August 25, 2004
GET THE GIMP:
Democrats Travel to Bush's Ranch Asking Him to Denounce Ads (Bloomberg, 8/25/04)
Former Democratic Senator Max Cleland plans to travel today to President George W. Bush's ranch to demand that he denounce television ads accusing Democratic challenger John Kerry of lying about his war record.Cleland, 61, who lost both legs and his right arm during the Vietnam War, is to be accompanied on his trip to the Crawford, Texas, ranch, by former U.S. Army Green Beret Jim Rassmann, who credits Kerry with rescuing him from a river in Vietnam.
Boy, Max Cleland has no pride, huh? His official role in the campaign is to be a stage prop.
MORE:
The Sampan incident (Pat Buchanan, August 25, 2004, Townhall)
Steve Gardner will not forget the night as long as he lives. It was mid-January 1969. He was manning the double .50 caliber machine-gun mount in Lt. John Kerry's swift boat. "The PCF 44 boat, engines shut off, lay in ambush near the western mouth of the Cua Lon River," writes John O'Neill in his best-seller "Unfit for Command."Kerry was in the pilothouse monitoring the radar. But, Gardner claims, Kerry had given his crew no heads-up when, suddenly, a sampan appeared right in front of them. The swift boat lights were thrown onto the sampan. Kerry, however, still had said nothing and was nowhere in sight. Gardner yelled to the sampan to stop. No reaction.
Then, as Gardner and crew thought they saw a man on the sampan holding or reaching for a weapon, they cut loose with the machine guns.
But when the crew boarded the sampan, they found no man on the boat, just a woman clutching a child no more than 2 years old and the shattered body of a boy. The man who had been piloting the sampan was believed to have been blasted into the water.
Here was a tragedy of war. But it is the contention of O'Neill and Gardner that Kerry bears responsibility for the boy's death.
Can't wait for the claim that Pat is a tool of Karl Rove. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 25, 2004 8:56 AM
OJ - agree about Cleland. However the PR value for the Dems from 2 vietnam vets, 1 seriously wounded, confronting Bush cannot be underestimated.
Also, I'm inclined to agree a bit with KerrySpot over NRO when he says the story (through the efforts of Dems and the MSM) seems to be shifting away from Kerry's service and to the (illegal) connections between Bush and the SwiftVets. If so the story may not be a huge negative for Kerry and may actually come back to hurt Bush a bit.
AWW:
Every day the campaign remains in the late 60s and early 70s hurts the Senator.
Posted by: oj at August 25, 2004 9:25 AM"A bit?"
Posted by: at August 25, 2004 9:26 AMAnonymous - "a bit" - was my attempt to try and determine the impact of this story. The swiftvets have stung Kerry (especially as their version of some events is proven true) but Kerry (with help of the MSM) may be able to confuse people enough to dilute its impact. And if Kerry can convince people that it was nothing but a baseless smear organized by Bush then Bush might get hit with backlash and Kerry actually benefits from this. Right now I'm thinking this will have the same impact as Fahrenheit 911 - it will help stir up the base but won't convince many others on the other side.
As for Pat B he has been pretty critical of Bush over foreign policy/other but the last few columns has been supportive of Bush/against Kerry so maybe this is a good sign for Bush.
Rassmann may have some traction but Cleland's injuries are largely self-inflicted (beer and grenades apparently don't mix). Mr. Bush would do well to have these messengers carry the message back to their guy that the quickest way to silence liars is to prove them wrong. So far, Mr. Kerry hasn't addressed the facts other than to change his story about the Cambodian Christmas.
Posted by: John Resnick at August 25, 2004 10:45 AMAWW: Thanks for clarifying. And I think you're right about swiftygate stirring up the base (of both sides, actually) yet doing little if anything to pull more undecided voters to either side. But I do think the damage is ultimately equal -- that 's what I was trying to say.
Republicans know that Kerry has obviously suffered damage because of the ads; there's definitely no way around that. Yet the Dems can point to the connections that have come to light -- ie: Bush's attorney as well as funding connections -- as well as the fact that some of the swifties praised Kerry previously. Voters want Bush to talk about his record, (which affects daily lives in the present), not the 60s and 70s.
So I think in the end the issue will ultimately be a wash -- a body blow to neither side, as it provides valid ammo to both.
If Kerry isn't concerned about the Swift Vets, why did he call Brant in the first place? You can argue he didn't know that Brant was involved, but that would be a BIG failure by his campaign operation, as he apparently was one of the founders of the group.
Still confident that Winter Soldier won't be a problem, Mr Anonymous? And we barely touched on his useful idiocy for North Vietnam, the VVAC, and how he took Vietnam's side on the POW/MIA issue in 1991 at the same time his cousin got an exclusive deal to develop commercial property there.
Posted by: Brian (MN) at August 25, 2004 11:34 AMBush is smarter than Cleland. He's already called for the ad to be dropped, along with all the rest, and he'll tell Cleland that. If Cleland isn't very careful, he'll end up being a stage prop for the wrong campaign.
Posted by: Timothy at August 25, 2004 12:19 PM