BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

The militant middle

50 comments on The militant middle

The militant middle

: I’m watching Bill Maher’s show (I always end up seeing it a day late; I’ve heard that, like meatloaf, it’s better cold) and Andrew Sullivan is doing a great job representing the militant middle. That’s where I see myself these days. I’d been called (and called myself) a liberal hawk but that just sounds like peanut butter and ketchup. No, the militant middle is my neighborhood now.

Andrew and I disagree about lots but we meet in the middle. We’re both likely not voting for Bush but we’re not nuts about Kerry, either. We each saw the necessity of the war in Iraq and regret the quality of peace that has followed. We lump the Swifties and the Moories into the same bucket. We defend the voters in the middle and the undecideds who don’t live on the edges and breath fire at the other side but who are, indeed, trying to figure out who the hell to vote for this fall, because it sure ain’t easy. Glad to see Andrew there.

50 responses to “The militant middle”

  1. Michael J. Totten Avatar
    Michael J. Totten

    Thank you, Jeff. I’m still undecided and let me tell you it sucks. It’s nice to have a couple of defenders.

  2. jeremy in NYC Avatar
    jeremy in NYC

    It’s not a question of being undecided that pains me. It’s just the horrible feeling that no matter who wins in November, we lose. The more everything polarizes, the more I find myself a “man without a side.”

  3. tony Avatar
    tony

    Jason Alexander from the Maher show that you mention regarding the undecided voters:
    “who the fuck are these people”?
    correct me if i’m wrong but it was the biggest laugh of the show.
    which was a pretty good show.
    my only complaint remains that maher, who is vehemently anti-bush, always seems to have only one “republican” and two left-leaners.
    that means a guy like andrew is outgunned 3-1.
    are there too few conservatives who are willing to go on his show to get two on each installment thus making for a more even panel?
    with that said, i think andrew, who i do not read frequently, but when i do i disagree with more than agree with, not only held his own but was funny and strong.
    i hope bill continues to invite him on the show, i just hope next time he provides a little cover.

  4. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    Not a regular reader here, but when I do step in to have a look, I am always impressed with your observations. I am a Bush supporter here, but I can see why you would be hesitant to support him.
    However, I think you do yourself a disservice by comparing yourself to Andrew Sullivan, a man I used to read regularly. While it seems you truly are undecided, Andrew has unfortunately turned into a shill for Kerry while still trying to claim undecided status.
    Unfortunately Andrew is a one issue man, which I find no fault with, but has offered his support to Kerry in print to publications outside this country and even made the case that Kerry is the ‘Conservative’ choice.
    He seems to want to milk publicity as long as possible from his supposed ‘undecided’ status. I lost all respect for him once he did this. Sadly, if he would just publicly declare his support for Kerry and give me factual reasons he supports him *instead of Kerry is the real conservative nonsense that he has attempted to pass as fact* I would respect him all the more.

  5. daudder Avatar
    daudder

    what did you think of Maher’s final “new rule”, point out that Bush’s hero status has been gained by (literally) standing on the grave of true heroes. It would make a devistating Kerry ad.

  6. TC-LeatherPenguin Avatar
    TC-LeatherPenguin

    If Kerry wants to make it about Vietnam, he lust losers this right down the drain.

  7. Paul Hrissikopoulos Avatar
    Paul Hrissikopoulos

    Sullivan’s “one issue” of making America live up to the values it claims to stand for (freedom & individualism) is an extension of his argument that he believes that Bush is the end of small-government conservatism, no? Bush supported the FMA which is about as far away from keeping government out of our personal lives as things get. I mean, what do you call it when the Federal government legislates who can and cannot be the love of your life? I think Sullivan sees it as a decision between physical security and one’s principles… which do you choose? Your life or your soul? Sullivan chooses to fight for the people he loves above all else; trivializing it as a “one issue” mentality is unfair. Just ask yourself what we’re defending if we sell out our own values. Go watch Spencer Tracy in Judgment at Nuremberg for the rest. “Survival as what?”, right? Anyway, you may disagree with his decision not to sell out the people he loves, but a Kerry “shill” he is not. He adores this president, and it’s obvious even when he disagrees with him.
    100% agreement on the Militant Middle. F the automatons who dump on people for daring to think for themselves. Sure, it’s easy as pie if you hate one side or the other. But we don’t. We love and admire and respect them both. And both say things we agree with. And both say things we vehemently disagree with. There is a stark choice, but it’s not at all an easy one. It kind of reminds me of a game me and my siblings used to play where we would ask each questions which would only allow one of two amazingly distasteful answers: “Would you rather have one eye gouged out, or would you rather have both feet chopped off?”… “Would you rather have your left hand burned to a stub, or would you rather have Mom die?”, etc. I do believe — in this campaign at least — that the more you know, the harder the decision is.
    Anyway, I hope I don’t sound like I’m attacking any of you. You know I love you all, right?

  8. chris holland Avatar
    chris holland

    Count me in your boat too. Elections are coming-up and i’m longing for a thought-provoking discussion that’ll help me pick one side or the other. While typically of democrat leanings, I think issues at hand are far too important, to simply be voting “typically”. It’s been a struggle.

  9. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    I’ve always considered myself “independent” and score pretty close to the middle politically when taking those little political tests. But the official “middle” — which you reside in, JJ — seems to have moved left. Don’t get me wrong, you are indeed remarkably balanced, and I appreciate that, but you’ve always struck me as someone whose politics lean left but who remains reasonable and balanced nonetheless.
    The “middle” goalposts have been moved. Partially by Republicans who have figured out how to maintain conservative ideals while allowing for liberal nuance, but a great deal more by the parallel inflexibility that has arisen on the left to accept any variance of their social dogma.
    So because I accept views from both left and right, I am no longer in the “middle” but am called and have accepted that I am “right wing”; like Zell Miller with the Democrats, I don’t feel like I left the middle, the middle left me. The true political middle — the center of the spectrum, if you will — has been seized by the Republican party. This could change one day; a presidential contest between isolationist Pat Buchanan and reasonable Joe Lieberman would shift the situation considerably (I’d probably find myself voting for Lieberman).
    In my humble little opinion, you don’t reside in the true center, but a “middle” of undecideds farther down the political spectrum that has been created by the extremes. How else to explain the writings of an extremely smart and well-spoken man who sometimes dips into absurdities like “regret the quality of peace” — as if any major national fight for freedom in history has been a cakewalk.
    The choice offered by Kerry that there was a different, less painful way of accomplishing this goal (sans not only details, but any hint of a broad suggestion of what he would have done substantially different apart from the juvenile “I wouldn’t have f*cked up”) is an obviously false one to most of us who used to be called the “middle”.
    Maybe I don’t have “middle” credentials anymore, but I just don’t see where Kerry is giving any part of the political spectrum apart from the left — certainly not the middle — any reason to take him seriously. As I’ve said before, the swift boat veterans’ attack was a situation that turned out to be more about Kerry’s inability to handle a crisis without it blowing up in his face; while we little guys decried the fairness issue, it remains a fact that Bush laughs off vicious attacks while Kerry obsesses over them to the point of self-destruction. The true “middle” is not going to let political leanings sway them into even considering this walking disaster of a man, which is why now that more of the US is paying attention, Bush is up by 11 points in the polls.
    I really think the majority of undecideds in this election are going to turn out to be, in fact, people who know in their hearts that Bush is right, and hate having to admit that Kerry really is the worst guy for the job right now.

  10. rivlax Avatar
    rivlax

    Militant middle? Sounds like “raging moderates.” I agree with Jason Alexander: Just who the hell are you people? I have a problem with people, in these days and times, who can’t make up their minds. The loony left has an excuse: they’re crazy. But the middle and the moderates have no such excuse. You guys are just too “nuanced” for your own good. Hamlet was decisive next to you folks. What you really are is old liberals who just can’t admit you’re really conservatives. I have dozens of friends just like you and they are likewise exasperating, until they figure it out and are freed from their old ’60s handcuffs. Funny, but they’re all about the same age — mid-50s. Their formative events were Kent State and the Cambodian Incursion, Woodstock and Altamont. They protested against “the Man” and had “Kill the Pigs” and “Dow shall not kill” posters in their dorm rooms. No wonder they can’t give up their radicalism or at least their nuanced liberalism without a fight.

  11. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    “my only complaint remains that maher, who is vehemently anti-bush, always seems to have only one “republican” and two left-leaners.”
    That’s Maher’s formula, Tony. Always has been. He also does his best to get the goofiest, extreme conservatives on, like Jerry Falwell et al. Maher can’t handle real debate from mainstream conservatives. Those who watch his show and imagine that they are watching anything but carefully crafted propaganda are fooling themselves.
    Anybody who can still vote for John Kerry after the meltdown this past week is not a rational thinker. This is how the guy handles crisis?

  12. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    I think it is important to distinguish between “undecideds” who are torn between two strongly held beliefs: “abortion is killing a baby”, vote Bush; v.s. “government should redistribute income”, vote Kerry; as apposed to those who cannot decide about an issue: “it would be better to find a way out of Iraq sooner rather that later”, vote Kerry; v.s. “There is a reasonable chance of a moderate government evolving in Iraq”, vote Bush.

  13. Undertoad Avatar
    Undertoad

    As a swing voter in Pennsylvania, I feel like the most important person in the world.

  14. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    Paul,
    The one thing that you seem to be missing from my point is that I DO NOT FAULT Mr. Sullivan for having said issue. Now understand, I myself am not a single issue voter and I have at times found myself puzzled by their behavior, but that is irrelevant to my dislike, yes dislike, of Andrew.
    If you’ve written publications supporting a candidate for the election, have dishonestly tried to portray a candidate as something he is not inorder to increase support for said candiate *John Kerry as the conservative choice, please* THEN YOU HAVE INFACT MADE YOUR DECISION IN THE ELECTION.
    My issue with Sullivan is not his life choice and struggle with equal rights *something I do agree with btw*, but the fact he continues to portray himself as the one of the great undecided. It is a publicity stunt, no more no less.
    As I’ve said, all Andrew has to do is tell me today that he is supporting John Kerry, and he will have regained a great deal of my respect, though never all of it. He can never expect that again.

  15. sickles Avatar
    sickles

    Amazing how interesting Andrew has become now that he agrees with you, Jeff.
    Let’s go back to the Time Machine Buzzmachine, from 12/02/02:
    “: Sullivan is just so damned predictable. He is to dull what Al Gore is to dull: just dull.
    Today, he complains about a Yale professor who wants the Yale Daily News to take down its forums because they are attacking her.
    Right on, Andy.
    Except then he just can’t stop himself and he calls this typical liberal behavior.
    Preditable. Stupid. Wrong. Dull.
    I run lots and lots of forums and I can tell you that most of the people I hear from — and I do hear from them — who hate and fear the audience having its own voice in online forums are conservative.
    Typical liberal behavior is defined as anything Sullivan doesn’t like. Predictable. Ergo, dull.”
    Today’s Andrew is not like the Andrew old, is he? And I’m pretty sure that was the old, uncivil Jeff Jarvis, not today’s shiny new civil conversationalist.

  16. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    You’re right that I had problems with Sullivan and I stated them often. And even with that, we meet in the middle.

  17. satchel Avatar
    satchel

    Don’t be an electoral girlie-man.
    This back and forth angst-fest over how to vote is just hand-wringing in search of an audience.
    Just say you are voting for Kerry and then do it.

  18. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    I have said that I’m likely to vote for Kerry. I couch it only because things could happen between now and election day. Or to put it another way (as the pollsters to), if the election were held today, I’d vote for Kerry.
    You’re right to push the question; I wish all bloggers who write about politics would make that clear about now.

  19. shark Avatar
    shark

    Or to put it another way (as the pollsters to), if the election were held today, I’d vote for Kerry.
    Yes yes yes. You kep saying that. Do you ever care to explain why?
    And Jeff, no matter what you say, a media liberal like you is never, ever in the middle. But keep telling yourself that to make yourself feel better, more important.
    And honestly….if you’re undecided, what are you waiting for? Bush and Kerry have shown you what they’re willing to show you, so you know what they (say they) stand for. The debates are useless. There is not going to be a meaningful and frank and thoughtful discussion on issues this election (very sad,I agree with THAT- but this election will go into the gutter right quickly)
    So what are you waiting for? Flip a damn coin already :)

  20. ghostcat Avatar
    ghostcat

    I expect both Jeff and Sully to vote for Kerry and forever whine about the consequences. Sensitivity ain’t what we need at this point in our history, guys.

  21. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    Why is it necessary to insult Jeff?
    I come here because I find Jeff’s site interesting and I find Jeff to be honest. He’s cutting edge. He sees things differently than I do, and that’s part of the appeal.
    I plan to vote Bush. I made that decision after watching Kerry nuance every issue to death so that he had an argument on all facets of an issue. That makes for a good advisor, but not a good leader. Terrorism/homeland security are my number 1 issues this year. And Bush’s concept of an “ownership society” appeals to me.
    But other issues are important to other folks. For Jeff, health care is really important. And some folks who are undecided, as Robert Brown pointed out, favor one candidate in general, but something about the candidate leaves the door open for voting the other candidate into office.
    I don’t think Jeff is disingenuous about this. He’s taken heat from both sides for various stances.
    But I fail to see how insulting him – and others – will win anyone over to actually vote the other way. It gains nothing.
    So why do it?

  22. Easycure Avatar
    Easycure

    Yes, I agree. As an everyday reader and occasional commentor, I agree with Brett:
    Attack the issue and not the man.
    Ot at least try.

  23. ghostcat Avatar
    ghostcat

    Didn’t intend to “insult” either Jeff or Sully, who has grievously disappointed me of late. I’m simply stating my expectations.
    For the record, I’m a bit of an esthete handwringer, myself. But I’m also armed and willing to shoot to kill if our local school is ever seized by “insurgents”.
    Elections are forced-choice tests. Does Jeff really think Kerry would protect the country as well as Bush?

  24. Andy Freeman Avatar
    Andy Freeman

    > We lump the Swifties and the Moories into the same bucket.
    Why? Because both said nasty things?
    Jarvis isn’t a moderate. He’s a standard NYC liberal who’s trying to reconcile the hole in the ground with his world view.
    Kerry wasn’t in Cambodia but he did betray his “band of brothers” before Congress and in France.
    If you still want to vote for him, fine, but don’t use “Bush is mean” as an excuse.

  25. Jan Avatar
    Jan

    Anyone who can say that it’s hard to know who to vote for in this election just hasn’t been paying attention. Same with anyone who can lump together the Swift Boat Veterans, who completely ignored the public record and the statements of the immediate witnesses to the events in question, with Michael Moore, who is obsessed with getting his facts straight (indeed, no one has yet to find a factual error in Fahrenheit 9/11). Whether or not you agree with the conclusions Moore draws when he adds up his facts, his is not a smear campaign; rather, Moore has a track record of exposing the abuses and lies of those in power (corporate and political) when their abuses and lies result in harm to individuals and pose a serious threat to the rest of us. It may be a public service some people feel they could do without, but I’m not one of them.

  26. Matt Welch Avatar
    Matt Welch

    — Anybody who can still vote for John Kerry after the meltdown this past week is not a rational thinker.
    Reid, you are way better than that.

  27. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Jan–you are kidding about anyone yet to find a factual error in Fahrenheit 911, aren’t you? Otherwise you have fallen for the crap excreted by that weighty tucker bag of variolar wild ox dross and simply closed your eyes and ears to all the errors that have beemn exposed. Michael Moore performing a public service–excuse me while I puke.

  28. Paul Hrissikopoulos Avatar
    Paul Hrissikopoulos

    Look, I don’t hate Michael Moore, but I would feel better if he would at least fess up to the fact that it was his buddy Ralph Nader who handed Florida’s decisive 25 electoral votes to the Republicans, and not some weird Fox News conspiracy.

  29. Paul Brinkley Avatar
    Paul Brinkley

    Lately I’ve had to contend with three dear friends of mine threatening to move out of the country if Bush is elected. Yes, I know; the stereotypical liberal threat. But this is different. They’re dear friends. And their declaration has been accompanied by comments I’d found very offensive and divisive.
    Lately the phrase “united we stand; divided we fall” has come to mean more and more to me.
    I suppose that theoretically, Jeff Jarvis is just a liberal in moderate’s clothing, and his lambast of F911 and any other criticisms he’s made of the far left and right are just fictions. But what the hell. I’m tired and alone and depressed. Fiction or truth, I’m going to hang on to them.

  30. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Jan – The swifties forced Kerry to retract his “Christmas in Cambodia” story that he had been using for decades for political advantage. A major embarassment for his campaign and calling into question the rest of his bragging.
    Moore is an excellent propagandist. Whether he actually technically lies, I’m not sure that propaganda really helps the public discourse.

  31. Yehudit Avatar
    Yehudit

    “(indeed, no one has yet to find a factual error in Fahrenheit 9/11).”
    59 Deceits in F911.
    Propaganda and F911.
    Plenty more where that came from.

  32. jpg Avatar
    jpg

    Seems pretty wimpy to me. The ‘militant middle’ sounds like a good excuse for doing nothing except complaining how hard it is to make a decision. Me? It’s us or them and I vote us.

  33. The Lonewacko Blog Avatar
    The Lonewacko Blog

    Perhaps a 527 could give grants to undecided voters to come and visit SoCal for a few days, where they can see up close and personal Bush’s policies (and past policies by Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, et al) in action.
    Perhaps a logjammed Kerry would be better than a mandated Bush.

  34. Ric Locke Avatar
    Ric Locke

    If you, and others, really want to join (or form) the “militant middle,” the SwiftVets are pretty much a touchstone. Calling them a “Republican smear machine” knocks you immediately out of any possible consideration as a centrist, and that’s all there is to it; equating them with Michael Moore, except coming from the other direction, is exactly the same thing. If you can do either, you’re on the Left. Period.
    The SwiftVets are neither Democratic nor Republican — they are anti-Kerry. Specifically and (almost — Jane Fonda et al raise their ire) exclusively. O’Neill has stated publicly that he voted for Gore and considers Bush an “empty suit,” and his reputation here in Texas bears that out — he’s known as a mildly Democratic nonpolitician who supported, e.g., Ann Richards. The others may very well lean Republican, which can be expected simply from the demographic they belong to, but the organization as a whole is specifically directed at one specific person, John F. Kerry, and is not “political” (for which read, specifically partisan to one party or the other) in the sense normally meant. The organization, as an organization, has been around for thirty years, and has always had one goal and one only — payback for the character assassination they suffered at the hands of Kerry.
    Republicans have mostly figured that out, which is why they keep hands off the story. The Swift Boat Vets are helpful to the Republicans, because the guy they’re shooting at happens to be the Democratic standard bearer, but Republicans don’t kid themselves that the Swifties want to advance the Republican cause. Until and unless you Lefties realize that and start dealing with it, you don’t have a hope of understanding what’s going on — and you don’t have any claims to the “middle position,” either.
    Regards,
    Ric Locke

  35. chris b Avatar
    chris b

    Hey Ric, I’d just as soon not explain this kind of stuff to a lot of these people until after the election. Bill Clinton, for one, thoroughly understands what you’re talking about. From my standpoint, however, the more time Michael Moore spends sitting next to Jimmy Carter, the better.

  36. Ruester Avatar
    Ruester

    Rick, Yhudit,
    The link to “59 deceits” is very interesting.
    Most interesting in my mind is this quote;
    “Instead, notice the film’s meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) “true” or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression.”
    How is that not like the swift-boat ads?

  37. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    How *is* it, Ruester? As pointed out time and again, the vets made Kerry back down on his decades-old Cambodia yarn. By comparison, Moore tries to convince you that there’s something wrong with Bush staying with kids several minutes after word of a disaster. There’s import there only if you already believe like a good little brain-washed Moorite.
    Further, it’s been shown that Moore’s trick is often to leave out crucial details of a story in order to leave you with the wrong impression; like showing true footage of passengers cooling their heels at airports while implying that the Bin Laden family had been given a special pass to fly by Bush (we all know now that it was the left’s hero Richard Clarke who admittedly OK’d the innocent Bin Ladens to leave the country, and they left when anybody else could get on a plane, too — the true footage of grounded passengers from days before, though, is used to imply something untrue) The vets may be wrong on some details, but we’ve yet to hear that they’ve twisted facts to deliberately mislead as Moore has been *well-documented* to do.
    The vets stories seem to be factual (presenting the facts as they know them, which are bound to be wrong here and there, as human beings are fallible), while Moore is purposefully deceptive and conspiratorial. The vets are citizens taking advantage of their rights to free speech as American citizens and have raised some tens of thousands to do it, while Moore, enjoying the same rights, has the full power of Hollywood and its millions behind him in order to spin his half-baked tales before a national audience (on DVD right before the election! Screw McCain-Feingold! We’ll hand Bush the shellacking of his life!)
    The vets also do have some valid claims to bipartisanship while Moore is wildly, grotesquely partisan. JJ and others are trying to show how even-handed they are by drawing parallels, but they really should be ashamed of themselves by making this odious comparison. One over-stuffed leftist propagandist with conspiracy tales is not comparable to a large coalition of veterans — legitimate war heroes — with an ax to grind against a guy who’s been going around telling whoppers for decades, some of them at their expense. The vets are actually players in this, and it’s Kerry’s own doing; Moore is simply one more limousine liberal who hates hates hates Bush.
    One more difference, of course, the most crucial one: Kerry has called for the vets to be shut down, whether it be through the courts or a directive from his challenger; I’m stiiiiill waiting for even somebody down here in the blogosphere to suggest that the same be done with Moore’s film. But nobody drawing these false parallels seems to be willing to say that Moore’s DvD release right before the election is partisan and abusive of the electoral process; no, only old vets must be shut up — because they’re challenging the *wrong guy*.

  38. Ruester Avatar
    Ruester

    I think the argument is that they are outright
    lying in the ads, claiming things that the
    official records either don’t support or which
    simply can’t be corroborated. That is the
    difference that I see. Frankly, if just one
    lone claim in F911 is true then Bush is not
    a very good leader. If every last claim of
    SBVFT is true, Kerry is still more of a hero
    than Bush. This is why I think the GOP is
    trying so hard to demonize Michael Moore.

  39. Harry in Atlanta Avatar
    Harry in Atlanta

    Hey you think there are any “undecideds” in foxholes.

  40. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Ruester – Kerry took a torpedo below the waterline when he had to admit that his Cambodia story was false. People who are not rabid Bush haters now look askance at his other bragging about heroic acts, even if they are arguably true.
    The GOP are making a mistake in demonizng Moore. They should do everything they can to make him the face of the Democrats, linking him to Kerry as much as possible. Kerry appears to be stupid enough to let this happen. That may change, now that some of the Clinton operatives are taking over his management.

  41. Ruester Avatar
    Ruester

    That is all well reasoned, but for one thing;
    if Kerry mistating the date he was in Cambodia
    is cause for doubting him, why can’t you apply
    the same standard to Bush for his lies?
    Are you honestly telling me that GWs record
    of honesty is more impressive than Kerrys?
    Seems to me like you are all a bunch of
    Kerry bashers.

  42. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Ruester – Kerry’s original story was that he was ordered into Cambodia by his government (Nixon) and had to sit there being shot at while Nixon denied he was there. That story devolved into accidentially wandering into Cambodia…more than just getting the date wrong.
    As far as comparing “lie” for “lie”, I think all politicians end up “lying” to some extent since they need to please a wide coalition. The swifties merely cut Kerry’s claims for great moral authority due to being sent to cambodia illegally down to standard political “lying”.
    I think Bush lied about the cost of medicare because he wanted credit for passing the bill. I don’t think he really wanted to impose steel tariffs but did it for political gain. Likewise, I don’t think he really wants and amendment preventing gay marriage.
    I don’t think any of the “lies” that Moore alludes to stand up to logic.

  43. J Avatar
    J

    Ruester: “if Kerry mistating the date he was in Cambodia
    is cause for doubting him”
    Kerry has, at various times, claimed:
    1) That he was in Cambodia multiple times under direct orders, and that this was a deliberate and flagrant violation of the official US public policy at the time.
    The entire chain of command above Kerry has denied that he was ever given any such orders.
    Numerous officers have stated that NO Swift Boats entered Cambodia in that time frame. No one (other than Kerry) has stated otherwise.
    No member of Kerry’s crew has corroborated ANY of Kerry’s Cambodia claims, not even his “band of brothers” crew mates. The most any of them has admitted is that they might have been close to Cambodia a time or two. Several of them have flatly denied ever knowingly entering Cambodia.
    2) That he smuggled guns to Cambodian resistance fighters.
    No member of Kerry’s crew has supported his claims about running guns to Cambodian resistance fighters. No one else has supported his claims either.
    3) That he used his Swift Boat to insert CIA agents, special operations forces, and Navy SEALs into Cambodia.
    No member of Kerry’s crew has admitted to ever dropping off special forces or CIA agents in Cambodia. Several have explicitly denied it.
    Navy SEALs who were in Vietnam at that time have stated that they know of no insertions of SEALs into Cambodia using Swift Boats, and they’ve given several reasons why SEALs wouldn’t have used a Swift Boat for such an operation.
    No one (CIA agents, special forces, SEALs, or otherwise) has corroborated Kerry’s claims that they were secretly inserted into Cambodia in that time frame by ANY Swift Boat (much less one commanded by Kerry).
    4) That he was fired upon by the NVA, the Viet Cong, Cambodian troops, and (most remarkably) the Khmer Rouge while he was in Cambodia.
    Needless to say, since no one else even agrees to his having been in Cambodia, there is no corroboration for these claims. Given that even he only claims to have been in Cambodia a few times, this is quite an impressive collection of enemies that fired upon him there. Obviously, the weakest claim is that the Khmer Rouge attacked him, since at the end of 1968 the Khmer Rouge was extremely small and not very active in a military sense.
    To claim that he merely “misstated” the date that he was in Cambodia is to be generous to a fault.

  44. Ric Locke Avatar
    Ric Locke

    J., Ruester, that’s all very interesting and lots of fun, but you’re getting completely off the point. It doesn’t matter at this point whether the Swift Vets’ story is true or not: what matters is that Democrats in general, and lefties in particular, have more or less automatically equated the SBVT with a Republican smear campaign when in fact it is no such thing.
    This is damaging in two ways. First, it gets their eyes off the ball. Trying to defend against the Swift Vets as if they were Republicans provides no defense at all — it is frantically applying sandbags to the levee to protect against rising water, when the wind is at 100 knots and getting worse. Full-bore assaults against George W. Bush for Failing! To! Rein! In! The! Attackers! is frantically shooting arrows against the jeering knights when the infantry is coming over the walls with spiked maces. Note that the only real “defense” the Democrats have come up with is ad hominems — the Swifties are just liars. Never mind that a few Swift Boat veterans are on Kerry’s side, and the burning question, how is it that this handful are not liars and the other 250+ are?
    The second thing this nondefense does is point up once again, and quite clearly, the fact that the Press or “MSM” is totally in the tank for the Democrats. This spring we had the Bush AWOL story. Many of us, including myself, said at the time that there was nothing to it — that the records of the time were such that nothing was likely to ever be established, and that, even if it were proved, it would constitute at most one more embarrassing episode during a period Bush has already said he isn’t proud of and has tried (and mostly succeeded) to overcome. NO! the Press said with one voice. These Are Serious Charges And Must Be Investigated! Investigate they did, spending thousands of reporter-hours, causing untold destruction of forests for newsprint and chemical contamination from production of ink. At the end, what do we have? –one more embarrassing episode during a period of many embarrassing episodes in the career of a man who has admitted to embarrassing episodes and apologized for them. Big effing deal.
    So ask yourself, what’s the payoff if the Swift Boat Vets’ allegations are true? Well, the maximum would be John Kerry in jail for treason — not a likely outcome, but possible if all the allegations are confirmed. This is spectacular. The investigation alone would yield enough scandal to sell millions in lingerie ads. And what happens? — Not Newsworthy. Won’t Someone Please Stake This Vampire? Attack John O’Neill and the Vile Accusers!
    A refusal to investigate tells me, and a lot of others, that the Press itself thinks the charges are true and that any investigation would result in the ruin of their pet candidate. If the MSM were confident that the charges were not true, the urge to sell lingerie ads alone should impel the Swift Boats controversy above the fold. And the fact that what they do print is cribbed from Terry MacAuliffe’s briefing papers tells me that there is no “media” at all — there is only the Democratic National Committee, Public Relations Division.
    Regards,
    Ric Locke

  45. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Ruester: Frankly, if just one
    lone claim in F911 is true then Bush is not
    a very good leader. If every last claim of
    SBVFT is true, Kerry is still more of a hero
    than Bush.
    Bob Dole was far more of a hero than Bill Clinton (not to mention John Kerry), Ruester. What does that have to do with anything?
    You fail to address the issue of how Moore and the vets are comparable. They simply aren’t. Moore is now working hard to get F9/11 on TV the night before the election. How are the vets comparable?

  46. Ruester Avatar
    Ruester

    I clearly stated that I believe there to be
    a difference between the two. Did you read my
    post or not?
    Here’s the problem I’ve got;
    I believe John Kerry. Call me crazy, but to
    me his word is far more reliable than that of
    Bob Perry, John O’Neill, and George Bush all
    put together. And what about the 250+ other
    veterans who weren’t close enough to see the
    action when Kerrys crew was? There are 1000s
    of other veterans who “served with” John Kerry
    (in the technical sense the SBVFT allude to)
    who support him for president. In fact, Kerrys
    organization in 1971 had some 10x as many members
    as todays swift-boat veterans for truth.
    And as far as the “refusal to investigate”;
    there is plenty of “investigation” going on into
    these veterans. That is, in fact, how we
    established the very real links to the bush
    administration in the first place. Remember
    the NY times article? Maybe you don’t consider
    the NYTimes to be “mainstream,” but I’ll believe
    them before a guy who used to work for Nixon.
    Of course, I already know the attitude of you
    Kerry-bashers toward the truth;
    “It doesn’t matter at this point whether the
    Swift Vets’ story is true or not.”
    Well, it does to me.

  47. Robert Brown Avatar
    Robert Brown

    Ruester – You obviously worship Kerry, so you will not question anything he says.
    People who do not love him as much will take note of his “Christmas in Cambodia” retraction and ask “what else is he embellishing”.
    Most who agree with Kerry’s world view won’t care if he fibbed a bit to make his record look better at election time. For some, especially Vets, it may be a deal breaker.

  48. ruester Avatar
    ruester

    Rob, I wish everyone in the blogosphere was
    as rational as you.

  49. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    I have a very big problem with Kerry’s attendance at a “terrorist” meeting in Kansas City at which the assassination of several U.S. senators was discussed and suggested. Like usual, Kerry lied and said he wasn’t there. The Kansas City Star tracked down 32-year-old FBI records affirming Kerry’s attendance. And what’s worse is one of the terrorists, Joe Bangert, is campaigning for Kerry today.

  50. Dan Avatar
    Dan

    Ok, question:
    You say that you lump the Swifties and the Moories together. Uh, ok, whatever. But you’ve also said that you consider the Kerry Cambodia story to be the same as the Bush National Guard story.
    The Bush National Guard story, despite being based on nothing beyond rumor and innuendo, was pushed by virtually every major media outlet. The Cambodia story was pushed by the SBVT — the people you consider equivalent to Michael Moore.
    So doesn’t think mean that you also consider all the major media outlets to be equivalent to Michael Moore? All the SVBT have done is engage in the same behavior that the New York Times, CNN, et. al, have engaged in, and for this you smear them with the “Moore” label. Why is the New York times, or CNN, any *less* deserving of that label?