INDC Journal

« Cam Scores Again | Main | Sigh. Source Tug-of-War (UPDATED EXTENSIVELY) »

September 14, 2004
Idiots

Posted by Bill

Not to stray too far from Rathergate and get all partisan, but the DNC is ...

A. Ignoring President Clinton's advice.

B. Using 60 Minutes as a main source in their attack. The clip features Dan Rather!

C. Timing the attack in conjunction with the debunked exposé of fraud regarding other National Guard allegations made by CBS.

D. Officially making attacks on Bush's service; this isn't a 527, it's the DNC.

My political leanings aside, this is a completely incompetent strategy. As the page says, by all means:

Tell Your Friends
Fill out the form below to tell your friends about our new ad.

If you'd like to hit Bush where it won't hurt him and damage the credibility of the DNC, that is ...

UPDATE: A liberal agrees in the comments section:

As a liberal Democrat who supported Dean, I'm mystified by this strategy. True, the commericial didn't reference the discredited memos, and one can argue that Bush was casual about his Guard service, but who on earth cares! That was over 30 years ago. If he's an incompetent president (and I surely do believe so) then we should be able to make the case against him on the basis of his last four years in the Presidency. We should be able to make the case based on his conduct in the war against Al Qaeda, the war in Iraq, and the economy.

Now let's have a talk about this support of Dean, Rick ... :-)

But seriously, that nails it. Kerry is avoiding focus on the issues that may not resonate with hawks like me, but rather the 50% of the populace that disagrees with Bush and wants their position put forth by a champion. And swing voters could be swayed by a selective interpretation of the economy. I think that George Bush is certainly very beatable, but the National Guard angle is a pointless and misguided strategy.

Posted by Bill at September 14, 2004 01:01 PM | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Wow. Prior to this, I was willing to entertain the remote possibility that there was no coordination on the DNC's part.

Posted by: Mike Sierra at September 14, 2004 01:07 PM

For the DNC to hitch their saddle to a dead horse (Dan Rather) and claim a monopoly on telling the truth is just too choice. Don't they have enough rope already!?

Posted by: Grant at September 14, 2004 01:11 PM

And:
E. Implying that National Guard service is somehow inferior to serving in the army. The DNC has already lost the vets; now they are trying to lose those who got deferrments. And all this on the eve of Kerry speaking before the National Guard.

Posted by: NetDoc at September 14, 2004 01:16 PM

One gets the impression the Dem's had no Plan B in hand. (Which, come to think of it, is one of their complaints about American military strategy in Iraq.)

Posted by: Mike Sierra at September 14, 2004 01:21 PM

My political leanings aside, this is a completely incompetent strategy.

It certainly is that. I just linked a short post by a Kerry supporter today begging the candidates to get back to issues.

It looks instead as though the DNC is going to tune out Clinton and follow the scorched-earth policy advised by Susan Estrich. Which makes perfect sense, because it isn't as though Clinton ever won elections or anything, is it?

Well, grand. It'll be their own undoing.

Posted by: ilyka at September 14, 2004 01:25 PM

I think this confirms both Stanley Kurtz's theory (CBS is trying to lock up the market for left-wing moonbat news) and Glenn Reynolds theory (Kerry and the DNC have shifted from trying to win to trying to keep their base from defecting to Nader or staying home).

In this particular case, the DNC and CBS are clearly in a big feedback loop.

Posted by: Michael Parker at September 14, 2004 01:30 PM

Well, I guess when they link the memos to the Kerry campaign or the DNC it will be game over.

Sort of amazing to watch CBS, Dan Rather, the DNC, and John Kerry all simultaneously commit suicide. This is beyond Kool-Aid: this is lemmings following each other off the cliff.

Posted by: TallDave at September 14, 2004 01:31 PM

Oh, one other note:

I find it VERY amusing that the lefty blogs who continue to maintain the memos are genuine are egging Rather & Co. on, to their own great detriment.

If the situation were reversed, we'd have admitted they were fake and urged our guys to Move On (haha!). That's why we're better than they are.

Posted by: TallDave at September 14, 2004 01:34 PM

Unbelievable. They have the nerve to say Bush isn't telling the truth when Kerry has given absolutely no straight answers regarding the Swift-boat allegations (not that the MSM is asking the questions)? And worse yet, while displaying fraudulent memos in the ad??

More evidence that the Dems depend on the ignorance of Americans to survive. But America is getting wise to the media/DNC collusion going on, mostly thanks to new media. If the DNC doesn't adapt, how long can they last?

Posted by: insomni at September 14, 2004 01:36 PM

Idiots. Seriously, though, they have got to be TRYING to lose if this is what they trot out. A clip from 60 Minutes II? I'm speechless.

Posted by: So It Begins at September 14, 2004 01:42 PM

Could someone provide a transcript/description of the ad? I can't watch it. From the comments, I can guess what's in it; I'm just wondering if they put the forged memos up on screen.

Posted by: meep at September 14, 2004 01:44 PM

Meep:

they put some records/memo's up but not 60 minutes memos as far as I can tell. Just iconic use of old material. They use 60 Minutes Rather/Barnes footage talking about preferential treatment will there was a waiting list for ordinary folks.

Posted by: George at September 14, 2004 01:49 PM

As a liberal Democrat who supported Dean, I'm mystified by this strategy. True, the commericial didn't reference the discredited memos, and one can argue that Bush was casual about his Guard service, but who on earth cares! That was over 30 years ago. If he's an incompetent president (and I surely do believe so) then we should be able to make the case against him on the basis of his last four years in the Presidency. We should be able to make the case based on his conduct in the war against Al Qaeda, the war in Iraq, and the economy.

Perhaps Kerry was thrown off by the scurilous attacks of the Swift Vote Veterans, and this is the way he feels he has to reply.I'm hoping (perhaps in vain) this commerical is a tiny piece of the party's strategy that won't get much notice, and we can get back to talking about the threat of terrorism, the war in Iraq, and the economy, soon.

I'm getting very discouraged about how much focus there has been by both liberals and conservatives on a war from 30 years ago. Things are falling apart in Iraq, they are going badly in Afghanistan, we are not doing what we should to address nuclear proliferation and the threat of terrorism, we have our head in the sand regarding the long term limits of oil production and regarding global warming, and this administration has mismanaged the country's finances to the point where a fiscal crises is almost inevitable within the next decade. Why on earth are we talking about Vietnam? Perhaps it's to avoid the difficult questions we really are facing now.

--Rick Taylor

Posted by: Rick Taylor at September 14, 2004 01:52 PM

Rick -

I am getting tired of seeing 255 vets dismissed out of hand as "scurrilous" when the Kerry campaign has already admitted a lot of what they claim is true (Kerry wasn't in Cambodia at Christmas, Kerry wasn't under fire for his first Purple Heart, the other boats did not flee when Kerry "rescued" Rassman) and hasn't even tried to refute most of the rest. 255 vets! They can't all be Republican liars.

What exactly is "falling apart" in Iraq? Transforming a blood-soaked police state dotted with rape rooms into a libertine democracy doesn't happen overnight. Electicity generation is above pre-war levels, we have 100,000 Iraqs ready to defend their new democracy and 50,000 more are training, there's a vibrant free press, schools are educating instead of indoctrinating, 95% of the country is in good hands, and elections will be held in January. There was no mass refugee problem, no massive famine, no civil war, no tens of thousands of U.S. troops killed... If you told me 4 years ago Iraq would be in this state today, I'd have dismissed you as a pie-in-the-sky optimist.

Posted by: TallDave at September 14, 2004 02:30 PM

This latest ad campaign by the Dems is simply a huge neon arrow pointing to them as the source of these forged docs.

It might also explain why CBS was in such a rush to get their story out last week...just so it can coincide with this DNC campaign.

Let's face it...there was a coordinated attack planned on Bush via CBS and the DNC. The CBS piece was supposed to be the first salvo. It of course turns out that this was based on fraudulent documents and a dubious witness in the obviously partisan Barnes.

The Dems are going down in flames....

Posted by: Another Thought at September 14, 2004 02:35 PM

Also, where's this fiscal crisis talk coming from? This is only the 17th-largest deficit in our history, based on GDP.

I am continually amazed at how reasonable people come to hold such unreasonable beliefs. The power of liberals in media and academia (where conservatives are routinely blacklisted in a way no different than the KKK applies to blacks) is still incredible.

Posted by: TallDave at September 14, 2004 02:36 PM

Sent this email to the DNC:

"RE: Favorite Son Video:

As a Bush supporter, I want to thank you. Releasing a video prominently featuring Dan Rather just as his credibility is going up in flames on the very topic of the video is doing a great service to the Bush campaign. The more you do to link the DNC and the Kerry campaign to this media disgrace the better. Oh, and thanks for continuing to bring up Viet Nam - that's also a big help. Keep up the good work."

I know we shouldn't be helping to clue them in, but I don't think even Soros can afford to buy them a clue right now.

Anyway, I'm sure there's a lot of infighting, maybe a few of these kinds of comments from outside will help it along.

Posted by: Jeff Bork at September 14, 2004 03:48 PM

DNC is using a really strange clip here. During the years of 1967 and 1968 Bill Barnes was (67) Ambassador to NATO and (68) UN Ambassador to Geneva. GWB entered into TANG in May 1968. That makes Barnes either 2 years early or 1 year late with his "friendly help". Source - http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/barnes/bio.asp (obviously another right wingnut group right?)

Posted by: Squeaky at September 14, 2004 04:07 PM

So what if influence was used to get him into the Guard without his knowledge or consent? Does that make him guilty? I don't think so. So what if he screwed off the last few months of his commitment. Did he use that time to vilify his fellow service member and give aid and comfort to the enemy in a public forum and overseas? I don't think so.

Posted by: Pete at September 14, 2004 04:16 PM

Mr Kerry (we won't call him Senator, since he hasn't been to work in almost 2 years) has proclaimed himself a hero and so is now insisting on falling on his sword to prove it. I am really looking forward to his appearance at the National Guard Convention-especially after all these months of comparing GWs' Air Guard service as equivalent to 'Draft Dodging'-and half of our Guys and Gals in combat right NOE are guard or reserve. Is any one else looking forward to tomorrows Kerry/Guard appearance...waiting with bated breath...Retired AF and a Texan..

Posted by: Pietr at September 14, 2004 05:17 PM

What stunned me was that the party of Michael Moore produced a crappy Michael Moore-esque video.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at September 14, 2004 05:43 PM

Is there any sane, adult leadership at either the DNC or DNCBS? It sure doesn't look like it.

Posted by: Larry J at September 14, 2004 05:57 PM

It's a shame, I liked that Hendrix song.

Posted by: VerukaSalt at September 20, 2004 08:56 PM