CNN is now reporting that CBS can’t vouch for the authenticity of the Bush-National Guard documents.
Which is really too bad. Not that I really care what the documents said, since I think it is pretty clear that Bush did get special treatment, but that the CBS producer spent 5 years trying to get documents to indict Bush’s National Guard service, and the best they could do were documents of dubious veracity. And, after 5 years of searching, it looks like they went to Air in less than 12 hours. Frankly, I’m amazed that they let their journalistic skills slide that much. It doesn’t seem like it would have taken more than a day or so of investigation to uncover the inconsitancies.
I’m not going to blame a “liberal bias.” I blame the desire of the media to take down public figures. I have no doubt that if there was a “smoking gun” on Kerry, it would be in the media just as fast. The key to fighting the claims of “liberal bias,” is good journalistic integrity…something that has been sorely lacking as we have developed the 24 hour new cycle and rich book deals for those who expose public figures.
In fact, this has probably backfired on the Democrats. The Bush campaign is spinning this their way and, with their typical skill, have deflected the attacks. Kerry, meanwhile, is still stuck in the “I’m not Bush” rut. His ads are trying to explain the “Kerry Plan,” but it doesn’t take much to see that there isn’t much substance behing what he is saying.
I realize this is a bizarre conclusion from the opening subject, but I think the way this story has run is very characteristic of this campaign. An anti-Bush or pro-Kerry claim gets turned around and ends up hurting Kerry or making Bush look better. I suspect, at this point, that Kerry is doomed. He has run an anemic campaign that has spent more time reacting to Bush than building Kerry. Too bad the Democrats couldn’t nominate Dean. He would have had a strong run against Bush. He has the character, personality and record to go head to head and would have appealed to voters like myself (the man isn’t as “crazy” as he was made out to be). Instead, the party went with the “safe” choice, like they did 4 years ago. I suspect the outcome is going to be the same.
I’m just hoping that the Kerry campaign isn’t the source of the documents, as I am seeing in some, less-credible reports. That would really be a blow to Kerry.
Update: I’m now seeing that the AP is reporting that Bill Burkett is the source and he says he gave them to a senetor working with the Kerry campaign. I hope they weren’t that dumb.





September 20th, 2004 at 3:50 PM
I disagree strongly with the claim that their is nothing behind Kerry’s policy proposals… they’ve been far better of the two major campaigns by making their experts available to reporters and putting more of their proposals out there. The Bush campaign has made no clear statement about how they’re going to do anything at all, literally nothing. They put forward great ideas but haven’t really written anything useful about how they plan on accomplishing any of it.
I also think it’s silly to blame “Democrats” for putting forward the safe candidate… people voted based on what they thought…. it’s not a hive mind… I think there is a lot to be said for media coverage in that case, as well, though, because Dean got a bum rap on a lot of his policy positions… painted as angry or overly liberal (he’s actually more centrists than Kerry on many issues… pretty much everything except for the war).
September 20th, 2004 at 4:27 PM
I agree with you on Dean. He is far more centrist than media reports made him out to be. He had a perfect record according to the NRA, he brought foreign business into Vermont, and was very pro-business and individual. He got nailed as being “liberal” only because he was against invading Iraq.
I tried to read Kerry’s plan on his website. It was a substantial as wet gauze. He makes a lot of statements, but seems really short on implimentation plans. The only part that really made any sense was some of his stuff on trade policy…and I think that he is either deliberately mixing issues or has a warped sense of economics. He seems to have no grasp of the difference between outsourcing and direct foreign investment. Frankly, he doesn’t have much of a record to look back on, since much of his time has been spent playing second fiddle to Ted Kennedy.
Look at Kerry’s speech today, as covered by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3673952.stm
His four point platform for Iraq:
-Get more help from other nations
-Provide better training for Iraqi security forces
-Provide benefits to the Iraqi people
-Ensure democratic elections can be held next year as promised.
Talk about meaningless garbage. I think Bush has the same plan. Quite frankly, it is no plan.
Not that I think Bush really has a great plan either, but America knows Bush. That is Bush’s strength. Until Kerry is able to build himself up, the middle of the road voters won’t vote for him. Being a war hero isn’t going to cut.
Democrats don’t have a hive mind, but the way the primary system is set up, the party has strong influence. It isn’t just up to “the voters”. You can’t ignore the super delegates or that party loyalists are the ones who select the candidates in the primary. “The Party” does have strong influence. Not to mention that for some reason, media reports turned Dean from demo-darling to unelectable nutjob. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don’t think those reports were totally self generated. Personally, I think the party (and I mean the party leadership) felt that they couldn’t appear soft on defense and actively sabotaged Dean.
September 21st, 2004 at 12:51 AM
What would constitute a plan?
September 21st, 2004 at 10:36 AM
I think a “plan” should have details. Like how will he get more international involvement? Will he go to the UN? The EU? Middle Eastern nations? What would he say? How does he expect to persuade them? I really don’t think France, Germany, etc. are going to send in troops the day after Kerry wins the election, though that has been his implication IMO.
He should explain how he would provide “better” training. It’s not as if we aren’t training their troops, so he should explain the deficiency and what he would do to improve it.
I really thought this would be a runaway year for the Democrats with all the stuff Bush has done. I tend to vote Republican and I can’t vote for Bush for many reasons (the deficit and the Patriot Act/John Ashcroft being the two main ones), but I can’t bring myself to vote for Kerry either. I think I could have voted for Dean, had he been nominated.
September 21st, 2004 at 12:08 PM
He’s described those things already…
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html
He’s planning on going to NATO.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_0704.html
He’s planning on allowing countries denied access to the reconstruction contracts access to those contracts in exchange for forgiving Iraqi debt (think France). He wants to convene a conference with European countries and Middle Eastern countries to involve them in an open process.
Contrast that to President Bush who offers no plan, no outline of what he wants to do… It’s weird… I found the stuff above about Kerry on his campaign web site in about 30 seconds… it took longer to read than find. I still haven’t found anything on Bush’s site except for the meaningless bullet points like “we will make our ports safer.”
I also think you’re downplaying the difference in philosophy that is drives both candidates. Bush will continue to do the same things he does, without articulating anything and without accountability. I’m voting for Kerry not because I agree with everything he says (I don’t) but because I believe that the people around him and his administration will be more accountable…
I asked what would constitute a plan before because I was wondering what a reasonable expectation is for a candidate’s policy proposal. I’m still not sure how much he can say because he’s not the President yet… in other words, does he (or his advisors) have access to the same intelligence? Are they allowed to actually talk to foreign diplomats?
Interesting… I was doing more googling while writing this and it seems that the President announced that France and others are now allowed to participate in reconstruction bidding… I can’t find this in a U.S. paper, but google news has it from a Czech and Swiss paper… and it’s in today’s Daily Times of Pakistan. Ah, it was in bloomberg about 2 weeks ago: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=a.MIt5ib2jO8&refer=germany
I wonder if the Bush folks are reading the Kerry plan?
September 21st, 2004 at 12:53 PM
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vppin213979566sep21,0,6788421,print.column?coll=ny-news-columnists
Interesting column about the CBS Rathergate, as they call it. The industry is fading and a new type of media, the blogospere along with 24 hour a day network coverage will dictate truth and thics in media… literally eating away and eroding the coverage of network media.
Truth is the heir apparent to what should have been a long lived standard of ethics in media…
September 21st, 2004 at 1:04 PM
Again, I don’t think his site constitutes a plan either. How would he persuade NATO to send troops? Will France and Germany send off troops to a war that is massively unpopular with their constituents (especially Germany in light of the weekend’s elections in where the far right and far left wing parties are nibbling away at Schroeder’s support)? I don’t buy it.
I don’t buy the idea that countries are going to want to send in personnel to rebuild in light of the executions of various contractors. I understand that as a candidate, Kerry can say whatever he wants, but it is our job as informed voters to look at it critically. Maybe I am being unfair and I just don’t like his plan, but I would really like to see real details.
BTW, I think he could talk to to foreign officials. I have the right to call the ambassador of France, I don’t think he’ll take my call (silly man!) but Kerry might get through. Kerry is also a sitting US Senator, which probably affords him plenty of contact. It is, of course, possible that France, Germany, Russia etc. have all promised Kerry massive support in Iraq and we just don’t know it yet. He certainly couldn’t say it if it were.
Re: debt relief, it looks like Bush has been working on that (the Washington Times article is from 12/03 BTW):
(please excuse me the HTML if it doesn’t work!)
I think both candidates have substantially similar “plans” on Iraq, even if their tones are very different. There are only certain options that can work and not lead the country (Iraq that is) down a horrible path. We need to get debt relief, we need to get a credible Iraqi elected government in place with an election held in January. We need to get more Iraqi security forces trained much faster. I suspect there is more agreement than disagreement on Iraq.
September 21st, 2004 at 1:05 PM
Okay the HTML didn’t work so here are the two links I had put in there. Sorry!!
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031211-114729-4873r.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3731291