SwiftVets.com

[Me#1You#10]

The Democrats' Choice
Ronald Wieck
OpinionEditorials.com
November 09, 2004

A political axiom holds that you can’t beat something with nothing. The Democratic Party, however, keeps trying.

In the final days of the 2000 campaign, Democrat operatives and their media accomplices broke the story of George W. Bush’s 1976 DUI conviction. What made it a “story” is not entirely clear. Granting that the barest suspicion of hypocrisy is sufficient to loose the hounds, and any actual evidence can destroy a politician’s career, especially a Republican politician’s, where was the hypocrisy? Bush had talked openly about his drinking problem and his decision to overcome it, acknowledging that he done certain things he wasn’t proud of. Uncovering a scrape with the law that happened after he turned his life around would be the journalistic equivalent of tossing a side of beef into a school of piranha. But what exactly was the purpose of highlighting an embarrassment that occurred during a stretch of his life that, by his own admission, was pockmarked by episodes of improper behavior? How did it qualify as “news”?

Over the final weekend of the 2000 campaign, millions of seniors received a telephone message, taped by far-left actor Ed Asner, warning them that a Bush victory would threaten their social security benefits. Four years later, the voice on the message belonged to Hal Linden, but the content was unchanged.

Bush commented that he has been the President for a few years now and nobody missed any checks: the Democrats pull this stuff every election--why should anyone take them seriously? The bogus charge must produce some incremental value, or the people making the ads—and they are savvy pros-- wouldn’t waste their time. Still, it’s a source of wonderment. No President would dream of touching the benefits of millions of current recipients; no Congress could look at any such legislation without swooning like a Victorian matron encountering a statue of a male nude. And yet, the Democrats repeatedly hurl the same preposterous charge in a transparent attempt to conceal their inability to formulate a substantive policy.

The Social Security system faces insolvency: that much is uncontroversial. Addressing the problem, Republicans have edged, tentatively, toward partial privatization. Democrats remain committed to preventing an honest debate, but beyond the reflexive opposition to the other side’s proposals, their intentions are undecipherable.

By nominating John Kerry, Democrats ensured that they would instigate a vigorous debate on the Vietnam War. Here was a man who had thrust himself into the national consciousness by branding his fellow veterans as war criminals. Following his return from active duty, he made unauthorized visits to the North Vietnamese delegations in Paris, and became an articulate advocate for the enemy position (John Edwards was shocked by entries in Kerry’s diary that historian Douglas Brinkley kept under wraps until the election was over). These are extraordinary statements about a politician ambitious to become President of the United States. If true—and they are—they portray someone who would surely antagonize a large portion of the voting population, a candidate who would be judged unelectable by any rational vetting process.

In truth, it was hard to see the distinctions between John Kerry and other Democrats. That there were Democrats running to his left is a both a commonplace observation and a truly damning indictment of the whole party. To voters favoring an internationalist, quasi-pacifist approach to foreign affairs and high tax/ big government policies at home, he, the stereotypical Northeastern liberal, suited them perfectly. Those voters who favored a more robust projection of American military power into the regions that have spawned jihadists recoiled at the prospect of a Kerry presidency, but only because he was a generic liberal Democrat.

For one relatively small group of Americans, John Kerry was something special. The men who served alongside him in Vietnam, patrolling the rivers in Swift Boats, took very personally the accusations he made in his 1971 Senate testimony. Banding together as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they–Kerry’s entire chain of command—presented a version of events that differed sharply from the candidate’s self-serving account of his own unparalleled heroism, an account that was accepted uncritically by the mainstream media. One of them, John O’Neill, who had debated Kerry on the Dick Cavett show in the early seventies, co-authored a book, Unfit for Command, which laid out the case in painstaking detail.

The Democratic response to the attacks of the Swiftees was absolutely characteristic. They first attempted to discredit individual members of the group by tying them to Republican cash cows. Next, they pressured radio stations to refuse to grant airtime to anyone dissenting from the official Kerry line. They demanded that bookstores refrain from stocking Unfit for Command. Droves of party hacks descended on the talk shows to denounce the decorated vets as “liars,” employing a fascinating technique: dissenters from received truth had to be lying because the official records supported Kerry’s version. The Swiftees contended that Kerry wrote the version that found its way into the official records, so whatever your judgment of the respective sides, the question of origin was central to the dispute. Finally, in the closing weeks of the campaign, Democrat operatives calling themselves Texans for Truth released in the guise of a book, Unfit Commander, a collection of documents relating to George W. Bush’s service in the Air National Guard.

In every respect, what was on display was the quintessential Democratic response: a no-holds-barred attack that savaged the opponent on every level. No consideration at all was given to the possibility that the Swift Boat veterans felt any genuine emotions, or were expressing grievances rooted in reality. As always, there were no “issues,” just an enemy that stood in the path to the White House and needed to be liquidated.

By cobbling Unfit Commander, the Democrats felt they had achieved symmetry-- you attack the military record of our guy, we’ll do the same to yours. One thought completely alien to their mindset, a concept that simply could not be entertained by any of them, was that the Swiftees were real, while Texans for Truth were fakes. Many liberals and leftists hate George Bush for his Christianity; a disturbingly large number hate him because he will routinely opt to protect America in reckless defiance of the wishes of Old Europe. Not a single shrieking Bush-basher actually gives a rat’s patoot about the number of flying hours he logged. These are, when it comes down to it, people, who—twice—enthusiastically backed a draft dodger against an authentic war hero. They do not care about Bush’s performance in the Guard.

Something vs. Nothing: The Democrats have yet to grasp that they have chosen the losing side.

OpinionEditorials.com

[LewWaters]

Simply amazing, isn't it?

All we kept hearing is that 30 years ago just doesn't matter. Then, it is the bogus AWOL and DUI that fills the airspace, while charges of aiding and abetting the enemy, a less than honorable discharge, lieing before Congress, shakey acceptance of medals not due, outright lieing about the oppositions future plans, and on and on, just never mattered, to them, anyway.

They castigated Dan Quayle over his NG service, twice said draft dodging never mattered, for Clinton and twice now, have castigated Bush's TNG service. And not once, did any part of the main media even look at the charges against Kerry.

And they wonder why so few look upon them as credible?
_________________
Clark County Conservative

[Beatrice1000]

"...you can’t beat something with nothing."

What a well-written article! So nice to read something factual and insightful. Here's hoping for many, many more....

[MSeeger]

That is their mindset. They apparently expect us to take them at their word, and get extremely upset with us if we start asking questions.

For example, my German friend told me that German soldiers had accused American soldiers in Afghanistan of brutalizing civilians. He said that a German magazine had been granted permission from their Ministry of Defense to interview these soldiers, who apparently were in Afghanistan on a secret mission.

I don't know why he got so upset with me when I told him that particular magazine has the reuptation of being one of the most biased against Americans, and this according to one of his own countryen (David's Medienkritik blog), so therefore, I was inclined to take what it said with a grain of salt. He also got mad because I asked him if this magazine had verified the story with the American military, as any competent journalist would do. Apparently, I was supposed to be outraged and take his word as gospel truth, and not ask too many questions.

Go figure.

Maria
_________________
Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal. 6:7

[shawa]

The Democratic Party in recent years is totally devoid of ideas
and vision. Their standard operating procedure is so predictable:

Scare the elderly, who rely on their Social Security--'Republicans
want to take it away from you'.

Scare minorities--'Republicans are racists, who want to take away
your rights'.

These tactics are getting so old they don't work anymore, the voters
know better.

So they resort to dredging up 'smears' to attack the opposition.
Fortunately, in their zeal to smear their opponent they go SO overboard
that it becomes obvious to the voters what is going on.

Today's Democratic Party AND Media are dying, and they refuse
to recognize what they are doing wrong.

The voters just aren't buying it anymore!!