure. This is the blogosphere fidding while Iraq burns.
This story is mind-numbingly pointless. We’ll be no more certain of the events in 1, 2, 3, or 4 months or years than we are at this moment. Party on.
Oh and Roger, you’re sounding awful paranoid. Maybe switch to decaf or something.
exhausted centrist–if you shared the same disgust with the Bush AWOL meme, you are consistent; if not……
Bostonian
I honestly do not know what’s going to happen next.
That’s what makes life interesting.
Roger
I am OK with everything I have said here, and stand by it. Any inspection that a (shudder) victorious left might make post facto (odd to think of that expression with these people) will remain vigorously defended by me.
Just to be clear:
It appears the Vets have something to say about Kerry’s character. It is relevant. I want to hear it and get clarity on the charges. It appears credible, serious, and important. Further, the Vets have the right to speak on this subject. They bring a large number of first-person testimonies. This is not some MoveOn, Whoppi Goldberg, or Michael Moore attack, which deserve far more scrutiny, but a fact-based attack.
The actions of the MSM and some vague machinery behind the MSM are a violation of the public’s trust. I am a part of that public. I have been violated by their actions, and their inactions. I have low expectations of them, but they have not even met those.
Further, I am conservative, slightly religious, fiscally conservative, socially concerned and willing to support non-transference social programs. I believe the Islamic Fascist war is the single largest issue facing us currently and for the next decade or so. I am OK with the economic actions this administration has taken. I think the Bush team is good but not perfect.
I have no objection whatever for this to be on any Carville or whoever’s “record.”
My name is John Lynch, and I approve of this message.
And—I do agree with you that there are a whole lot of other more important issues to be discussed in this campaign that the press is not covering. The only people that complain about lack of issue coverage are the press who, in turn, dont cover the issues.
So it wasn’t “seared, seared in [Kerry's] memory”, centrist?
I myself wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about any of the Vietnam stuff, but don’t you agree there’s something just a little disturbing about the likely possibility that Kerry has constructed an entire worldview, and thirty years of foreign policy positions, based on his supposedly searing memories of things that didn’t happen?
It’s not the events of 1968, it’s the political stands Kerry the politician has taken based on his “memories” from 1968.
Michael Parker – Agree with you. Clearly Roger and most regular commenters here find themselves on the other side of MSM for maybe the first time. For them the warping of reality by MSM is a sight to behold and the danger is newly recognized. Those of us who were on the other side of MSM during Tet specifically and Viet Nam generally are well and long aware of MSMs perfidy. Everyone knows that winners write the histories. MSM won Viet Nam. And now history teaches Viet Nam was wrong to begin with and Tet was a U.S. military defeat. On the plus side Roger’s eyes have been opened wrt MSM. To the point he’s told us here that he’s found himself (at least nearly) reconsidering Viet Nam. So keep that in mind. I share your concerns about Dems steering toward legislating against non-MSM speech.
Holly,
I’m a current military lifer, and as anyone who has spent time in the military can tell you, Fitness Reports and Award citations are canned flowery bullsh*t. To people in the military they’re essentially meaningless, good for the occasional ego stroke but not much else. A comment in a fitrep that’s even close to negative can effectively ruin a person’s opportunity for promotion, and most commanders are reluctant to screw someone like that unless they are total f*ck ups.
Kerry’s current worldview was formed in 1968-1970. Bush’s current worldview was formed in Sept-Nov 2001.
Now, one could argue that we need someone whose worldview has come into place since 2002, but if the only choice this fall is between a 21st c. neocon and a 20c anti-war anti-nuke pro-Sandinista type, that’s not really a difficult choice to make.
Winter Soldier has arrived.
Listen and watch.
Thibaud,
We’ve disagreed about much here at Roger’s Place, but I agree that the “old guard” is clinging to the past. The Atlantic Alliance, while perhaps not “dead” has lost its military and political importance. Its remaining value is economic and, well, business is business so we can continue to do business with Europe without worrying much about military and political alliances. The “old guard” needs to let go of their Euro-centrism (we can let them simply age out, but change in the world moves faster than it used to and it would really help if they’d stop living in the past and pay some attention to the future).
We cannot ignore the fact that China and India are have huge populations and growing economies and political, military, and economic systems that will come under enormous strain as they try to deal the changes that are coming and that nobody can stop no matter how hard they wish.
Have a look at the Population info. I’ll cut and paste the top 10 info here just for the heck of it:
1 China 1,273,111,290
2 India 1,029,991,145
3 United States 278,058,881
4 Indonesia 228,437,870
5 Brazil 174,468,575
6 Russia 145,470,197
7 Pakistan 144,616,639
8 Bangladesh 131,269,860
9 Japan 126,771,662
10 Nigeria 126,635,626
The top 2 have long since started moving beyond being 3rd world economies and will NOT remain second or 3rd rate political or military powers indefinitely. Germany doesn’t even show up until #12 and we have Phillipines, Vietnam, and Thailand before we get to the next Euro (the UK). These places and people will not sit quietly being “poor and backward” forever.
Ignoring this while the Elitist Old Guard engages in their wet dream fantasies about recovering some European Golden Age is not perilous, it would be suicidal.
We need to refocus our national attentions toward Asia. Blast the ME status quo to smithereens and rebuild it into something at least semi-sane and then get on with paying attention to where the next wave of danger and opportunity is coming from.
The new ad has a great line in it from a POW.
Thibaud,
And now I have to violently disagree:
…shamelessly pandering to the evangelicals and thwarting one of the most innocuous– and important– biomedical advances of our time…
This is overwrought rhetoric. I am not the least bit religious. The “evangelicals” get nothing more than respectful treatment from the Republican Party. As for “thwarting” biomedical advances – can we assume you are talking about stem cell research? Please go back and review the “restrictions”. They are relatively mild (almost completely limited to government funding of research on a PORTION of stem cell research) and “thwart” nothing except some researchers access to some taxpayer’s money. And there are very real ethical and social issues that need to be discussed before the taxpayers are made complicit.
hi knuck – trying to stay on topic and avoid wrisking the wrath of Wrick Ballard again — you get my point. I think the MSM’s blindness on the swift boat issue is due to the same root cause of their blindness on Asian Century: the 1968ers cannot get beyond the heady struggles of their glorious youth. No matter how much the world has changed since.
Vietnam is of course the ur-struggle for them, but you can see, in Pinch Sulzberger’s post-2000 NYT, all the same 1968 themes in full bloom:
–”How Race is Lived in America”– as if we were still two races, one black and one white, as in Kerner COmmission days, instead of a multitude of races of all colors.
–Barbara Ehrenreich’s neo-Tobacco Road view of working-class America– as if basic costs had not declined sharply, and home and equity ownership increased dramatically, since 1973.
–and a gazillion stupid articles continuing the grand Transatlantic pissing match, including a NYT Magazine article featuring an academic who contends that Europeans are actually much taller than Americans today due to… you guessed it… the erosion in welfare spending, school lunches etc for Americans during the benighted Reagan-Bush-Clinton era.
It’s a generational problem. Have to wait for the 1968ers to die off, I’m afraid.
Hollywood,
Your homework for tonight is to go get the fitreps and research how fitreps are interpretted. They were written for internal consumption by US Naval officers and promotion boards.
After you understand the nature and jargon of fitreps, then you can ask You Man Kerry to release the remainder of his fitreps.
The change isn’t that the MSM is more partison then it used to be. The difference is that there is a very strong shove back from talk radio, Fox news, and now the internet. Before, maybe some of us would have fired off a letter to the editor where it would be ignored. Now our opinions are public. The MSM really thought by controlling content they could elect Kerry. They have lost control and its really showing. One small example: Chris Matthews increasingly deranged rantings on Crossfire. Another example Bill O’Reilly’s obliteration of Paul Krugman on Tim Russert’s show Aug 8.
thibaud,
My apologies for the snark above. Obviously there is a interest here in what you have to say. I do wish Roger would post once in a while on the shape of things to come but I did not see this post as lending itself to that discussion.
Regarding the coming “Asian Century” I would note that the Asia has had numerical superiority in population for about 4,000 years (at minimum). That they have never capitalized on that fact is something that you might want to consider. A review of Japan’s current condition might be in order, also.
The Bush AWOL thing? It seemed reasonable to me to look for confirming records and to wonder where they were at the point when they could not be located, but it never seemed reasonable to claim that their absence proved anything. But yeah, largely a tempest in a tea pot.
Vietnam and Bush and Kerry to me boils down to this: Kerry at least went, although possibly for opportunistic reasons more than idealistic ones. Bush didn’t go, he served in the guard, which was a safe dodge. He’s not the only one. I don’t blame anyone who tried to avoid getting involved in that mess.
Like you, I care a lot more about what things will happen depending on which guy is in the oval office on 1/21/05.
If Kerry in fact made up this story, then it reflects poorly on his character. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for definitive proof. It’s not coming. It seems plausible to me that the event or something much like it happened some time around xmas 68, and it also seems plausible that Kerry is apple polishing. But I’m never going to know for sure.I’m left basing my opinion on 20 years of watching the guy. An opportunist, more of a talker than a doer. Prone to sanctimony. An egghead. Speaks with forked tongue. On target with many of his criticisms of Bush. Does he have more unpleasant flaws than GWB or fewer? It’s a gunfight I tell ya.
obviously hit Post before Privew
exhausted,
Saying the truth can never be known about a particular incident, while true, is irrelevent. None of us actually care where Kerry was on any given day. What we are concerned about is how honest he is in general. Any of the stories are just one piece of a very large puzzle we need to consider.
And if most of those pieces have serious questions hanging over them? Well, you may have some sort of a metaphysical belief that the absolute truth will never be known, most of the rest of us figure we know a liar when we see one.
the same truth will come out eventually and we all will pay for it
We’ll pay for it in the same manner we paid for it under Clinton. This country will get bogged down in the asinine and will not pay sufficient attention to the Islamo-psychopaths intent on bringing us down.
No prob, Rick. I get a little too passionate about it sometimes. I pound it partly because the red-blue divide that our MSM betters would like to peddle on us is largely bullshit and is obscuring the real concerns of millions of intelligent and concerned Americans. The only way to move this country off of this dime, I think, is with a new issue that re-sets the agenda and transforms the debate.
In 1932 it was the failure of laissez-faire. In 1968 it was the collapse of the New Deal coalition over civil rights. In 2004 it’s…?
You’d think it’d be 9/11, but if anything it and the war seem to have muddied the waters. No one knows what Kerry’s position is on anything; no one really knows what is now Bush’s view of nation-building or our strategy for Iran and NK. Most Americans are increasingly confused and, I would submit, battle-fatigued.
My hunch is that we’re on the brink of a massive re-orientation, both externally in our foreign policy and internally in our demographic and socio-economic makeup, and that this will be the cause of the next big political realignment.
Rumsfeld gets it. Roger gets it, Hitchens gets it, Mickey Kaus gets it. And nearly everyone who’s served in our truly multi-racial, truly nationally representative military get it. But the gray-haired chablis-sipping Ivy Leaguers in the east coast newsrooms haven’t got a clue. Their century, their world is gone. They’re like Edwardians confronted with fascism and leninism.
Does anyone else have the sense that Kerry’s– how to put it delicately– emotionally conflicted?
Schizo positions again and again: War hero and war criminal. Tough guy and proponent of a nuclear freeze. Soporific speaker, sufferer of screaming nightmares (acc to his friends).
And then the complete incoherence of his recent positions.
Agin the war, for the war, agin with reservations, for it regardless of the WMD assessments. Bring the troops home from Ger and SK (Aug 1)… keep em in Ger and SK (Aug 17)… More troops fewer troops no more troops in Iraq.
Does anyone else sense that this guy is in need of some serious therapy? That he might turn out to be, like certain presidents we’ve seen in the past 30 years, emotionally disturbed?
I agree with Roger’s opinion that the Blair/NYT affair bears a striking parallel to what is happening vis a vis Kerry/MSM.
Long before Blair became a publicly acknowledged fantasist and ethical failure of epic proportions, his colleagues, editors, and management were aware of problems. They knew by dint of experience that no matter how on fire a prodigy might be that Blair’s work was beyond belief. What kept the issue internal?
Blair was black. He had been packaged as the new best and brightest in the newsroom. The paper had invested their prestige in hitching his existence to their public face of a correctly diverse and progressive organization. The editors, instead of basing their oversight and guidance on Blair’s work, measured the political cost to the organization if they even gave the appearance of leaving the reservation where diversity somehow trumps objectives of professional conduct.
They dithered, too afraid to offend the PC culture, until they embarassed their entire organizaiton and saw their editor do the Moose walk of no return.
We’ve got a whole regiment of perfectly coiffed TV talking heads, suited pundits, and articulate journalism professionals that operate on the assumption that they are the arbiters of truth in the defense of the public. They’ll stick a gaff in George Bush at the drop of a rumor but they somehow fail to see the relevance of 250 fellow servicemens’ low opinion of Kerry concerning the events that Kerry has deliberately packaged as his credentials for the presidency.
It’s transparent where the bias is. And no matter how serious Dan or Peter or Tom attempt to appear in the execution of their duties – no matter how mellifluous the delivery or steely their gaze, the message being sent does not correspond with the realities of this campaign.
The content of the coverage defines the priorities of media like hackles on a cat tell you what’s on Fluffy’s mind. Kerry based his entire preconvention candidacy on ABB with a background contention he stood a better chance of being electable than the other members of that third-rate herd. The Clintons slithered into his camp when their chosen safe losers fell apart..and now seem to be doing what they were born for, which is furiously obfuscating in pursuit of a politcal agenda. He didn’t have to present any policy beyond ABB for over a year, and from the convention on fed the media their war hero talking points confident that Peter, Dan, and Tom could be counted on to fill the minutes with his heroism to the extent that TWENTY years of hard left senate track record would never have to be dealt with. And the media was perfectly ready to do that. He’s their guy, and they know what it takes to win nationally. Then Kerry became Blair in public in the space of three weeks.
Troop reductions? Cool a month back, hasty and a disaster now. Troops for Iraq? He was for fourty thousand more a few months ago, now he’s going to reduce the numbers by replacing them with euro troops – contradicting the public position of all those french and German politicians Kerry is supported by. He went to Cambodia numerous times. He was close to Cambodia. An incident ‘seared, SEARED into his mind’ vividly enough to be referenced multiple occassions in public, and in senate debate to define U.S. policy, is suddenly just a lapse of memory? Kerry is accused of departing the scene of an apparent ambush, then returning while the other boats conducted recovery operations on a damaged boat, by all the other commanders on the scene. Kerry’s account (which eventually ended up as the only written record) states he stayed on station and participated in a shootout at the O.K. corral along 5000 meters of riverbank.
Does anyone here know what the number of troops it would take to man a firing line that long? On BOTH sides of the river? Think about that for a second.
None of the other commanders report anything like that. Why Kerry may have gunned his boat out of the area means little to me; as skipper, it’s up to him to judge whether or not his boat is in a kill zone or not. The conflict is that he maintains he stayed, and the other swifties deny that. That’s the important question.
Why won’t the media have Kerry’s Band of Brothers on primetime and ask which of them were on the boats when they went to Cambodia for gunrunning or insertions? Why won’t the media ask the DNC why they want to CENSOR the Swifts after three years of churning out ‘end of democracy’ claptrap whenever the Dixie Chicks, Alec Baldwin, or Linda Rondstadt suffer market share losses for their opinions? What, exactly, is John Kerry going to do about social security reform? What, exactly, does John Kerry believe is the definition of victory in the battle against Islamofascism? If he’s against everything that Bush does, but can only stump about how much better he will do it, don’t we the public deserve some freakin’ CLUE about how he intends to accomplish these things? I can’t ask Mr. Kerry those questions.
That’s media’s job. By all indications – all generous, non-judgemental, nuanced, thoughtful, objective indications – the media thinks that John Kerry NOT being Bush relieves them of any onus to ask the questions that might be even slightly inconvenient to Kerry. Because in their culture, their man has won on points before the election even happens.
It’s ludicrous. Kerry will pay for his philosophy, record, and campaign at the polls. If the media refuses to change track, and soon, they will find themselves in search of their own moose to carry out of the building.
Regarding the MSM, in a thread yesterday I linked to Journalism.org’s The State of the News Media 2004. I’ve been poking around in this report and there isn’t much that is positive in there for MSM of any sort. About the only positive for newspapers, who have been losing readership and subscriptions, and for whom public respect is falling off a cliff, for decades is that newspapers are generally pretty profitable. This seems to be primarily a matter of ad revenues and severe cost cutting.
The cost cutting, by and large, means they’ve deeply cut staff. That, of course, means can’t do the gruntwork which, IMHO, means they really do little more than op-ed. If they aren’t deeply researching and getting to the real facts and issues underlying what they are reporting, then they are doing nothing more than surface research and op-ed spinning.
Since they are still making money from advertising, but have decreasing readership and respect, and insufficient resources committed to turn those things around to build back readership and respect, they just run merrily along puking out whatever the “worldview” of the journalists and/or editorial staff is.
Also, this may at least partially ‘splain the sense of “war” that Roger points to. If the Blogoshpere ever converts its increasing readership in to ad revenue, the newspaper segment of the MSM is dead meat.
They have to fight tooth and nail to try and kill the blogosphere. Well, that or invest and do a level of reporting that is beyond the ability of bloggers and their faithful readers.
When all is said and done, the MSM is populated by a bunch of LLL types whose careers are in jeopardy and a bunch of large businesses whose profits are in jeopardy. No wonder they attack like wounded dogs.
Many of the circulation figures on which the newspapers’ rate cards are based have turned out to be bogus.
The only real competitive advantages the MSM has over the blogosphere + wire services + for-free foreign news outlets is in covering a local beat they know intensely. And they do a shitty job of even that.
Tmj,
As usual, a very insightful post. What finally brought Blair down? I speculate that it was, ultimately, the fact that his coworkers and competitors at other papers knew he couldn’t possibly be as good and set out to prove it. Essentially what happened was that his fraud was costing his professional peers money and status. So they finally said “enough” and exposed him.
I speculate that, eventually, something similar will bring down the MSM. At some point the Young and the Hungry will get sick and tired of being thwarted (to borrow Thibaud’s word ;>) by the petty idiocies of the Old Guard and they’ll finally say, Enough!, and expose them.
Thibaud, I’m absoluteoly in agreement with you on very nearly all your policy points (maybe all, but I don’t want to go back and enumerate them carefully right now.)
here’s a radical suggestions, though: what you’re describing is more or less “Barry Goldwater” Republicanism. I’m active in the RP specifically because as a “national defense libertarian” it seemed to me that the RP was closer — with the exception of loonies like Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo.
The US system has a number of structural impediments to effective third parties. Would it makew sense to subvert the RP (or I’d listen to arguments for the Democrat patry) from within?
Holy crap, Jerry. Can you think of any president in living memory that you’d count as a success?
Saying the truth can never be known about a particular incident, while true, is irrelevent.
…
And if most of those pieces have serious questions hanging over them? Well, you may have some sort of a metaphysical belief that the absolute truth will never be known, most of the rest of us figure we know a liar when we see one.
Hmm, I dunno, I’m still pretty comfortable basing my judgements about whether someone is a liar on particular incidents where the truth can be known, even though you think this irrelevant.
If you really genuinely prefer to go with knowing one when you see one of the basis of “serious questions hanging,” well then good luck with that. The scientific method is not for everyone, I guess.
OT -
Can anyone suggest a definitive history of the Eisenhower presidency? As the years go by I am more and more convinced that old boring Ike was probably one of the top three or four presidents of the last century.
The great leaders of history are great because of their actions, not their politics. Ike was so apolitical he’s largely ignored by contemporary media. All he did was prepare our intelligence and defense infrastructures to survive until Reagan showed up and finished off the Sov’s.
Charlie – I’d actually take a page from Dean/Trippi’s playbook. Organize and raise funds via the blogs.
As to the admittedly large obstacle of finding suitable candidates for office, I’d target young independents, moderates and libertarians on the campuses– especially among the Asians (Indian as well as Chinese and Korean).
There’s no reason that your average 22 or 24 year-old Berkeley or Yale or UC-Boulder grad can’t do a better job in a state legislature than the hacks who fill the statehouses and local government currently. Let them cut their teeth on these positions and then run for House seats and then the Senate a la Obama.
At the same time, cream off some of each party’s most talented young Asians and latinos currently serving in State and the exec branch.
The key is to keep the message simple: pro-nat’l security, anti-deficit, pro-free trade, pro-immigrant. Perhaps also some outlier ideas as well like pro-mandatory health insurance (a la auto insur) for all Americans.
Tmj
Believe it or not Garry Wills used to consistently say kind things about Eisenhower. Don’t know whether he ever wrote a book on him but, given his penetrating book on “The Kennedy Imprisonment”, it’d probably be worth a look.
The NYT describes Christmas in Cambodia as
Is there a detailed Kerry response (whether it “puts to rest” all the allegations or not is irrelevant) to Unfit for Command?
Exhaused sez: “I’m not holding my breath waiting for definitive proof. It’s not coming. It seems plausible to me that the event or something much like it happened some time around xmas 68, and it also seems plausible that Kerry is apple polishing. But I’m never going to know for sure.”
Exhauseted sez: “Hmm, I dunno, I’m still pretty comfortable basing my judgements about whether someone is a liar on particular incidents where the truth can be known”
It is exactly that kind of double talk, saying whatever is needed at the moment, that makes many of us question Kerry’s honesty. Shrug, no wonder you think Kerry is honest.
Tim,
I had eisenhower in my list of 10 best Presidents a few threads back. He is vastly under rated in the democrats opinion. When he came into office the Cold war was extremely volatile. He did a tremendous amount to shape the cold war so it didn’t turn hot.
I’ve never read a biography about him though, he just sort of appears in passing in history books about other topics.
I have actually been earning my pay for the last couple of days and have totally lost the sense of what is going on. My quick read has prompted to make two comments of not much consequence. I have made this point before.
(1) Centrist: George Bush served as pilot in the ANG. The Air Guard was and continues to be the principal force assigned to continental air defense. When GWB signed up his squadron had elements deployed to SE Asia. However, the AF discovered that the F-102 Delta Dagger was not suitible for any other mission besides air defense and were sent home. The F-102, like all century series fighters, was cranky and dangerous machine. Several of Bush’s squadron mates died in accidents. For information on the F-102 see:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f102/
Hollywood: Here is a hint in reading Fitreps. All officers of similar grade are ranked by their commanding officer. The ranking tells the tale. In a large unit like Kerry’s the top 2 are really good the rest ok or worse. Find Kerry’s ranking and then you will know how good he was. You cant’ go by the words alone.
I did a report on Eisenhower a long time ago.
I read a lot of old newspaper articles, and other material. I’m not going to try to rate him, I dont know enough to even try, but from what I understand he was very popular, and could very well have been reelected in 1960 if he had been able to run again.
He had his share of crises, the U2-affair was one, if not the worst. (USA sent spyplanes over Russia, and one of them got shot down.)
From what I read, and remember, I really liked Ike. He seemed very practically oriented.
I got curious and checked around a little, and this list has him as nr9, just after Reagan.
http://ragz-international.com/pres.pdf
I think this list seems to be a fair attempt at an honest ranking of the presidents.
knucklehead,
“Your homework for tonight is to go get the fitreps and research how fitreps are interpretted. They were written for internal consumption by US Naval officers and promotion boards.
“After you understand the nature and jargon of fitreps, then you can ask You Man Kerry to release the remainder of his fitreps.”
Of course, these docs were all signed by Lt. Commander George Elliott. Maybe he has some explaining to do.
No, Hollywood, you still don’t understand what you are talking about.
ambis_
I don’t follow your alleged demonstration of my contradiction. At all. I stand by both those statements.
Let me make it simple for you. I try hard to make a distinction between those things which I KNOW and those things which I believe, but know that I can’t be certain about.
If you want to stick with simply knowing that all the things that you believe must be true, then like I said before, good luck with that. You’ve got no felt need to change, and so you won’t. And you could sy the same of me.
Jerry, I didn’t mean to imply that National Guard Service is not honorable, or that pilots don’t face danger. Surely you don’t mean to imply that commanding a gunboat in combat requires no more bravery than training to fly a plane for the purpose of future theoretical defense?
Or maybe you do, I dunno. I have a hard time wrapping my head around any contention that implies that guard service done here in the US is somehow the equal of combat. I think volunteering for combat service and actually serving in combat shows a fair amount of bravery. But I don’t think Bush’s and Kerry’s records suggest that therefore John Kerry is a hero with unquestioned war bonafides while Bush was a cowardly draft dodger.
I’m just saying that in this one instance, it seems pretty clear that Bush took what looks like an easier and safer route. On the issue of Vietnam war service, it seems to me that the record suggests that Kerry served bravely and well, and even if questions exist about apple polishing, war stories, and isolated judgement issues, Kerry still went.
And all this stuff coming up now seems targeted at blunting this one pretty obvious distinction. It’s partisan politics. But then I don’t really have a dog in this fight, as a long time Massachusetts Kerry watcher I have never been much of a fan. But i can’t help but be exhausted that Bush partisans will go so very far to blur the fact that Kerry went and Bush didn’t while at the same time stressing an alleged mainstream media conspiracy about “unanswered questions” regarding a 30-some years old event.
To me, it boils down to the fact that 30 years ago Kerry went and Bush didn’t, and now Kerry might be polishing his apple too hard. I don’t really care. I just want to know what their plans are, and decide how much I can trust that they’re going to do what they say. And I don’t see events of 36 years ago as related.
Well, what the heck. It wasn’t so very long ago that the internet wasn’t a household tool and one sometimes needed to get off one’s arse and drive the brats to the library when they had homework to do.
In that spirit, Hollywood, I’ll drop you at the library and even point you to this and this.
BTW, why are you so late to the FITREP party? This meme about Elliott using kind words in Kerry’s fitreps is weeks old. Oh, I forgot, memebots are on a loop. Never mind.
Centerist:
I was not comparing the two. Your post seemed to imply that Bush had a safe cushy job with no risk. If I were going to compare GWB to anyone it would have been Tom Harkins’ service. Or I could compare his to mine as a JO on a submarine, but that would be unfair because even though I spent three weeks in theater GWB’s ANG service was much more hazardous then mine.
…Kerry might be polishing his apple too hard…
Where I come from we call what Kerry does “waxing the bishop”.
“To me, it boils down to the fact that 30 years ago Kerry went and Bush didn’t, and now Kerry might be polishing his apple too hard. I don’t really care. I just want to know what their plans are, and decide how much I can trust that they’re going to do what they say. And I don’t see events of 36 years ago as related.”
Then who are you intending to vote for, and why?
If the Vietnam episode has no bearing on your support, what does? What information will meet your standards as being definitive toward making your call? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, forced this issue up front as a valid point supporting a candidate’s fitness for the office of president except for Kerry. Bush’s ANG service was an entry in Bush’s bio until the opposition tried to brand him a coward/deserter/hypocrite. I think the SBV’s testimonies directly conflcting Kerry’s accounts are far beyond merely partisan; unless, of course, you have chosen which side is telling the truth and which side is desperately trying to execute a political agenda? Make no mistake about it: until the book was published and the ads began to come up the Kerry Campaign was quite happy to just check out of the campaign until the middle of September because they thought they had presented credentials that would stand. They intended to coast while rising gas prices, ongoing conflict in Iraq, and 527′s kept the negative noise at a high level.
I suspect that the Kerry campaign intended to publish a lengthy, suitably wonkish, moderately hawkish policy document less than two weeks before the election and then rely on the media to backstop any serious comparison with what the “New” Kerry was all about compared with his monolithically liberal record and the patent moonbattery of the base that nominated him.
On a purely technical plane, Kerry’s campaign has become a victim of the Great Generals Not In The History Books Syndrome: they have allowed themselves to believe that they are in control of the battlefield. In my opinion, the convention introduction of Kerry as War Hero was the virtual equivalent of a Banzai charge. If not on the basis of being a hero thirty years ago, what else in the public record can be pointed at to make a case that Kerry, or his party, has the moxie to win a war or successfully deal with the myriad of domestic and foreign challenges facing us?
I propose there’s no “there” there. A serious media would be asking for specifics about policies and agenda two months before elections instead of throwing roses at a stage revue less professional or believable than a grammar school play.
My last was intended for exhausted centrist.
centrist: the so-called apple polishing and its validity goes to the heart of Kerry’s campaign. The only people raising the issue of having served in Vietnam are Kerry and his supporters. Bush never ran on his service record.
Now if one of the central themes of a candidate’s campaign turns out to be false, partially falsified, or merely apple polishing, I want to know. From what I can tell, a group of Vietnam veterans who served with Kerry are pushing falsified. Their allegations may or may not be true wholly or partially, but the information is slow in coming because Kerry won’t release his records.
Another, potentially larger group of vets that would overlap to some degree the swift boat vets, is incensed that Kerry made a name for himself in politics by sullying their reputations. Men my age and older were accused of war crimes.
Apparently, however, none of this matters to you, so why are you here? This is a site that takes the implications of the inconsistencies, the falsifications, and, (to me), most importantly, the war crimes accusations very seriously. Unless you are here to be convinced otherwise or you have some information that refutes the whole gamut, I ask again, why are you here?
No, Hollywood, you still don’t understand what you are talking about.
Yeah, what he said. Hollywood, scan up a few postings from yours, there’s an explanation of how to really read a FITREP.
Thibaud — (what the hell does that mean, just BTW?) I’d actually take a page from Dean/Trippi’s playbook. Organize and raise funds via the blogs.
Notice that Dean ran as a Democrat, even so.
There are already groups within the RP that you might co-opt: the “Bull Moose” Republicans and the “Log Cabin” folks, for example.
holly and centrist:
I think you are both missing the point.
My cousin was in Viet Nam in the army at the age of 19, the average Viet Nam vet was 19. Kerry was much older. Why? Well because sooner or later your deferment would run out and then you could go to the army and fight on the ground, go to Canada, go to jail or do what Kerry and a half dozen guys I know did and join the navy. Hear of any big sea battles in the Viet Nam war?
As for Bush, he was in the Air Guard. Men in the Air Guard did and do get activated and sent to war. In fact my uncle was in the guard and was almost killed after he was sent overseas. There are 33,000 Guardsmen in Iraq right now. Point is Viet Nam was not a popular war and all 250 of those men in that ad went just the same as Kerry.
Now Bush released all his military records, why won’t Kerry do the same? Why should we depend on the NYT or anyone else selecting certain parts of the records when all of Kerry’s records could be released just like Bush’s.
Knucklehead,
As I get it, this is your point in essence:
“The case is convincingly made that Kerry’s FITREPS don’t measure up to those of a great, or even good, leader. In fact, there are some marks which really question his leadership ability. That is further documented with a statement of another swift commander who had been Kerry’s OIC on a few occasions.”
OK, so let’s take that at face value (well, not completely at face value; I corrected the spelling and punctuation). Where are Bush’s reports and what do they say? Has he released them? Can they be found? Or, was Bush too busy working in a political campaign or attending grad school to have time to be evaluated? Why do I have the feeling that either there’s no head to head comparison available (due to Bush being a hard to find reservist) or if there is one Bush probably loses–even with all his family’s clout?
Tmj,
I suspect that the Kerry campaign intended to publish a lengthy, suitably wonkish, moderately hawkish policy document less than two weeks before the election and then rely on the media to backstop any serious comparison with what the “New” Kerry was all about compared with his monolithically liberal record and the patent moonbattery of the base that nominated him
My own bet is that Kerry/Shrum will in the last few days go the other route and start touting a kind of soft isolationism on the order of Come Home, America. This would gratify the anti-war Jimmah/Mikey/Howie crowd and appeal to a large number of battle-weary undecideds and centrists.
Far-fetched? Not really. Note the distinct whiff of isolationism surrounding the speech given by the Dems’ new rising star: no mention whatsoever of the T word, no mention of any foreign policy issue, and even his all-too-brief discussion of Iraq came back to… health insurance for reservists!
Gore’s proponents argue that he should have gone populist earlier. I would bet good money that Kerry, under the influence of Shrum and for all I know Dick Morris, will do a McGovern routine by Oct 20. No downside to this: He’s already flipflopped so many times it doesn’t really matter anymore, does it? No one has a clue as to what his Iraq position is. And huge upside, if he plays it right.
OK, so let’s take that at face value (well, not completely at face value; I corrected the spelling and punctuation). Where are Bush’s reports and what do they say? Has he released them? Can they be found?
Yes. You remember the AWOL flap?
He was evaluated as a top officer, top five percent. You can find the FITREPs with the rest of his records, including his dental records.
Or, was Bush too busy working in a political campaign or attending grad school to have time to be evaluated? Why do I have the feeling that either there’s no head to head comparison available (due to Bush being a hard to find reservist) or if there is one Bush probably loses–even with all his family’s clout?
Because you’re being a dolt again?
(Oh, PS: Bush went to grad school after completing his full obligated days of service and being discharged. And must you rehash the AWOL thing again?)
“Let me make it simple for you. I try hard to make a distinction between those things which I KNOW and those things which I believe, but know that I can’t be certain about.”
Why shucks exhausted, thank you! I always appreciate it when sophisticated New Englanders city slickers speak in simple words and short phrases so’s little ol’ me can understand all their nuances.
I mentioned that when you judge a person’s character you look at many incidents. When many of those incidents indicate an aversion to truth telling, you decide they are likely liars. You fixate on not knowing the truth of one incident, shrug your shoulders, and say you can’t make a judgement.
Fine.
But… didn’t you say several times you live in Mass and are well familiar with Kerry? Yet you still can’t make a judgement on his integrity? Hmmm.
I can’t believe the commentor that is using MediaMatters as their source to refute Bush and the SwiftBoat vets.
MediaMatters has got to be the NYT of the blogosphere.
Charlie (CO),
I never said anything about AWOL. He may well have had a perfectly legitimate leave. What I object to is the double standard. Folks here want to compare Kerry’s record to that of the best possible sailors (his silver star isn’t the same as Joe Blow’s silver star!), not to Bush who saw no combat whatsoever. Folks here want to complain that Kerry was only in Nam for 4-5 months, unlike Bush who never went. See the point? Kerry is measured against the highest possible benchmarks. Bush is great if he can just satisfy people he was there, learning to fly planes that were never used in Nam and never would be.
Same way we now hear that Kerry had an undistinguished record in the Senate. And Bush, what did he do as governor of Texas? Set up a phony school program that increased the average test scores of high school kids by refusing to let the less intelligent kids take the test and by tutoring the rest of kids to the test. Executed a lot of people–frequently people of color who had poor representation (their counsel may have slept thru the trial or parts thereof, put on no defense, etc.).
I ain’t saying Kerry’s the bee’s knees, but his record sure looks better to me.
Hollywood,
For the bajillionth time, it is not an issue of Bush ‘s record vs Kerry’s record. I, as a Vietnam Era veteran (oddly enough, the closest I came to combat was running a blockade of the Bab El Mendeb Straights — go figure), could care less if they both dodged the draft.
Kerry chose to launch his campaign by centering it around his Vietnam war experience. Kerry invited scrutiny of his record when he gave that speech, and again yesterday when he said, “bring it on.”
We are just kindly comlying with his wishes.
Kerry invited scrutiny of his record when he gave that speech, and again yesterday when he said, “bring it on.”
We are just kindly comlying with his wishes.
Heh.
That’s great! I’ll remember that one, and just tell people that I’m complying with Kerrys wishes.
hollywood:
Double standard?? Are you serious?
Last May these guys did a press conference which was completely ignored by the MSM. Went right over their heads. If they had paid any attention to them this would have been out in the open before the Convention but the press was too busy obsessing about Bush being a deserter [in the words of Terry MCauliffe] to bother with the swift boat veterans.
Yes they went over Bush’s records over and over and over again. And so far they have not found one single veteran to come forward and say the kinds of things about him these veterans are saying about Kerry.
I can’t beleive Democrats that ride Bush’s ass for years over some bogus bullshit issue they can’t even find a shred of evidence to support while they allow propagandists like Moore to make a nasty movie and not only do they not refute it, they make him a guest at their convention and when they git just a little of it back they start crying like babies.
My ass. This kind of crap is exactly why I am voting for Bush this year. For ther first time in my life I am voting for a Repulican because I ma just plain disgusted with the Democrats.
I never said anything about AWOL.
Nah, you just wondered if he’d have good FITREPs or if he’d been missing so much with political campaigns and grad school that his Daddy would have had to suppress them.
To quote another frequent commenter, “my ass.”
Well, FactCheck.org happens to have collected a lot of that stuff.
In particular, note this: The Globe quoted Bush’s flight instructor, retired Col. Maurice H. Udell, as saying “I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I knew.” (From the second-linked article.)
This is particularly striking because “five percent” is sort of a term of art here: a “five percenter” is one of those officers who asre marked for rapid promotion and top assignments.
What I’ve seen of Kerry’s FITREPs are the military equivalent of “mostly harmless”, and not all of them achieve that high standard.
Hollywood:
“The case is convincingly made that Kerry’s FITREPS don’t measure up to those of a great, or even good, leader. In fact, there are some marks which really question his leadership ability. That is further documented with a statement of another swift commander who had been Kerry’s OIC on a few occasions.”
I don’t believe this is the case I make at all, although it would, I suppose, be accurate for a portion of the case as it is made.
My “case”, in summary, is that Kerry points to “positive” wording in his fitreps to suggest that he has leadership capabilities that qualify him for the job of POTUS/CIC.
First off, nothing that can be put into the fitrep for an ensign or ltjg can have definitive meaning regarding qualifications for the hob of POTUS/CIC, yet Kerry seems to insist that they do. At best it is check rather than a ding. If good, OK, next issue re: leadership. If not good, let’s continue on and look deeper.
BTW, do you have experience interviewing people for jobs and such? Believe me, I’m not lying to you, anyone as “mature” as Kerry who keeps harping on some what he did when he was twenty-something sets off MAJOR alarm bells. Focus that far into the past suggests the candidate wishes to avoid discussing more recent history. The ol’ high GPA from a pedigree, Ivy university only carries weight for a few years. After that a candidate better be ready to ‘splain what they’ve accomplished much more recently. BTW2, this is precisely the problem Kerry has competing with Bush. Bush can discuss what he’s been doing the past 3+ years. Kerry can’t. In fact he wants to avoid discussing the past 20 years and blather about 30 years ago and how he’ll do much better than the other guy starting January of next year. It is guaranteed that NOBODY gets the job running that schtick unless the interviewer is a moron.
But anyway, Kerry published a select portion of his fitreps.
OK, since he insists and won’t discuss more recent experience in his “interview”, we’re force to try to drill on the brick. Let’s have a deeper look at those fitreps and how they are intepretted by the audience they are targetted for. And while we’re at it, John, let’s see the rest of them so we can at the very least have a full look at what you believe is so important.
And, yes, there seems to be a reasonable argument that John Kerry had some diffiencies in the leadership abilities expected of an ensign or ltjg. While sterling leadership qualities for an ensign or ltjg may have little to do with the leadership qualities required of a POTUS/CIC, it is my experience that those who cannot lead well at lower levels are, generally speaking, not likely to be quality leaders at the highest levels. And, notfuhnuttin, but CIC is as high as the chain of command goes.
Show all the records, discuss how they are interpretted by the target audience, then talk to us about what they say.
Is that any clearer?
OK, so let’s take that at face value (well, not completely at face value; I corrected the spelling and punctuation). Where are Bush’s reports and what do they say?
Bush is not running on his ANG fitreps. As far as I am aware he never has. That was 30 years ago and the candidate for the job is, basically, saying, “Let’s talk about more recent history.” Since there is NO evidence that there is anything horrible back in his ANG service and since he doesn’t make it a focal point, there is little or no value in investigating it.
This is an absolutely key point, Hollywood, and you cannot progress to becoming a useful “interviewer” until you understand it. Let the candidate have some rope to try and steer the interview and then note where they go. If the candidate has 20+ years of industry experience and what they want to talk about is how well they did in college, well, its time to move on to the next candidate ’cause this one is what we call in the trade, a dickhead.
Has he released them? Can they be found? Or, was Bush too busy working in a political campaign or attending grad school to have time to be evaluated? Why do I have the feeling that either there’s no head to head comparison available (due to Bush being a hard to find reservist) or if there is one Bush probably loses–even with all his family’s clout?
Asked and anwered, see above.
Thibaud:
Note the distinct whiff of isolationism surrounding the speech given by the Dems’ new rising star: no mention whatsoever of the T word, no mention of any foreign policy issue, and even his all-too-brief discussion of Iraq came back to… health insurance for reservists!
Interesting and astute observation. Kerry is wedged (and it is himself and the Democratic Party who painted him into this corner) tying to appeal to a “coalition” of people who want “something else”. That want a world wheter there is no terrorism and Americans don’t have to worry about the difficulites of being the only major power on earth at this time and where the economy doesn’t go up and down and nobody ever has to shoot or be shot at and, dammit, can’t we all just get along and never leave our backyards?!?!
Well, unfortunately, there is no such world and electing John Kerry isn’t going to make it magically appear. In fact, IMO, a Kerry presidency would do nothing more than convince us to stick our heads in the sand until things get unbearably worse.
Thanks, BTW, for making this point.
Speaking of isolation — I wonder if Kerry will be able to find a single Democratic Politian (as oppesed to flak_ that will go onto the talk shows to defend him?
ambisiistral -
That’s a darn fine point to raise.
I wonder if it will be like 1998 all over again? Davis, Jackson, Carville (he needs some serious meds), lawyers, professors….but I can’t think of any profit to be found for any sitting Dem to show up for this situation.
I could see it happening. Bringing in the FEC at this point was seriously boneheaded – especially if email/correspondence/phone logs are subpeoned from both campaigns to look for collusion.
For the last couple of years there have been a steady stream of Hollywood “personalities,” like Tim Robbins, Whoppi Goldberg et al, that have thought that they should be able to make any and all comments, but it would have not effect on the careers.
Everyone who actually works for a living knows that this notion is bogus as payback is always around the corner.
Hollywood:
I think there should be a mercy rule for your efforts to debate military matters. You continue to show your complete ignorance of military affairs. NG/Reservists don’t go on leave. They go to drills. When not drilling they are civilians. When they are on active duty then military rules apply. For Bush, that was most of his first three years and a substantial portion of his fourth year. His two remaining years in the TANG were as drilling reservist. That means when not drilling he was not on leave, he was a civilian. Please tell me why you continue to argue your positions with people who actually served in the military.
20 August 2004
Mr. Simon,
Reading Michelle Malkin’s description of her appearance on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” show yesterday prompted me to look up the transcript. She’d been invited to speak about her book re-evaluating the need for profiling terrorist suspects. Instead Matthews bludgeoned her about SwiftVets.
The transcript of the broadcast (available at URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/) showed that Matthews has turned very nasty. Made me write an open letter to him, which I will excerpt here:
“… You should be asking your questions of someone in the military who has had responsibility for dealing with the documentation processes that are being disputed, NOT with just another media person.
For my own part, I find it far more difficult to believe that 265 decorated veterans have been bought by the Bush Campaign than to believe that John Kerry, a singularly mediocre legislator whose propensity for self-promotion has been amply demonstrated, had exaggerated and finessed the documentation of his life at every stage.
…
The decades-long leftward creep of the media is precisely the repellent force that is driving so many Americans to alternative sources of reporting.
But far more significantly than all that, for John Kerry’s campaign to call for the suppression of the SwiftVets’ book is despicable. It underscores the bankruptcy of his leadership. It lays bare a bullying gutlessness more clearly than any allegations by ten thousand fellow decorated veterans could ever have accomplished.
…”
Earlier in the day I had seen Tom Oliphant as a guest on Jim Lehrer’s newscast sneeringly dismiss the SwiftVets allegations as not having met the most basic tests of “journalistic standards.” Those presumably are precisely the same journalistic standards he utterly FAILS to apply himself.
I wonder if he ever considers how much his thundering arrogance is responsible for convincing people to discount traditional news organizations.
The rest of my letter is posted on my new blogsite: http://apsnyblog.blogspot.com
David March, animator & fiddler
Virginia Beach, VA
Dear Exhausted Centrist,
I have come across information indicating that peacetime fatalities in fighter jet operations tend to be almost indistinguishable from those of combat operations.
Without being able to cite specific sources to confirm that, I would simply invite you to do some research along those lines.
Having grown up in a Navy family, and since my dad spent several decades of his career on aircraft carriers, the lethality of the task of flying fighter jets impressed me early on. I lost track decades ago of how many friends I had who had lost family member in a jet crash. And that continued as many of my contemporaries entered military for flight training and service.
It’s not just stalls, or engines dying, or structural failure. It’s a fire in the oxygen system that scorches the pilot’s lungs, and he survives a few days in hospital until drowning as the lungs fill with fluids. Or dropping a pencil while making a notation during a high-speed run. Things can screw up in just a half-second lapse of attention when you’re traveling at 400 knots 200 feet off the deck.
Anyone who calls George Bush a coward knows NOTHING about the rigors and hazards of fighter jet training and flight. Anyone who would suggest Bush was trying to avoid combat for entering the Texas Air National Guard is basically insulting tens of thousands of other people who served in guard units, regardless of whether or not they ended up in combat.
David March, animator & fiddler
http://apsnyblog.blogspot.com
So, what do the Swiftees say now? Seems like many of them are pissed off that Kerry made anti-war statements in Congress. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20242-2004Aug20.html
In other words, they are biased against him from that point on. So much for any semblance of objectivity in their ads/book/pronouncements.
I notice I didn’t hear anything back about Bush’s “record” as governor of Texas. No, let’s focus on the record post 9/11. If it hadn’t been for 9/11, what would you folks be saying in his defense? Great Rx drug program? Great (unfunded) no child left behind program? Great crackdown on corporate greed? Great support for stem cell research? Great tax cuts (and proposed further cuts) for the wealthy? [Hope he can eliminate the "death tax." His parents are getting older.] Wonderful job of wedging the issue of gay rights/marriage? Sterling effort creating new jobs? Nice move dodging the assault weapons ban legislation? I submit that anybody in the office of POTUS would and could have done as well or better than Bush post 9/11. He only had the support of the entire country, the entire Congress, the entire free world (until he blew it). Hell, Ross Perot could have done as well. OK, maybe not Nader.
[Roger, I can't seem to get this thing posted. Either that or it's gonna be a duplicate.]
Let’s try that link again. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20242-2004Aug20.html
Just another bogus Republican ad….
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=239
Hollllllllywood -
“I submit that anybody in the office of POTUS would and could have done as well or better than Bush post 9/11.”
*clapclapclapclapclapclap….golf gallery applause.*
Really? Anybody?
I seem to remember the sick look on people’s faces when the name of the SECOND most likely American that might have been in charge on 9/11/01 was mentioned, during the first week of shock follwoing the attacks. On the faces of coworkers, strangers on the street, and even the kneepad wearing anchors who were still pissed that Al Gore couldn’t even win his own STATE.
Anyone, eh? You are a waste of bandwidth, Hollywood.
If we had been graced with an honest recounting of Bush’s Texas record, we’d hear how he took one of the most contentious state houses in the nation and ended up improving schools, streamlining state agencies, and bringing bipartisan support to a level thought to be impossible by any knowledgeable observer. He beat an ironclad machine Democrat who declined to run any sort of a principled campaign beyond ad-hominem attacks and cute one liners…then went on to be reelected by the widest margin in state history.
That’s why you don’t hear about Bush’s Texas record. Oh, yeah, Houston’s air quality sucks, there are poor people down in the Rio Grande Valley, and Texans wear funny hats, too. All those things have been true since I was running around barefoot in the Permian Basin, and it will probably be true after I’m feeding flowers somewhere.
You still won’t have brought any value to the debate when that time rolls around, either – you’ll still be using your lit’racy skills to repackage talking points and misdirect debates that you can’t win.
Bush did the single most important thing any leader can do – he put the enemy on notice that the open season on Americans was over, and whatever reservations the nuance folks might have about that boorish sentiment, our enemy understands implicitly that as long as this guy is in charge, any action they undertake that can be remotely traced back will be responded to with overwhelming force, regardless of what organizations or states are involved. Iraq is free because the existence of the Iraqi regime was contrary to our interests, both present and future. Do you hear that? Not because freeing 25 million people is a good thing or because the U.N. is a feckless thugocracy, but because Iraq’s dicator had consumed more than enough of our resources over the last twelve years and had to go in order for us to efficiently and effectively pursue our war on Islamic fascism.
I’d bet my retirement fund on the propositon that within three months of 9/11, Bush and his administration had generated a provisional plan for removing the regimes of Iraq, Iran, Syria within seven years…with options built in should it be necessary to deal with North Korea.
In the time since his first year in office, he’s presided over recovery from the trillion-dollar hit of 9/11, fostered the broadest economic growth seen in this ountry since the mid-eighties, and at least set out to narrow the gulf of manic partisanship bred in the nineties.
Two out of three ain’t bad, and since the Democrats infesting the highest halls in this country are patently perfectly willing to put their agenda before any consideration of their duties of office, I don’t hold it against him at all.
Anyone? Maybe a patrician time-server who can’t seem to keep the pivotal moments of his life in some sort of order that might not appear bullshit to a sixth grader? The ones that are seared, SEARED into his psyche? He’s one of those people who were ‘behind the president’ right up to the moment his political barometer told him he had to out-moonbat Dean, right?
You find yourself forced to align behind an indivdual you wouldn’t willingly buy a used car from, Hollywood, and the imperative to tear down a man you don’t agree with is fast losing its attractiveness as a reason why.
Don’t mind me. I usually just watch DtP, Samuel, or any other number of gracious people spend their time poking you off the bars of the cage but your last post just reeked of irritation.
I just thought I could help you along.
Hollywood
You’re in a rut.
If you get out of bed on the right side, get out of bed on the left instead, or vice versa.
Whichever foot you put a shoe on first, try putting it on the other foot first tomorrow.
If you head to the bathroom immediately on getting up, head to the kitchen for a quick glass of water first.
Go to a different grocery store than you usually do. Turn the TV to a channel you never watch.
Changing habits is hard and uncomfortable. That applies to thinking habits as well.
Hollywood and exhausted
I tire of the old, dried arguments.
So here are a few comments:
1) Bush’s job was quite dangerous. If one looks at casualty rates, and the amount of time Kerry and Bush spent in harms way, Bush took the larger statistical risk. I am a Vietnam Veteran former Naval Aviator and I lost more people to training than combat. The attacks on Bush hit me directly because of a best friend who was killed doing exactly what Bush was doing, at the same time. I’m hoping the Republicans run ads with Terry McCauliffe’s comment that the National Guard was the easy way out.
2) Kerry has refused to release all of his records, including critical ones that would answer questions such as who approved Kerry’s first Purple Heart and why it was the last one awarded. The incident for which that was awarded took place 2 months after I had left the same place. VC? Pretty hard to find – they had just been wiped out in the 3 VC offensives of 1968.
3) I got into this fray when I found out that Kerry had smeared me and all Vietnam Vets and out country. Would it surprise you to know that an article from the Vietnam News Service a couple of months ago quotes Kerry’s words, with attribution, in a propaganda attack against our country. I have the full transcript of his notorious remarks. Kerry was nothing other than a mouthpiece for the enemy. It was listening to those remarks that got me seriously interested in this. Most Vietnam Vets don’t go around all the time thinking about Vietnam. I was surprised that the SBVT went after Kerry’s in country service rather than his post-war activity (which was not anti-war, it was anti-US). I didn’t realize that Kerry had been a snake and was widely despised by his peers and commanding officers.
It probably takes two weeks or so to make a policy position stick.
Which is about the same amount of time as it takes internent debunking to reach the MSM if the subject has traction.
I don’t think Kerry can calibrate it that finely.
It may be all he has left.
–==–
Do you know how John Kerry got a piece of shrapnel buried in his leg?
You don’t?
That is all right. Neither does John.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
In other words, they are biased against him from that point on. So much for any semblance of objectivity in their ads/book/pronouncements.
Wow, Hollywood, you’ve just discovered that someone arguing a particular point may be biased.
And you claim to be a lawyer.
I notice I didn’t hear anything back about Bush’s “record” as governor of Texas.
Which was good enough to get him re-elected in a landslide. When’s the last time that happened in Texas?
By the way, you’re lapsing back into that “link, don’t think” thing.
I’d like to offer a little perspective about the religious right.
I’m a non-observant Jew. I don’t really relate to Orthodox or Hasidic Jews, but I know that in order for any religion to survive you need some hard core followers. If every Jew was a member of the Reformed movement, I don’t think Judaism would survive very long. I think that religion is an important element of society and the fact that America is probably the most religious Western nation has a lot to do with why we’re such a great country.
I think the Democrats have long been using the term “religious right” as a code word for “racist Southerners”. There are plenty of born again or evangelical Christians in this country who are either Black, Hispanic or Asian. Democratic polticians never refer to these people as religious fanatics. Instead, they are referred to as “community oriented people of deep faith”. When the Democrats want to demonize born agains they ALWAYS focus on the White Southerners. After all, if you’re White, Southern, and you believe in old fashioned values, then you must be a racist who wants to turn the clock back to the days of segregation. So let’s all wise up to this political tactic once and for all.
It’s pretty clear to me that Paris Hilton and Marilyn Manson are winning the culture wars, not Jerry Falwell. I’m more worried about the prospect that we’re getting too close to the decadence of ancient Rome than I am about evangelicals forcing us back to the Victorian age.
I abandoned the Democratic party when I realized that I was buying into lots of leftist rhetoric despite the fact that I never cared for leftists.The knee jerk negative reaction that moderates have towards the religious right is a good example of this.
I’ve read a lot of stuff about how well Bush has done (well, actually the commanders and the troops in the field) and a lot about how everything I say or link is a meme. Seems to me one of the biggest memes (repeated somewhere above) in the blogsphere/media is that Bush has “freed” 25 million people or 50 million people–so that in itself is some sort of justification. This seems at best wishful thinking and at worst a deception. So far as I can tell from radio, newspapers, cable news, etc., Bush & co have freed the people of Bagdad and the people of Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan and Iraq are still very much in play (or in doubt, if you’re pessimistic). Yet day in and and day out someone invariably talks about the 25/50 million freed. I guess if it’s repeated often enough someone will believe it.
Somewhere above Charlie talks about Bush’s landslide reelection victory as Governor of Texas. This article discusses the climate prior to the election. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=texas+gubernatorial+elections
As you can see the Democratic candidate was someone you never heard of, who had little or no support. Really, what surprises me is that Democrats have held on for so long in Texas. It’s a very conservative state, and it has been for a long time. In many instances the term Democrat or Conservative Democrat was just another name for a Republican who didn’t have the courage to say he was a Republican. It was safer to be a Democrat. Starting from the point when John Connolly switched from Democrat to Republican during the Nixon years, the Republican Party has been on the ascendency in Texas. I see nothing to indicate that this will change. So, considering that he’d beaten Ann Richards, that the Demos didn’t put up anybody known and didn’t support him, that he had the Bush name behind him, that he hadn’t gotten caught in any major scandal during his first term, Bush’s getting reelected by a landslide is not the least bit surprising to me. There’s also a tendency on the part of Texans to want to back the winner, whether in football or politics. Thus, there’s an element of a self-fulfilling prophecy about the situation. This is beneficial to Bush because if he loses this election, he can go back to Texas and run for something (Senator perhaps?) and win. Or, he can just muscle Bud Selig out of the way and be Commissioner of Baseball.
Hollywood:
One thing Bush did in Texas was cut the illiteracy rate dramatically. Once upon a time Democrats cared about stuff like that.
And Dems can act like freeing fifty millioin people is nothing if they want but the truth is if it had been left up to you guys those folks would never have any hope of anything better. The Taliban would still be shooting women in stadiums and Saddam would still be feeding old people and babies to starving dogs.
And you would not give a flying f**k.
“One thing Bush did in Texas was cut the illiteracy rate dramatically”
Sadly, terrye, he did not. He had a superintendent or grand poobah of education (who recently compared someone with Hitler as I recall–very educational), who devised a scheme whereby kids who wouldn’t do well on tests for graduating seniors wouldn’t graduate, therefore wouldn’t take the test, therefore wouldn’t be included as illiterate. Yeah, we can raise the IQ of any group of people on earth if we kick out everybody with a low IQ. Then, viola! the group looks better.
“Wow, Hollywood, you’ve just discovered that someone arguing a particular point may be biased.”
So, Charlie, we should call them the Swift Boat Veterans for Bias and ignore them.