perfidy

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.