September 12, 2004
WHOEVER ROLLED THE GRENADE, DAN RATHER FELL ON IT:
Democrats Split on Bush Guard Story: Some see rough justice after attacks on Kerry's Vietnam-era record and welcome a comparison, but others say it distracts from pressing issues. (Mark Z. Barabak, September 12, 2004. LA Times)
The renewed controversy over President Bush's National Guard service has opened a fresh divide in the presidential contest — among Democrats who disputed the wisdom of keeping the 3-decade-old story alive.Many partisans relish the sight of the White House and Bush aides struggling to answer long-ago questions about Vietnam, after watching Sen. John F. Kerry being forced to defend his combat duty and subsequent antiwar activism. [...]
"At a minimum, George W. Bush and his campaign are not talking about what they want to talk about because they're responding to this," strategist Chris Lehane said.
Except that George Bush hasn't responded at all and the story is playing out elsewhere as evidence of Democratic dirty tricks and media partisanship. Which side does that hurt? Posted by Orrin Judd at September 12, 2004 8:53 AM
I just heard this Freudian slip on ABC "This Week with George Stephanopoulos". Robert Rubin was being interviewed on Kerry's economic plan. He said "I think you'll see as the Kerry campaign unravels... er... I mean as time unfolds"
Posted by: Robert Duquette at September 12, 2004 10:03 AMIt is so much fun watching the Dems running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
Lehane must have missed the memo that said the docs are a Rove plant.
or the one that said they are genuine because Killian moonlighted as a typesetter.
or the one that says it doesn't matter because its all about OOOOOIIIIILLLLL and HALIBURTON.
Posted by: Chris B at September 12, 2004 10:26 AMThe last few months exposes just how incompetent the campaign leadership (Estrich, Lehane, MacAuliffe, Shrum, Carville, etc) of the Democrats has always been, and how good Clinton as a campaigner really was. He managed to succeed despite these clowns, and would be coasting to a 4th term right now, despite the surgery, if he could.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 12, 2004 11:21 AMRichard Holbrooke on Fox News Sunday has just said that Iraq is a worse disaster than Vietnam.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at September 12, 2004 11:27 AMSounds like a story that was assigned by editors on a Wednesday for high-profile publication in Sunday's paper.
Posted by: John at September 12, 2004 12:04 PM>>Richard Holbrooke on Fox News Sunday has just said that Iraq is a worse disaster than Vietnam.
The man can't count. I was looking at a year-by-year breakdown of U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam on another blog this morning and so far we have suffered _fewer_ total deaths (combat and non-combat combined) in 17+ months in Iraq than we incurred due to battle losses in any single year between 1966 and 1971 in Vietnam.
Posted by: Joe at September 12, 2004 2:52 PMThe Vietnam-era attack on Kerry was a bunch of vets doing it on their own dime, and putting it up on a web site and buying a few TV ads in 3(?) states.
The TANG/AWOL attack on Bush was aired on a major network, in a one hour news show which aired in all 50 states.
Kerry responded (mainly by attacking the attackers). Bush said *nothing* about it, other than handing out a copy of the document that CBS had faxed to the White House.
One of these is not like the other.
Posted by: ray at September 12, 2004 3:03 PMThe Democrats have an enormous structural problem when they rag on Bush for his purported non-service. Millions of Americans of that age group avoided military service by making the system work for them. And all of those people are voters.
Posted by: Bart at September 12, 2004 6:13 PMRichard Holbrooke and Madeline Albright have morphed into Henry Wallace. She supplied the eyebrows.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 13, 2004 1:51 PM