August 26, 2004
Petard hoisting 101
John Kerry and his campaign just don't get it. As Deborah Orin observes in today's NY Post, attempting to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth by alleging that they are nefariously linked to the Bush campaign is a losing strategy.
And the latest poll in today's LAT seems to suggest that this losing strategy is working. Here is how the LAT's Ronald Brownstein describes the impact of the Swift boat controversy:
The country divides mostly along predictable partisan lines on the exchanges between Kerry and the group that has attacked his Vietnam record over the past month, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But by several measures, the struggle appears to be drawing some blood from Kerry.Personally, I found the TV ads prepared by the Swifties pretty compelling; especially their first one which begins with John Edwards asking "If you have any questions about what John Kerry's made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him thirty years ago." Their answer is not the one that Edwards, et al. had been hoping to hear.The Swift boat group, which has received funding from several of Bush's supporters and advice from some veteran Republican operatives, has made only relatively small purchases of television time in a few battleground states for its two ads, the first charging that Kerry did not deserve some of the five medals he won in Vietnam and the second criticizing his antiwar testimony before the Senate in 1971.
But with the controversy attracting intense media attention, especially on talk radio and cable television, the ads have achieved extraordinary visibility among voters. Fully 48% of those polled said they had seen the ad accusing Kerry of lying to win his medals; an additional 20% said they had heard about it. Similarly, 44% said they had seen the ad criticizing Kerry's Senate testimony; another 17% said they had heard about it.
At the same time, 18% of those surveyed said they "believe that Kerry misrepresented his war record and does not deserve his war medals," while 58% said Kerry "fought honorably and does deserve" the medals.
Attitudes on that question divided along party lines. As many Republicans said they believed Kerry was lying as believed he fought honorably. By nearly 10 to 1, Democrats said Kerry served honorably.
Independents sided with Kerry in the dispute by more than 5 to 1. Among them was Monika Schiel, a retiree in Gardena, Calif. "You have all the people that were on Kerry's boat—not somewhere downstream or upstream—confirming what he said," said Schiel. "This is some typical smear stuff; it seems mostly done by Republicans."
When voters were asked whether Kerry's protest against the war when he returned from Vietnam would influence their vote, 20% said it made them more likely to support him, while 26% said it reduced the chance they would back him, and 52% said it made no difference.
But if Kerry showed relatively few bruises on these questions directly measuring reactions to the veterans' charges against him, indirect measures suggested he had suffered more damage.
Asked how Kerry's overall military experience would affect their vote, 23% said it made them more likely to vote for him, while 21% said it made them less likely; the remaining 53% said it would make no difference. That has to be a disappointment for the Kerry camp after a Democratic convention last month that placed Kerry's Vietnam service at the top of the marquee.
Two other key questions produced even more troubling results for Kerry.
In the July Times poll, 53% of voters said Kerry had demonstrated in his Vietnam combat missions the "qualities America needs in a president," while 32% said that by "protesting the war in Vietnam, John Kerry demonstrated a judgment and belief that is inappropriate in a president."
In the August survey, that balance nudged away from Kerry, with 48% saying he had demonstrated the right qualities and 37% saying he had exhibited poor judgment.
Likewise, the share of voters saying they lacked confidence in Kerry as a potential commander in chief edged up from 39% in July to 43% now; the percentage that said they were confident in him slipped from 57% to 55%. Both changes were within the poll's margin of error, yet both tracked with the poll's general pattern of slight Kerry slippage.
Similar trends were evident on voters' assessments of the two men's personal qualities. Compared with July, Bush slightly widened his advantage over Kerry when voters were asked which was a strong leader and which had the honesty and integrity to serve as president.
Posted by Spart at 09:41 AM | TrackBack (0)
August 25, 2004
Ha!
Today's NYT editorial on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth:
Senator Kerry invited debate on his war service by making it a keystone of his campaign. But that means fair debate. Some of the veterans in the ads criticizing Mr. Kerry have praised his courage in the past. No one has offered evidence to contradict the record.[Emphasis added.]I guess these guys only read their own paper. If they had read Michael Dobbs' investigative report in last Sunday's WaPo, perhaps they would be calling on Kerry to finally resolve these issues by releasing his complete military record as well as his own wartime diary. (Just kidding.)
Posted by Spart at 08:43 AM | TrackBack (0)
August 24, 2004
Sick of reading about politicians and their medals yet?
No?! Then read this report about LBJ and his Silver Star "for gallantry in action".
(Via Instapundit.)
Posted by Spart at 10:13 PM | TrackBack (0)
August 23, 2004
The view from above the front-lines in Iraq
USMC Major Glen Butler, who is flying close air support missions in a AH-1W Cobra attack helicopter over Najaf, has an excellent OpEd piece in today's NYT (of all unlikely places). It is worth reading in its entirety, but here is the punchline:
When critics of the war say their advocacy is on behalf of those of us risking our lives here, it's a type of false patriotism. I believe that when Americans say they "support our troops," it should include supporting our mission, not just sending us care packages. They don't have to believe in the cause as I do; but they should not denigrate it. That only aids the enemy in defeating us strategically.Michael Moore recently asked Bill O'Reilly if he would sacrifice his son for Falluja. A clever rhetorical device, but it's the wrong question: this war is about Des Moines, not Falluja. This country is breeding and attracting militants who are all eager to grab box cutters, dirty bombs, suicide vests or biological weapons, and then come fight us in Chicago, Santa Monica or Long Island. Falluja, in fact, was very close to becoming a city our forces could have controlled, and then given new schools and sewers and hospitals, before we pulled back in the spring. Now, essentially ignored, it has become a Taliban-like state of Islamic extremism, a terrorist safe haven. We must not let the same fate befall Najaf or Ramadi or the rest of Iraq.
Posted by Spart at 09:19 AM | TrackBack (0)
August 21, 2004
What you should be reading
Since I've not been doing much blogging lately, you should be reading Tim Blair's roadtrip diary as he wanders around America on his "Closer to Cambodia" campaign tour. My personal favorite was the chronological record of his stay in Albuquerque, NM's Desert Sands hotel.
Posted by Spart at 09:02 AM | TrackBack (0)
Man's goat gotten...
This WaPo story by Susan Levine, about a Maryland farmer who has been banned from the county fair for allegedly punching a goat, is oddly amusing.
Posted by Spart at 08:41 AM | TrackBack (0)
August 17, 2004
When becoming the story is no fun at all...
Ever wonder what it feels like to be kidnapped by Islamic terrorists and repeatedly beaten and threatened with execution? This young British journalist can tell you all about it.
(Via Belmont Club.)
Posted by Spart at 10:49 PM | TrackBack (0)
