Dan Rather REPLACED!

Bikerman2004 said:

I think the Swift boat [censored] suceeded because it attacked Kerry on what he is basing everything on...Vietnam service! The TNG stuff falls flat because Bush has a record as president to run on. That is what people see, what he's done, right or wrong, over the past 4 years.

Mmmm, I don't really buy that, Bikerman. It's the justification offered by SBVFT and their backers (that Kerry opened himself to these attacks), and in terms of campaign tactics, it's a valid argument and a nice talking point, but I don't think it answers the question.

I don't doubt that the attacks would have been damaging if Kerry's Vietnam service had constituted 20% of his positioning, rather than 40%. The dynamic would have been different, as would the justification, but there's some sort of deeper validating force. Perhaps it was the scandalous nature -- lies from the past, tainted glory, battle stories, and so on -- there's a lot more inherent grandeur in the Vietnam records; the TNG service is mundane by comparison.

Another part of me feels that the criticism leveled at the campaign for using Vietnam as a character boost is a bit unfair. Why not highlight his service? Anyone would have called it a valid strategy 12 months ago -- it's a wartime election, and one candidate has an extensive war record with notes of heroism; the other has been criticized for hawkishness, and has comparatively little (some would say nearly no) military experience.

It would seem a valid tactic, and I can't help but think that it failed because of strategic errors along the way -- and because of great work on the Bush team.

lokstah said:

Mmmm, I don't really buy that, Bikerman. It's the justification offered by SBVFT and their backers (that Kerry opened himself to these attacks), and in terms of campaign tactics, it's a valid argument and a nice talking point, but I don't think it answers the question.

I don't doubt that the attacks would have been damaging if Kerry's Vietnam service had constituted 20% of his positioning, rather than 40%. The dynamic would have been different, as would the justification, but there's some sort of deeper validating force. Perhaps it was the scandalous nature -- lies from the past, tainted glory, battle stories, and so on -- there's a lot more inherent grandeur in the Vietnam records; the TNG service is mundane by comparison.

Another part of me feels that the criticism leveled at the campaign for using Vietnam as a character boost is a bit unfair. Why not highlight his service? Anyone would have called it a valid strategy 12 months ago -- it's a wartime election, and one candidate has an extensive war record with notes of heroism; the other has been criticized for hawkishness, and has comparatively little (some would say nearly no) military experience.

It would seem a valid tactic, and I can't help but think that it failed because of strategic errors along the way -- and because of great work on the Bush team.

Kerry's mistake was basing his campaign on Vietnam service and heroism. Why not highlight that service? Did he think people wouldn't remember what he did when he returned to the US? Especially Republican strategists. That is why the swift boat [censored] has been effective.

Bikerman2004 said:

Kerry's mistake was basing his campaign on Vietnam service and heroism. Why not highlight that service? Did he think people wouldn't remember what he did when he returned to the US? Especially Republican strategists. That is why the swift boat [censored] has been effective.

I think they calculated that, despite a few [censored] in the armour, he still had tremendously higher ground than Bush. Obviously, they misread the extent to which those [censored] could be exploited.

I'm still a little confused though, Bikerman. If you'd been steering Kerry's campaign in early 2004 (just pretend), are you suggesting that you wouldn't have seen the military service issue as a worthy battleground in the character fight? I can't imagine sitting down in an April strategy meeting and suggesting we not stress the comparison between the two men. Try to discard the 20/20 hindsight. What would the logic be?

lokstah said:

I think they calculated that, despite a few [censored] in the armour, he still had tremendously higher ground than Bush. Obviously, they misread the extent to which those [censored] could be exploited.

I'm still a little confused though, Bikerman. If you'd been steering Kerry's campaign in early 2004 (just pretend), are you suggesting that you wouldn't have seen the military service issue as a worthy battleground in the character fight? I can't imagine sitting down in an April strategy meeting and suggesting we not stress the comparison between the two men. Try to discard the 20/20 hindsight. What would the logic be?

Serving in Vietnam doesn't automatically give Kerry the higher ground. He destroyed a lot of that advantage with his activities when he returned. I would have used his service, but only mention it. I would not have dwelled on it, or even compared myself to Bush. Let people draw their own comparision. It was almost as if Kerry was telling people, 'Look at me! I'm a war hero. Did I tell you I saved someone's life?'. I would not have accepted the nomination by saying 'I'm reporting for duty'. His strategists should have known his testimony to the Senate would have been used against him. He has made too much of 4 months of Vietnam and not enough of 20 years in the Senate.

Bikerman2004 said:

Serving in Vietnam doesn't automatically give Kerry the higher ground. He destroyed a lot of that advantage with his activities when he returned.

Well, you're obviously right about the facts of the matter, though I don't think any of those obersvations were nearly so apparent 6 months ago.

Serving in Vietnam shouldn't have automatically give Kerry a leg-up, but volunteering for a pair of combat tours, with men under his command, multiple commendations and courage under enemy fire should have; comparisons are the name of the game, here, and that simply isn't a comparison which favors Bush.

And regarding his behaviors after returning -- well, I question the effect of that aspect of his service history. I think the general perception of the Vietnam War in the American psyche is so muddled, so tainted, that not too many middle-road swing voters were swayed by the fact that the man criticized the war on returning. A hell of a lot of people did, many of the veterans. Sure, there's a fierce philosophical argument regarding protest and its effect on soldiers, but that's chiefly the domain of more traditional conservatives.

The damage of the SBVFT ads was dealt in a manner suggested by their name -- Truth -- they managed to plant the notion of scandalous deception, distorted records, lies... it became a credibility issue, not a matter of principle.

[quote="lokstah"]And regarding his behaviors after returning -- well, I question the effect of that aspect of his service history. I think the general perception of the Vietnam War in the American psyche is so muddled, so tainted, that not too many middle-road swing voters were swayed by the fact that the man criticized the war on returning. A hell of a lot of people did, many of the veterans. Sure, there's a fierce philosophical argument regarding protest and its effect on soldiers, but that's chiefly the domain of more traditional conservatives./QUOTE]

I think what he did upon returning just made the flip-flop label stick even more.
He went to war and then he was against it. That is what swing voters see. They see a man that cannot make a stand on anything. True at the time many were speaking out, but that is something he should have dealt with before running for president. I don't buy all that protest stuff. If protesting is done properly then it shouldn't effect the soldiers. During Vietnam protesting was done wrong. The protesters actually attacked the soldiers, whom most were drafted and didn't want to be there to begin with.

Bikerman2004 said:

I think what he did upon returning just made the flip-flop label stick even more. He went to war and then he was against it. That is what swing voters see. They see a man that cannot make a stand on anything.

Well, I'm not sure about that. I haven't heard any rhetoric -- from Republicans, from SBVFT guys, or other critics -- making and pushing that point. It's possible that some swingers have interpreted it for themselves, but I have my doubts.

For one, it's not a particularly logical point. The general public is familiar with the concept of venturing off bravely to war, and returning jaded, angry, or disgusted -- it's not an alien notion. On the contrary, it's something we see in fiction, in books, movies, and so on all the time; particularly, thanks to pop culture, when it comes to Vietnam. Whether they agree with it or not, I don't think they've found Kerry's postwar anger confusing, which is why they'd turn to answers like, well, he's a flip-flopper -- that's the only explanation.

And I understand the concern many conservatives have with the protest movement in the 70s, but my sense is that it's not a behavior too widely condemmed outside of resolutely conservative circles. I'm interested in the possibility of my being wrong, but I just haven't picked it up in the buzz.

[quote="lokstah"]Well, I'm not sure about that. I haven't heard any rhetoric -- from Republicans, from SBVFT guys, or other critics -- making and pushing that point. It's possible that some swingers have interpreted it for themselves, but I have my doubts.

For one, it's not a particularly logical point. The general public is familiar with the concept of venturing off bravely to war, and returning jaded, angry, or disgusted -- it's not an alien notion. On the contrary, it's something we see in fiction, in books, movies, and so on all the time; particularly, thanks to pop culture, when it comes to Vietnam. Whether they agree with it or not, I don't think they've found Kerry's postwar anger confusing, which is why they'd turn to answers like, well, he's a flip-flopper -- that's the only explanation.[QUOTE]

If you take it with all the other flips the Republicans say he has done then it fits perfectly. By itself no one would make that assumption.

I am curious to get the view of those Americans about this election.
It looks now that Kerry is trailing Bush with 6 weeks to go.
Is the result finalised ?

In the Sunday Times Andrew Sullivan (former Liberal commentator - newly converted conservative) suggest that Kerry's record as a senator and his apparent vacilliations were predetermined by the process of actually being a
Senator.
In simple terms, Senators can chop and chnage their votes continually during the drafting of legislation and that this fact alone would make any reading of any senators voting patterns appear to be inconsistent.
Sullivan goes on to conclude that rarely does a Senator get elected as President.
Those who enter the race as Govenors, stand a better chance of getting elected because their voting record is minimal and thus they cannot be accused of chopping/changing.

limerickman said:

I am curious to get the view of those Americans about this election.
It looks now that Kerry is trailing Bush with 6 weeks to go.
Is the result finalised ?

It's not finalized, but historically, coming back from this sort of deficit at this point in the process would be more or less unprecidented. I hang my head.

limerickman said:

In the Sunday Times Andrew Sullivan (former Liberal commentator - newly converted conservative) suggest that Kerry's record as a senator and his apparent vacilliations were predetermined by the process of actually being a Senator. In simple terms, Senators can chop and chnage their votes continually during the drafting of legislation and that this fact alone would make any reading of any senators voting patterns appear to be inconsistent. Sullivan goes on to conclude that rarely does a Senator get elected as President. Those who enter the race as Govenors, stand a better chance of getting elected because their voting record is minimal and thus they cannot be accused of chopping/changing.

There's probably some truth to that. An irony, though, is apparent when you take a hard look at Kerry. Earlier in the Republican campaign process, frequent mention was made of Kerry's voting record in the Senate -- described, according to a generalized left/right standard, as the "most liberal record" on the floor.

That, to me, indicates something of a refreshing consistency of principle. The Bush team has found a more effective and memorable criticism which sticks, though, so the consistently-liberal-label has been shelved.

The flip-flop argument is, itself, a philisophically weak claim. Unfortunately, it's not a weak campaign talking-point, the Bush's advisors are no dolts. Half the country is walking around with "Kerry flip flops" on their lips. We're doomed...

limerickman said:

I am curious to get the view of those Americans about this election.
It looks now that Kerry is trailing Bush with 6 weeks to go.
Is the result finalised ?

In the Sunday Times Andrew Sullivan (former Liberal commentator - newly converted conservative) suggest that Kerry's record as a senator and his apparent vacilliations were predetermined by the process of actually being a
Senator.
In simple terms, Senators can chop and chnage their votes continually during the drafting of legislation and that this fact alone would make any reading of any senators voting patterns appear to be inconsistent.
Sullivan goes on to conclude that rarely does a Senator get elected as President.
Those who enter the race as Govenors, stand a better chance of getting elected because their voting record is minimal and thus they cannot be accused of chopping/changing.

I think governors have a better chance. Just because they don't have much of a voting record to contend with. A senator may vote on a bill's various amendments before the final bill is passed. That may explain some perceived changing. A governor probably gets better 'presidential' experience. A state could be viewed as a mini-country.
I don't think the election is decided yet. But Kerry is running out of time to define himself as anything other than what the Republicans have.

Thanks for the replies.
Yes Sullivan says that checking the voting records on bill amendments would make every senator appear to be "changable".

On Irish television tonight they did a good piece about the US electorate and the fact that the college count per state.

Very interesting to hear your views though.

News FlashHere in my area, Sinclair broadcasting which hosts WNIS just dropped CBS and picked up ABC..This was done due to recent events...How about your local stations?

zapper said:

News FlashHere in my area, Sinclair broadcasting which hosts WNIS just dropped CBS and picked up ABC..This was done due to recent events...How about your local stations?

I wouldn't bet on a finger lifting in my neighborhood. Go on, let the cliches fly.

🙂

Hey, what's the rationale from Sinclair, out of curiosity? There's not a major new agency on the planet that doesn't find itself in a major reporting scandal from time to time... whether resulting from a massive liberal bias or a bad Korean-Bantu translation. What's the official line from these guys?

lokstah said:

I wouldn't bet on a finger lifting in my neighborhood. Go on, let the cliches fly.

🙂

Hey, what's the rationale from Sinclair, out of curiosity? There's not a major new agency on the planet that doesn't find itself in a major reporting scandal from time to time... whether resulting from a massive liberal bias or a bad Korean-Bantu translation. What's the official line from these guys?

Haven't got a hard copy yet...What they dropped was the news service provided by CBS...This mornings radio host announced the change and also said they were considering fox but they only offered 1min of news per hour so they went with ABC as the replacement...

lokstah said:

I wouldn't bet on a finger lifting in my neighborhood. Go on, let the cliches fly.

🙂

Hey, what's the rationale from Sinclair, out of curiosity? There's not a major new agency on the planet that doesn't find itself in a major reporting scandal from time to time... whether resulting from a massive liberal bias or a bad Korean-Bantu translation. What's the official line from these guys?

Haven't got a hard copy yet...What they dropped was the news service provided by CBS...This mornings radio host announced the change and also said they were considering fox but they only offered 1min of news per hour so they went with ABC as the replacement...He never sited the exact reason but did say it had to do with this latest "memogate" scandal...

Don't blame them...DNC guilty by association...

zapper said:

Haven't got a hard copy yet...What they dropped was the news service provided by CBS...This mornings radio host announced the change and also said they were considering fox but they only offered 1min of news per hour so they went with ABC as the replacement...He never sited the exact reason but did say it had to do with this latest "memogate" scandal...

Don't blame them...DNC guilty by association...

Well, that's the way the bee bumbles.