October 14, 2004
THE WHITE HOT PASSION OF A THOUSAND SUNS
There are two new ads up at Swiftvets.com. These guys have nothing but contempt for John Kerry.
MORE: The Penny Drops.
Thinking about this post, and reading the comments, it occurred to me that President Bush's uncharacteristic disdain for John Kerry, so obvious at the first debate, has the same source as the Swiftvet's contempt for the Senator. I think that the President, though he obviously can't make much of this in public, considers himself a Vietnam era veteran (as in fact he is) and remembers John Kerry's testimony and activities against the war as a betrayal of the country and the military code of honor. Given that they were two years apart at Yale and that both were bonesmen, Bush must have been aware of what Kerry was doing.
In short, the President remembers Kerry's betrayal and hates him for it. That's why he can't even conceive of the possibility that the American people will elect Kerry to the presidency.
MORE MORE: BUSH'S BIGGEST FLAW (John Podhoretz, NYPost, 10/15/02)
One way or another, even if Bush had put away Kerry in the opening debate, I believe the race would have tightened up. That's in part due to the profound divisions in the body politic. It's also due to Kerry's own competitive strengths. But mostly, I think, it's because of Bush's most damaging political weakness: His capacity for complacency.Posted by David Cohen at October 14, 2004 11:08 PMIt may be the only political weakness he inherited from his father, a far inferior politician who spent much of 1992 acting as though he simply could not believe the country would choose a philandering draft-dodger over him. We saw the same dynamic at play in the first Bush-Kerry clash, when the president acted offended and outraged at the kinds of challenges and counterstrikes Sen. Kerry was hurling at him.
You can only assume that Bush's peevishness was derived from his belief before the debate that everything was going his way and this Massachusetts liberal flip-flopper couldn't lay a glove on him. He was unprepared for Kerry's toughness and unable to adapt to an opponent who went so quickly and powerfully on the offense.
Pretty strong message to say the least. One has to just look at the credential of some of those men to realize they're not stage props. I think there are three there with the CMOH which is pretty heavy duty. Bud Day for sure as he is wearing his.
Posted by: Tom Wall at October 14, 2004 11:28 PMJohn Kerry violated the code of honor with his 1971 testimony and is only now learning what that means.
Posted by: jd watson at October 15, 2004 2:31 AMGiven the 60 day rule of Campaign Finance reform, will some one here tell me where these ads are running.
Are they internet only?
Posted by: BB at October 15, 2004 8:23 AMThe 60 day rule applies only to corporations and unions. Individuals, unincorporated associations and some non-profits (501(c)(4)'s) are not affected.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 15, 2004 11:24 AMAs to the Podhoretz piece, it's worth notiong that the polls showed Mr. Bush lost two of three debates to Al Gore also. Even those of us who love him hold our breath when he starts talking, like he's a man on a high wire. He's just better at set piece speeches, as reflected by his closing remarks in the debates.
Posted by: oj at October 15, 2004 11:37 AMIt's not so much that Bush can't articulate well -- he's never going to be a golden throated warbler onthe political scene. His big problem at the debates is when he gets too comfortable, he loses focus. I think you saw that in the first debate this year, and I know that was the case in the 1998 gubernatorial debate against Garry Mauro, which was far worse than anything he's done in this election cycle.
When that happens, you get the bad confulence of syntactial flaws combined with an inability to lay out his goals clearly to the voters. That was the problem with the opening debate against Kerry. In the case of the final two debates, and with all three debates in 2000 against Gore, Bush may have stumbled over his words at times, but he almost always knew where he wanted to go with his messages, in both promoting his own agenda and attacking Kerry's myriad plans, and that came across to the viewing public.
Posted by: John at October 15, 2004 3:45 PMDoes it strike anyone else as weird that it's a bunch of crackers with maybe one exception in that first swiftvet at? What's that about?
Posted by: fat kid at October 15, 2004 5:18 PMDoes it strike anyone else as weird that it's a bunch of crackers with maybe one exception in that first swiftvet ad? What's that about?
Posted by: fat kid at October 15, 2004 5:18 PM