perfidy

I was just informed by Teresa Heinz-Kerry that I am an idiot. I was surprised by this, seeing as I've never met the woman, but here it is:

Teresa Heinz Kerry says "only an idiot" would fail to support her husband's health care plan. But Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, told the (Lancaster) Intelligencer Journal that "of course, there are idiots." Kerry's proposal includes health care subsidies for children, the unemployed, small companies and more; and government assistance to insurers and employers that keep premiums for workers down. If Kerry is elected, Heinz Kerry predicts that opponents of his health care plan will be voted out of office. She says, "Only an idiot wouldn't like this."

In an ABC report on the CBS document pooch screwery, the officer's wife and son also doubt that the memos in question could have come from Killian. At the end of the piece is a very droll understatement:

Many Democrats are worried that if they are found to be forgeries, it will be a setback for Sen. John Kerry's campaign to defeat Bush in November.

I guess worrying about the professional integrity of a major news outlet, concurrant slander on a sitting president, and the fact that some of your allies are incompetant scumbags rate pretty far down the list.

John Hawkins serves up an interview with John O'Neill of the Swifties. Interesting article, in that for the first time I've gotten to hear O'Neill's whole story uninterrupted by, say, a screaming Chris Matthews. We report, you decide.

Via Cold Fury, this gem from an unlikely source - Something Awful:

Anti-Republican protestors - I cringe whenever hearing that the Republicans are planning some upcoming meeting, convention, or fundraiser to earn more money for the "Buy Jesus Christ a New Diamond Beard Foundation," not because I hate Republicans, but because I hate anti-Republican protestors even more. These loudmouthed, braindead raving cliches make me want to start voting Republican just to spite them, but naturally I avoid doing so because that would only ensure four more years of unwashed horse-like creatures parading down busy intersections while waving "BU$H IS EVIL" signs they drew with their parents' Magic Markers. The general idea here seems to be that if you are too fucking stupid to intelligently explain your position on a few political issues because you often break down into tears when losing arguments to eight-year olds regarding the quality of Willie Wonkie candy in the Hy-Vee parking lot, you can compensate for your lack of debate skills by being as loud and belligerent as possible. I mean, hell, that tactic works all the time, doesn't it? Do you know how many women have been converted to the ranks of Christianity thanks to the ceaseless efforts of the anti-abortion lobby and their rock-solid tactic of "standing outside abortion clinics in the middle of the rain and shrieking like the Pod People from 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' whenever they spot a pregnant woman walking within a 20-mile radius of the clinic? I'm guessing somewhere between nine and ten hundred million billion thousand. Maybe even more if you count fat women as two people each. The insane liberals, despite how much they claim to loathe insane conservatives, seem to have absolutely no qualms with adopting their awesome policy of forming large groups waving crudely misspelled signs, stomping around public places to disrupt the daily routines of normal non-insane folks, and screaming at everybody they see with the ultimate goal of annoying them into submitting to their wills. If people have to choose between George Bush and a crowd of furious bicyclists whose biggest claim to fame is that one of their blogs was mentioned in passing by Al Franken on that one AM radio station nobody turns on because it's about as exciting as listening to NPR at 50% speed, they'll either choose George Bush or they'll choose to look away when the riot police start caving in skulls with their nightclubs.

 

Wow! Suddenly I hate George Bush and think America is just like Nazi Germany, all thanks to a fucking posterboard sign held by some fat unemployed shithead! The power of advertising in action!

Here's a newsflash you guys and gals who believe George Bush is going to physically break into your bathroom and steal the awesome weed you have hidden in that prescription gout medication bottle next to the Drano: most people might actually listen to you if you present your facts clearly and act confident enough in what you believe in to know that these facts will speak for themselves. Most people will NOT listen to you if you're stomping around and blocking traffic while shouting tremendously catchy slogans like "two, four, six, eight, George Bush is a fucking liar and is Hitler and Satan and fuck you George Bush you cocksucking father of whores." Whenever chucklefucks like you begin blocking up traffic and causing me to be delayed, my first two priorities instantly switch to running you down with my car and voting Republican across the boards, not necessarily in that order.

Allah has a roundup of links to various speculations that recent documents regarding Bush's Guard service might have been, well, not exactly authentic.

[wik] The Weekly Standard talked to a few of its own document specialists, and reached a similar conclusion. If this all proves out, CBS and 60 Minutes are going to have some serious egg on the face. It seems that a desire to make the president look bad might have overcome any lingering sense of journalistic integrity at CBS.

[alsø wik] In a space of hours, several blogs (Powerline, Allahpundit, LGF, Command Post and others) have taken a suspicion, tracked it down, analysed it, and have begun to reach conclusions.

We hear a lot about new media lately, and naturally, within the blog world many are quick to dislocate a shoulder patting themselves on the collective back for the growing influence of the blogosphere. But occasional egomania should not distract us from the very real, and fast growing power of blogging on the media. This story is a perfect example. In a space of literally hours, bloggers have pushed a suspicion into informed speculation, and driven the story into the traditional media outlets. Fox news has mentioned it, and several papers are likely to put it on the front page tomorrow. UPI has picked up the story as well.

The beauty of all this is not so much that CBS and Dan Rather will be deeply embarrassed, or that lame attempts to make Bush look bad are exposed. (Though these are good things in their own right.) The beauty lies in the way that this happened. Private citizens, in their spare time, have cracked a story that the entire news department at a major broadcast network completely missed. Information bouncing back and forth between Powerline blog, Allahpundit, Command Post, LGF and all their commenters and email correspondants was sifted, processed and error checked almost instantaneously. Savvy professional newscritters picked up the thread, and used their own resources to further develop the consensus.

We are seeing an open source news media in action. This is not a new idea, to be sure, but one of the most powerful instances of the idea since the fall of Trent Lott. As this phenomenon grows, the major media will be ever more unable to ignore the findings of the blog consensus. And the benefit to the media consumer will be immense, when legions of the obsessed are fact checking everything the media produces.

[alsø alsø wik] CBS is launching an internal investigation, anf the Washington Post is covering it as well. One day turn around. Let's see what we can do about Kerry's trips to Paris.

If you are interested, you can read Kerry's book The New Soldier online here. The book was written in the seventies with the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The page also has a link to Kerry's 1971 congressional testimony that has been the center of some controversy lately, or so I hear. The site is sponsored by the Federalist, which is a partisan but so far as I am aware honest group.

I take a quick break from being beaten with sticks at my place of work to observe that Fafblog!'s political bloggering have nailed it again (nailed what? "it." What's "it?" I dunno but I know "it" when I see it."QED).

"Well we agree to disagree," says me. "Like we do whenever we talk about Coke™ versus Poison™."
"It may taste bad an curdle my blood an kill me," says Giblets. "But at least I know where Poison™ stands."

Ace of Spades digs up a link to the recent Time Mag poll that shows Bush with a double digit lead over Kerry.

The meaty stuff:

Friday, Sep. 03, 2004
New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2.

Most important issues: When asked what they consider are the most important issues, 25% of registered voters cited the economy as the top issue, followed by 24% who cited the war on terrorism as the top issue.

And this:

• Iraq: 53% trust Bush to handle the situation in Iraq, while 41% trust Kerry.
• Terrorism: 57% trust Bush to handle the war on terrorism, while 36% trust Kerry.
• Providing strong leadership: 56% said they trust Bush to provide strong leadership in difficult times, while 37% said they trust Kerry to provide leadership in difficult times.

Thanks to Ace, who I have been sorely remiss in linking. Bad me. Of course, I wasn't even posting for most of the summer, so I wasn't exactly tootin my own horn, either.

By way of my favorite supreme being we find this interesting article from, of all places, the San Francisco Chronicle. Debra Saunders has an interesting analysis of the two conventions:

A New York Times/CBS News poll in July found that three-quarters of Democratic voters and 86 percent of Boston delegates opposed the war in Iraq. Yet both John Kerry and John Edwards voted for the resolution authorizing force in Iraq in 2002.

The same poll found that 19 percent of GOP voters and 3 percent of GOP delegates oppose the war. Those delegates are in harmony with Bush and Veep Dick Cheney, even if 51 percent of all voters polled oppose the war.

That's the central difference between the GOP and the Democrats: The Democrats were willing to -- no, they chose to, by nominating Kerry -- sell out their core issue in order to beat George W. Bush.

That's how fanatical their hatred is.

Republicans, on the other hand, are willing to lose an election for a cause they believe in. Bush knew when he began that the war in Iraq could cost him the election, but he did what he thought was best. And he still isn't flinching.

This also sheds some light on the character of the two conventions - one sidestepping the records of its candidates, and some softshoe on the military service Kerry did three decades ago; the other aggressive, focused on the importance of one issue - the war on terror.

Debra concludes:

And many Democrats think that they're going to lose. A famous wartime poster had Winston Churchill's face looming over the words, "Deserve victory." You deserve victory when you believe in a cause so much that you are willing to take risks for it.

This year, the Democrats abandoned their principles, implying either that they don't trust the America people to appreciate their message, or that they don't trust their message. Democrats aren't willing to take risks, but they are willing to choose someone whom they want to mislead the public. For that alone, they deserve to lose, and I think they know it.

Kerry's late night speech rather suprised me. You'd think that a nominally intelligent candidate for the highest office in the land would not, immediately after a opponent's convention that savaged his Senate record, jump right back to the one issue that has been the source of all his troubles for the last month.

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief. Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have...

The vice president even called me unfit for office last night. I guess I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty.''

This ill-conceived rally, right after the end of the GOP convention, makes him look desperate. The tone and content of the speech makes him look ridiculous.

Now why would they be protesting the Republican National Convention?

Interested Participant links to a list of groups protesting the GOP confab, and I have to say that this list is the first evidence I've seen that the far left has a sense of humor. Oh wait, they're serious about those names. Sorry!

Here is an excerpt of the excerpt:

House of The Goddess Center for Pagan Wombyn
African Ancestral Lesbians United for Societal Change
Code Pink
Committee to Free Pedro Pacheco
Communist Party USA
Labone Branch of Ghana United Nations Association
League of Revolutionaries for a New America
Missing Kitten TV
Ronald Reagan Home for the Criminally Insane
Ruckus Society
Ukuleles For Sanity

and my personal favorite:

Victims of Direct Energy and Electronic Harassment

You can get the whole list here.

Kerry really seems to want his cake and eat it too. If the soldiers in Vietnam were responsible for rapes, atrocities, and behaving in a manner reminiscent of Ghengis Khan as Kerry claimed that they did, perhaps that does make those who didn't serve there better qualified to be the leaders of our country. If soldiers in Vietnam, including Kerry, didn't do those things then perhaps if Kerry is to make such political hay out of his many medals he really ought to repudiate his comments from 1971. Either way, he's being hypocritical.

More information on Kerry's behavior after he came back from the 'Nam can be found at QandO, focusing on Operation RAW. (Link courtesy of Rocket Jones who has had a lot of good posts up recently.) Also, he apparently met with the North Vietnamese more than he had previously admitted, as FBI files show. This is arguably illegal. I don't think Kerry is being particularly forthcoming about his activities in the seventies in connection with the VVAW.

Zell Miller's speech:

Damn!

I hear that the Iowa delegation to the Republican National Convention is handing out T-shirts reading "God's Own Party."

Huh... How's that read in Arabic?

[wik] The appropriate antidote, complete with disturbing rabbit mask, here.

[alsø wik] Further evidence that the GOP's tent would have me sleeping out in the rain is that one Sheri Dew gave the invocation the opening night of the Republican National Convention. Who is Sheri Dew? Well, in the first link there, she writes on the threat of gay marriage thus: "At first it may seem a bit extreme to imply a comparison between the atrocities of Hitler and what is happening in terms of contemporary threats against the family—but maybe not." So she's sort of a walking Godwin's Corollary of Mormon Christ-love.

[alsø alsø wik] Naturally, our next President of the United States Norbizness has more on the inimitable Sheri Dew. Remember: civil unions are like Hitler, and the Log Cabin Republicans are perfectly welcome in full view of the TV cameras on the convention floor.

I've been watching the Republican National Convention on the news; and while I have no real desire to turn this into some sort of simulblog experience, I was struck by the tribute to 9/11 that happened immediately following McCain's speech. It was moving. One thing in particular - Deena Burnett said (I'm paraphrasing) that heroes were not created that day, but that the lifelong practice of virtue led to their actions - the decision to do something. This is true.

And we have seen over the last couple years a growing reluctance to remember the events of 9/11. It is a virtue to look reality in the face. Many have criticized the the Republicans for an expected focus on 9/11 at the convention, saying that it is almost sinful that the Republicans are draping themselves with the events of that terrible day for political gain. But as I think on it, I am truly awestruck that the entire Democratic convention made so little reference to the single most important event of the last decade - and one of the most important in our history.

Naturally, there is political gain for the Republicans in reminding America of the events of that day. And Democrats are naturally leery of bringing up a subject that will bring to mind images on the whole favorable to their opponents. But this is completely beside the point. If our elections are in part referendums on the direction our nation should take - and they should be - then discussions of 9/11 are not merely acceptable, but necessary.

But Kerry has made a thirty year old war the focus of his campaign and convention. Talking about 9/11 focuses us on the realities of this world and its future. Talk about Vietnam (from Kerry or his critics) not only tells us nothing about the future and Kerry's plans for it, but actively distracts us from it. Not talking about 9/11 creates an intentional delusion; one where we forget that we were brutally attacked without cause, forget that there is a real threat not eliminated by our many victories, and where we pretend that history has ended.

I think also that the controversy over Vietnam is strangely appropriate. Given the way the Democratic primaries played out, and the protests - there is very much a sixties feel to the left side of this election. The fact that a large part of Kerry's support looks like they are attempting to channel the antiwar movement of the sixties makes it seem important to define where Kerry actually stands on the issues of that time. But if Kerry is to make any headway and reverse his recent slide in the polls he will have to offer something more than four months of combat and saying that everything the president does is wrong.

Via Cold Fury, we learn that Alice Cooper is disgusted with liberal musicians campaigning for Kerry. Aiming a broadside at Michael Stipe, John Cougar Melloncamp and Bruce Springsteen, the Coop said:

"To me, that's treason. I call it treason against rock 'n' roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics," says the 56-year-old Cooper, who begins a 15-city Canadian tour on Aug. 20 in Thunder Bay, Ont.

"When I was a kid and my parents started talking about politics, I'd run to my room and put on the Rolling Stones as loud as I could. So when I see all these rock stars up there talking politics, it makes me sick.

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal." [emphasis mine]

Truer words were probably never said. Ted Nugent'll probably shoot 'em all, anyway.

Patton, over at Opinion 8 has got just about the best take on the endless Kerry-Vietnam controversy that I've yet seen. Here's the money shot:

The story here, and the lesson yet to be learned, is whether and how Kerry can deal with a public relations problem, albeit a severe one. Filing a complaint with the FEC was not an encouraging sign. It won't have any likely effect before the election, it is based on wisps of smoke and innuendo in any event, and he knows this. It's a weak play of a weak hand. It's just as weak as would be a lawsuit against the Swift Boat Vets or John O'Neill (or Regnery Publishing, or any TV station who airs the ad, or, now that I think about it, me personally). As a more practical matter, Kerry might be able to make all this go away by signing the Form 180 that would authorize disclosure of his service records.

Strangely enough, I don't care whether he does or doesn't - and I believe that there's more to learn here about Kerry's qualifications to be president if he stays above the fray and simply answers the questions, posed by any and all comers. If he exaggerated his CIA/Navy Seal/Cambodia adventure, so what? Just say so (clearly, not in the mealy-mouthed manner attempted so far) and proceed with the matters at hand. The alternative, a continuation of the campaign's shrill claims indicating he doesn't feel he has to respond to the questions, and that the questions themselves are not allowed, can also provide a lesson, you see. And it's not the lesson they want to provide.

That really is the point. As I commented on his post, I reached a similar conclusion after the minor incident Kerry had on the ski slopes when he ran into the secret service agent. It wasn't that he fell - everyone falls on the slopes every now and again. It was significant to me that he had to make sure that everyone knew that it wasn't his fault.

Kerry's reaction to this controversy is not encouraging. After the Kerry campaign started loudly insisting that Bush disavow the swifties, Bush genially denounced all 527 ads. (While I have issues with campaign finance reform on free speech grounds, this was a politically astute move that took much of the wind out of the democratic counterattack - and we won't likely see a similar condemnation of moveon.org and other Soros-funded 527s anytime soon.) Moving to file FEC complaints, insisting that publishers pull a best selling book - these are exactly the kinds of legalistic maneuvers that I most particularly hate in a political campaign. If Kerry has nothing to fear, full disclosure and a sense of humor will impress more of the electorate than shrill condemnation and lawyers.

And, as a side note, I would like to once again insist that it is not an attack ad, or negative campaigning, to point out your opponent's record. This is information (with spin, to be sure, but information nevertheless) not negativism. If you want examples of negative campaigning, go back to the early 1800s, where candidates were regularly accused of all manner of immoral acts, baby-eating, satan worship and worse. Mentioning how your opponent voted on something hardly qualifies.

For the last couple days, I've been reading William Tecumseh Sherman's memoirs. As I read, it started me thinking. (Books are cool that way.) Most civil wars throughout history and down to today have been caused by either dynastic succession or about ethnic strife. Here and there, the occasional religious civil war - which in many respects resembles an ethnic civil war. Of course, an American civil war had to be different. Ethnicity and religion had nothing to do with the civil war, at least in that both sides considered themselves equally American, and both sides were Christian, with a fairly even spread of denominations on either side.

America's civil war became an ideological war over the issue of slavery. Fueling this fight over principle was the fact that slavery was necessarily also an economic issue. Slavery is not the most efficient way of mobilizing a nation's labor force; and only a unique set of circumstances had allowed slavery to be immensely profitable (for some) in the south. Without the economic factor, slavery would not have been as divisive an issue. For example, if the north had also held slaves and if their factories could have profitably used slave labor - then only the abolitionists would have been arguing for ending the institution. They may have won that fight, but it would not have required a civil war.

Could it happen again? The United States seems the most stable of nations. Despite the recent animosity between the two political parties, we all get along much better than average. Even in the face of a full on election crisis, everyone pretty much managed to keep their heads. What could possibly motivate a significant number of our population to wage war on the rest?

To be honest, I couldn't think of many issues that are even potentially as divisive as slavery was almost a hundred and fifty years. Global Warming? Please. Social Security? Old people aren't going to take up arms against the young for their pensions. The only one that comes close is abortion, which is just as black and white; however it lacks the economic component that could potentially really get blood flowing. So to speak.

Aside from that, you have the various paranoid fantasies of the aryan brotherhood/inbred klan nutjob variety. The Jewish Zionist world government will use the black helicopters and UN controlled US forces to eliminate the mountain hideouts of the faithful. Somehow, that doesn't quite work as a nightmare scenario for me. Mostly, they're too busy ratting each other out to the ATF to be an effective core for a secessionist movement.

Economic issues, absent some sort of polarizing ideological component, will generally get worked out in a system like ours. Ideological discord, without large scale economic interests lining up on opposite sides, will remain low level bitching on the fringes, or eventually degenerate into a consensus. So we're safe, right? I was wondering if anyone had any plausible ideas for a second American Civil War - my list of worries is getting too short.

By now we all know the sordid saga of James McGreevey, soon to be ex-governer of New Jersey. The young and politically ambitious governer of a beleaguered Eastern state is more or less caught in flagrante delicto carrying on an affair with a man who is not his wife. He makes a stirring public confession of guilt and regret, in the process coming out to the world in one unforgettable epigrammatic statement, “I am a gay American,”and announces he will resign his post.

However, it turns out that the soon to be ex-governer’s resignation won’t be until November, which maybe seems a little opportunistic and hollow. We also find that the mysterious dreamboat with whom our hero has had his dalliances is an Israeli poet and a member of the governer’s own staff. Stranger still, indeed. Digging deeper, we find that the Israeli poet in question had acted as director of New Jersey’s homeland security efforts despite no training, prior security or administrative experience, or indeed any qualifications of any kind aside from an uncanny ability to craft a sonnet.

At this point, suspicions begin to arise in the press about the timing and content of our hero’s public confession. Rumors drift out from the New Jersey press stringers, whispers of investigations, ethical violations and crooked fundraising, and a general pall of skeevy wrongdoing settles over the entire affair. The quality of scandal not strained; it falleth as a gentle shitmist over Trenton. Suddenly, our upstanding Gay American is not such a nobly flawed hero after all, but simply a cheap hustler on the make playing his last sympathy card before the hammer can fall.

That fact is the landmark aspect of the whole affair. A New Jersey governer resigns in disgrace, and rather than choose contrition or defiance in the face of evidence, he appeals to the hearts and minds of the country as a gay man. James McGreevey played the gay card, because of everything he could have done, it had the most upside for him.

Gay rights activists and allies, and indeed anyone with a pulse, will naturally be appalled at the sheer brazenness with which James McGreevey used what half the country believes to be a dead-serious equal-rights fight to keep his ass out the fire, and everyone else should be appalled for the opposite reason. With his public coming out, timed as it was to deflect scandal, James McGreevey has cheapened himself and the public image of gay America, and given the moralists and moonbats ammo aplenty with which to fire back at anyone who contends that gay people in general are not sex-mad degenerate opportunistic psychopaths in leather underwear looking to rape the corpse of the US Constitution and its laws.

But there is a silver lining to this. Just stop and think about it for a minute. Today, in 2004, a prominent politician in a partially rural state would rather be known as gay than be known as crooked. If anyone needed proof that the moonbats and moralists are doomed to lose the fight over the acceptance of gays in this country, there you have it. Can you imagine Nixon trying the same thing? In 1974, the only thing that could be worse for your reputation and career than being a megalomanical sociopath with his hands in every nasty thing in Washington would be to be (and I invoke the spirit of John Derbyshire as I say this), an invert, a buggerer, a lily-livered Liberace light in the loafers. But today… meh. So he’s gay. He’s also a crook.

Today is a proud day for gay rights in the United States of America, and it took a dirtbag to do it.

[wik] Proving me so, so right (and it feels so good!), McGreevey’s poll numbers are up since he made the announcement. A coming out bounce! Who knew?

The fiendishly clever Murdoc has discovered a nifty online timewaster. An electoral college calulator! Oh, the fun that an off the wagon recovering political junkie can have with this!

Here's my prediction for November: