Redstate

And then the killing blow: the President called for the cessation of all 527 ads and the like, knowing well that this is something with which the Kerry campaign will never agree.

Respectfully, the President's suggestions regarding 527 are frightening wrong-headed in their implications -- at least, E. Volokh, http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_08_14.shtml#1093017246, whose post seems typically clearheaded.  

A better solution would be to eliminate the McCain-Feingold bill in its entirety (Mitch McConnell's criticisms were right).  I understand that Bush can't suggest that during the campaign -- and, given that he signed the bill, probably won't suggest it if he wins.  Still, the crappy current situation is loads better than the crappy-idiotic solution proposed -- hopefully without much thought -- by Bush and his press secretary.

But, save for that nit, good analysis.

at least, E. Volokh,

"per" E. Volokh.  Sorry.

The whole speech-suppression aspect of this is incredibly distasteful.  So I agree with you.  Just doing the tactical analysis, here.  ;-)

The Admiral Akhbar defense... :)

in this world.. the best we have... the best we have to argue over is the Vietnam War?  

A campaign should be about the candidates telling us the state of the nation and what they think are the important issues... important issues where key policy and action can make a difference, or so they would argue.

And that issue... sorting out Vietnam.  Pitting protestors against vets that didn't appreciate the aspersions cast on the war and/or on themselves, or by association with examples of war crime.

I'm fine with pouring over and over this history of ours (and the Spanish American War, the Civil War, WWI and good old WWII), but not as a campaign issue.

The country!  It's been hit!  It's... friendly fire.  Can they give away purple hearts in the voting booth?

snicker

I've inspired a catch-phrase.  How tingly.

It's Adm. Ackbar.  I knew something looked wrong about Tac including an H in there.

Viz. here.

"in this world.. the best we have... the best we have to argue over is the Vietnam War?"

But remember it is John Kerry who has wrapped himself in Vietnam to the exclusion of his legislative 'accomplishments' whatever they may be.

The Dems argument seems to be 'I will be a good Commander-in-Chief because I was a war hero (even if the war was wrong, the troops were baby-killers, etc.) and Bush isn't. But on the otherhand Bush IS the Commander-in-Chief and whether you like what he has done or not it is clear what is positions are with respect to military force; at best Kerry's are based on following orders 35 years ago.

and ideally the answer involves some current issue and hints at what the current policy would be.

If the issue is Iraq... what?  We know what Bush and Kerry are going to do in Iraq based on what they did in Vietnam?!

At most it's the old "character" question... the theory that their character back then will tell you how they think now... except both men and all people learn as they live.  

Bush for example certainly will NOT react the way he did back then, more or less avoiding the conflict, instead, he's started this one and facing it with unwavering resolve to continue it through.  It's logical to assume that Kerry is not going to advocate the same solutions that made sense to him back then...

Kerry does not support unilateral withdrawal in Iraq, and it's virtually impossible to think he wants to just leave Iraq to it's own devices now,  he's on the "with honor" side and the idea that we owe the <s>South Vietnamese</s&gt Iraqi government continued support...

It's not that the two don't have different policies, and those differences are not important, they do and they are, but this SBVT/AWOL debate doesn't speak to those differences one whit.

That's what we'd see coming from the Kerry campaign if the relevant records haven't been released yet and the following happened:

Bush V. Kerry - 1st debate

Bush: "Let's end this once and for all.  Here's my signed form-180 (holds

it up to the camera) and here's a blank form-180 for you to sign Senator

Kerry (reaches out to give it to Kerry).  You can even borrow my pen."

If the records clear Kerry's name - then Bush can say he did Kerry a

favor.  If Kerry refuses to sign - he's dead.

Bush just needs to make it clear that he's sick and tired of the issue (by the first debate - the Swift Vets will have inflicted as much damage as possible) and that he wants to discuss the issues facing America today.  That's why he signed HIS form-180 and is why he's asking Kerry to sign it as well.  

Game-set-match.

Contrary to what you would have us believe, this isn't about Vietnam. This is about the core of the Kerry campaign.

While I agree that there are other issues to debate the fact of the matter is that Kerry refuses to debate them.

What is his position on Iraq? He says he won't say in public because he doesn't negotiate in public. As George Stephanopoulos said, the answer was "Senator, forgive me. It sounds like that famous old Nixon secret plan." So if you know what Kerry's position is on Iraq you know much more than he is willing to say.

What is his position on the economy? According to a Business Week interview by his main economic policy goof, Robert Rubin, "Uh, I don't think you can make proposals to try to dig out of this hole until you've gotten elected. If you start to put out proposals now, they'd be vigorously attacked and they would in effect become tainted so they couldn't be used." Again, many of us would be happy to debate his economic plan if it wasn't classifed TOP SECRET/CODEWORD NOFORN WINTEL.

Kerry has made his Vietnam service his Unique Selling Proposition. Because he was there he knows best how to handle every conceivable problem.

Now his Vietnam heroics and post-Vietnam theatrics are coming under scrutiny and he and his allies are crying foul. They seem to want a campaign where their candidate does not have to put forth a platform or ideas but merely proceed to a coronation. Nice work if you can get it. But not likely to happen.

... this issue is a diversion... it's "all we have to talk about"... more than an argument that the issue is relevant.

It's not a good issue... it's just the only one on the table.

Discussing Iraq or the economy with a man as shallow as Kerry would be a waste of perfectly good oxygen.

He has said his service uniquely qualifies him for the presidency. Let's debate this proposition. If we wait for a few days we can probably get Kerry to debate himself on the issue.

Last month the kids in my neighborhood didn't know the difference between Vietnam and WWII.

Now they know when and where and who.

Thanks John Kerry!

But I see a potentially positive effect here--it helps to make obvious the untenable situation created by the campaign finance law, and might make calls for it not only politically acceptable, but attractive.  The independent counsel law looked untouchable for a long time--but once the Democrats had suffered its sting for as long as Republicans had, both sides were willing to say "enough."  Since the courts won't do their job (surprise, surprise) and kill this monstrosity, it will take politics to do the job.

"Respectfully, the President's suggestions regarding 527 are frightening wrong-headed in their implications".

I don't see that there anything 'frightening wrong-headed' in his comments. Short of calling for repeal of McCain-Feingold what else is there but suggesting that everyone simply stop in place? Clearly repeal, or even improvement, is not a possibility in this election cycle.

Asking both sides to stop is not a violation of free speech; an Executive Order saying so would be, but he isn't going to do that! And, based on past performance, even if the Swifties agreed to stop, MoveOn.org won't and in fact would simply launch another attack claiming that the Swifties stopping proves the argument that there is coordination.

No, I'm afraid we are stuck with this stuff for now.

I don't know. It's hard to say what should have been done. Once the Swifties started with their Kerry-lied-about-the-medals there wasn't much to be done.

Yes, by now the press and new evidence (including Thurlow's Bronze Star citations, and three new witnesses) have basically demolished the Swifties medals arguments but it's out there. They have to say something.

On the plus side (from my point of view) there doesn't seem to have been much polling impact. Even Rasmussen which is the most pro-Bush poll out there has Kerry still leading.

I doubt most people care about 527s or even understand what they are about.

In the end, we can fairly say that the Kerry campaign has amplified the effect of the original Swift boat ad to its maximum attainable impact. Now that it's done, the real -- and thoroughly justifiable -- basis for these vets' loathing of John Kerry can be worked-upon. It has already begun. More people will watch. More people will pay attention. And more people will react.

And boy oh boy is that new Swift boat ad devestating. I believe it may well be cited in years hence as an all-time classic of American political campaigning. And the beautiful thing is, there's absolutely nothing Kerry can do now to deny the claims of the Swift boat vets, because every word of his Fonda-esque testimony is a matter of public record -- indeed of filmed public record.

(And don't you all just love Kerry's Thurston Howell III accent? If that ain't right out of central casting for "Eastern Establishment Elitist Snob" I don't know what is. I'm from Massachusetts, and believe me, nobody talks like that except John Kerry circa 1970. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when that spot comes on the tube in some VFW hall outside of Akron).

among veterans no effect.

No effect if 44% of undecided voters thought the charges were believable.

If he had lost 18 points among veterans you would expect a big drop in the overall numbers.

And that hasn't happened.

In fact if you look at the CBS time series the numbers are simply back to the what they;ve beeen all along.

...hivemates inhabit, maybe so.

"Discredited" except for the nth iteration and retraction of the "Cambodian Christmas", "discredited" except for the retracted usurpation of Lt. Peck's command, "discredited" except for Kerry's claims of baptism-of-fire not jiving with his own journals, "discredited" except for...

...and the second ad, juxtaposing Kerry's lugubrious mug and affected, sonorous delivery against the testimony of POWs hasn't even run yet.

It's going to be 70-odd more days of flop-sweats and car-wrecks for the Kerry Campaign, and that's assuming the Swifties have nothing more in store for Kerry.  Bummer of a summer, man...

--furious

every single one of the medal charges has been discredited by now. The official docs, the people there, and new witnesses all have destroyed these attacks.

The cambodia story is different, which is why I didn't include it.

"calls for it" to be repealed, obviously.

Yeah, it's biased. Sue me. Just read the facts, ignore the commentary: eRipost.com's commentary on essentially every charge the SBV have made, ever. Including the charges that contradict other charges.

At first I was going to ask, rhetorically, just how stupid did you think we were. But the fact that you tried to pull a juvenile act likes this shows that you think we are at least as dumb as your friends.

CBS, despite a pathetically small sample and a response rate they won't disclose, says this:

Among veterans post DNC convention-

Bush-Cheney 46%

Kedwards 46%

On August 20

Bush-Cheney 55%

Kedwards 37%

In the civilized world that equates to a change of 18 points.

I'm just the kind of nerd to know that. (I also know that enslaved Mon Calamari were the designers and builders of the Imperial Star Destroyers, and the Super Star Destroyers. That's why later generation Mon Calamari Cruisers and Destroyers could match up so well -- they knew what they'd designed.)

I shoulda known that. But anyways, considering I haven't posted on RedState in many days, I'll cease the SW conversation, although my nerdiness MAY be given away by my handle...

That I took a look at the handle and thought Mara Jade...? and discounted it out of hand.

Since the primary season, Kerry has structured his candidacy around his experience in Vietnam.  How is focusing on an issue specifically chosen by a candidate in any way a diversion or a canard?    

that again just emphasizes.  Kerry would actually much rather talk about Vietnam than his China policy, specifics about the Economy or Iraq etc. etc.

Not according to this post,   citing a Fox news report, wherein a Kerry spokesperson may have allowed that the wound which qualified Kerry for his first Purple Heart was uninentionally self-inflicted.

Furthermore, the citation credited that wound to hostile fire.  Problem with that is, that Kerry's own journals contradict that version of events.

I'd say the above trumps your unsupported and repeated assertions of "discreditation" and "destruction".  That, and which camp has recanted or retreated from whose claims (HINT:  Kerry's...repeatedly).

--furious

How many times must we go over this?

It doesn't matter if it was self inflicted. It doesn't matter if there was hostile fire. Neither are required for a PH.

Check the whole time series.

Or read this:

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/00061
3.php

You obviously need to go over it some more...

"(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

(b) Heat stroke.

(c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

(d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

(e) Battle fatigue.

(f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

(g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.

(i) Post traumatic stress disorders.

(j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action."

...emphasis mine.  Kerry's own journals contradict any claims of hostile action on Dec 2, so there goes the 'heat of battle' angle.

Keep on sighin'!

--furious

As Pat Runyon and Zeldonis, the people who were actually there, have made clear. Runyon called it the most frightening night of his life.

...on the events in question on Dec 2, 1968:

""I assume they fired back," Zaladonis recalled in an interview. But neither he nor Runyon saw the source of the shrapnel that lodged in Kerry's arm.

[..]

The Globe asked Kerry's campaign whether the Massachusetts senator is certain he was under enemy fire and whether he recalled that a superior officer raised questions about the matter. The campaign did not respond directly to those questions."

And here's Runyon:

"Runyon, too, said that he assumed the suspected Viet Cong fired back because Kerry was hit by a piece of shrapnel. "When you have a lot of shooting going on, a lot of noise, you are scared, the adrenaline is up," Runyon said. "I can't say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked. I couldn't say one way or the other. I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm.""

That's some eyewitness testimony, not to mention the robust campaign response.  And of course, it doesn't jive as to enemy fire with regards to John Kerry's own biographer and journals of his first day on PCF-44, nine days after the above sampan "incident":

"They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.'

Two references in the same sentence to 'not being shot at' more than nine days after claiming to have been shot at.  Hmmmm...

Sen. Kerry better check his notes -- his narrative is unravelling like a cheap sweater.

--furious

How many times must we go over this?

IT DOES NOT MATTER if there was enemy fire or not.

It makes no difference if they were shot at or not.

Runyon and Zaledonis made clear they were engaging the enemy. If the enemy ran away or hid or whatever and did not fire back it makes no difference for the PH. So long as Kerry was wounded engaging the enemy he gets a PH. It can be self inflicted, like Dole's first PH.

...not enemy "fire".  There you go putting words in my mouth, and here I gave you the courtesy of a citation proving so, instead of resorting to weak, unsupported one-liner assertions.

And those running Vietnamese were "the enemy" because...either Runyon or Zaladonies saw uniforms?  (No).  Either Runyon or Zaladonis saw them brandish weapons?  (No).  Either Runyon or Zaladonis confirmed that they took incoming fire?  (No).  Either man or Kerry inspected the sampans' contents before or after shooting them up?  (No).  They were "running" and "Vietnamese"?  (Er, ummm...).

For all you know, they surprised, stampeded and fired on civilians, which would, come to think of it, square with Kerry's admission on Meet the Press that, yes, he "...committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones."

--furious

Yes, they could have mistaken civilians for soldiers in the middle of the night. It is not impossible.

But that can't be proven one way or the other. All 3 aboard have made clear they thought they were engaging the enemy. Maybe they were all mistaken.

But since they all enaged what they thought was the enemy it meets the criteria.

Unless you are arguing that all three present made it up.