Asymmetrical Information

Yes, but there's a difference here. The positions you hold now and the positions you held then are significantly different because, well, you changed (for the better, of course).

Who knows what Kerry thinks? He's held every side of every issue over the course of his lifetime, often revisiting them on a weekly, if not daily, occasion. Sure, if he held wacky views in 1970, and sensible ones now, then that would be good and he might get my support. Based on his evershifting positions now, though, I have no confidence that he will be holding sensible views when he's actually faced with an important decision.

Jane,

Right on! I was in DC with Kerry and the Vietnam Vets Against the War back in 1971 (I was there for the Mayday Action to shut down DC over the Vietnam War...as a then law school student...not a vet.)and agree that dragging up ancient history in a context-free effort to mislead is no more acceptable on the Right than on the Left.

This is my first visit to your blog (by way of Atlanticblog) and I really enjoy it. Will return again. Don't get a demanding day job! Your readers will suffer.

Ciao,
GW

My God...please say the 1991 quotation is an exaggeration. Or the result of a hangover.

Agreed, for the most part. The issue here in my mind is not what they thought or did then, but rather what the think and do now about what they thought and did then.

If Bush is lying about his service (or at least fudging the issue) then that implies to me that his character is flawed and I cannot trust him. I would rather he came clean about bailing on his ANG service, admit that he was a foolish person when younger (which he has before) and put this behind him (and us). Look, if it all comes out that he did bail on his service, and possibly had some role in a cover-up (there is already a whisper among the tin-foil hat crowd that he ordered his records destroyed by the TANG when govner) then he has screwed the pooch. Had he just fessed up long ago, no body would care (very much)

Kerry needs to either embrace his more embarassing and foolish statements and actions of the past, or explain how he has changed from them (and why).

Me oh my, you've got some kind of courage, making public that diary entry. I never kept one, but when I first started to go overseas for extended periods, in my late teens, I would write letters almost daily . I think the letters I wrote to saloon buddies may be passable reading, or even mildly amusing, since they were not serious in the least. The letters I wrote to my parents would be inoffensive, since they were short, and designed to not say much. I cringe to think of the letters I wrote to girlfriends, however, for they were verrry lonnng, and filled to the brim with Importance and Grand Meaning. Hopefully, they were soon destroyed, and given I was usually dumped while absent, there is reason to hope. Gee, maybe that was a tip-off as to the quality of the prose....

Jane,

It's not about what Bush did 30 years ago. It's about his attitude towards it today.

I happen to believe, based on my experience and the published information, that Bush used pull to get into the Guard and then failed, in some degree, to fulfill his obligations.

Believe it or not, I wouldn't consider this a big deal in if he simply admitted it, said that he understood why some people viewed this negatively, and expressed regrets. But he insists on spinning himself as a heroic soldier, concealing the records, etc., and his supporters march right along, buying whatever he sells.

I can think of any number of reasons to not vote for Bush, but anybody who trusts someone who wants to be President of the United States isn't nealry cynical enough.

Agreed all around. The question is whether John Kerry circa 2004 still holds these views. The answer would seem a qualified Yes.

I think that the standard has to be whether what a person did or the views they held back then, is an accurate reflection of what that person is like now and how they will act if elected.

If someone makes a pretty significant shift (e.g. going from being a socialist to a capitalist, religious conversions, etc.) on an issue, then I think it is fair to say “yes I may have believed that back then but I do not any more” and people can judge for themselves whether this is true or not.

In Kerry’s case, I think his rather silly comments of 1970 are pretty reflective (if anything they understate) of the sort of Senator he was on national security issues – voting to cut defense spending while we were still waging the Vietnam War, being willing to let the Soviets set up client states in Latin America, being willing to let Saddam Hussein control the Kuwaiti oil fields, opposing some seventy weapon systems (many of which have become the backbone of our armed forces), sponsoring legislation to cut the CIA’s budget in 1996 (and then later complaining that we did not have good intelligence in Iraq), and opposing providing funding for our troops in Iraq.

If his comments were simply an isolated incident (or part of a development away from those views are Jane’s appear to have been), then I would agree that we ought not to dwell on them. While I do not think it is necessary to focus on what he may have said in an interview in 1970 (we have too many recent examples of what he did as a Senator to cast doubt on his qualifications to become Commander in Chief), they do reflect the man he became.

Just my $0.02.

The man has a senate record a mile long. It's pretty easy to guess his positions without going back to 1971...

The problem appears to be that Bush can't just "fee us" because he didn't do anything wrong or unusual. He was an outstanding pilot who didn't make the military a career. He completed his required service time plus about 10 percent, and did so early. he spent some of the time out of state and made up missed drills -- which is the way the ANG works. He's remembered by others in his unit, and not remembered by one guy who would have only seen him maybe three times, 30 years ago, and who can't remember being on the base himself.

I dunno -- maybe we've just forgotten what it's like having a president who isn't lying.

The man has a senate record a mile long. It's pretty easy to guess his positions without going back to 1971...

"Fess up". I swear it read that way when I previewed it. "Fess up."

I've never understood why politicians aren't allowed to change their minds. I thought that was the idea of political debate.

Can we notice a trend here? If you don't like the politician in question, the stupid things he did thirty years ago are clear indicators of his weak character. If you do like him, they're excusable pecadilloes.

It's not like I have my thumb on the pulse of the American Public or anything, but my impression is that swing voters hate personal stories unless they're really recent, or really relevant, or really, really bad. Neither of these things qualify.

I spent 11 years on active duty followed by 17 years in the Reserves (Marine Corps), and I have seen nothing to date to indicate that Bush did anything wrong in the ANG. See the current issue of the Washington Times to see a letter from a then-LT who served in the same unit as LT Bush in the ANG.

One of the problems with this attack on Bush is that erroneous conclusions are being drawn from certain facts, and then the conclusions are being treated as facts. The Boston Globe reporter stated yesterday on Democracy NOW that no one saw Bush for a whole year during his ANG days, and this erroneous conclusion was based on the fact that Bush got a "Not Observed" fitness report. "Not Observed" doesn't mean that no one saw him, but that he was not in the unit long enough for the reporting senior to form a judgment worth writing down on a fitness report! Similar mistaken conclusions are being made from Bush not getting his annual flying physical or from his leaving flying status. I won't bore you with the other mistaken conclusions being bandied about.

What is known to be true is that Bush had "satisfactory" years for 1972 and 1973 (which means he accumulated at least the minimum required number of drill points to have the year count towards retirement) and that he received an honorable discharge (which means he didn't do anything improper to cause him to receive a less than honorable discharge). To those of us who understand the reserve system, that means CASE CLOSED!

Jane's original point is very well taken.

I propose a statute of limitations on throwing quotes back in someone's face (unless they've explicitly owned up to a political epiphany), say, three Presidential terms or 12 years, which usually will encompass at least one Administration from each party.

As for Kerry's quacking 30 years ago or Bush's National Guard record, I say (ahem) MoveOn.

Jane
On the whole, I agree.
I'm noticing that the active Right are saying they know all about Bush's past but Kerry's past is foreboding in some way. Vice versa as well.
It is curious how one has value and the other doesn't.
I do believe though that some active Left are hoping for a drug angle in Bush's National Guard story. That will affect things. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that kind of story will have some sticking power on Nov.3.
So much of Kerry's past has been in public that I doubt his views on issues 30 years ago will stick to him as much as some sort of fund raising scandal.

Jane
On the whole, I agree.
I'm noticing that the active Right are saying they know all about Bush's past but Kerry's past is foreboding in some way. Vice versa as well.
It is curious how one has value and the other doesn't.
I do believe though that some active Left are hoping for a drug angle in Bush's National Guard story. That will affect things. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that kind of story will have some sticking power on Nov.3.
So much of Kerry's past has been in public that I doubt his views on issues 30 years ago will stick to him as much as some sort of fund raising scandal.

Jane
On the whole, I agree.
I'm noticing that the active Right are saying they know all about Bush's past but Kerry's past is foreboding in some way. Vice versa as well.
It is curious how one has value and the other doesn't.
I do believe though that some active Left are hoping for a drug angle in Bush's National Guard story. That will affect things. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that kind of story will have some sticking power on Nov.3.
So much of Kerry's past has been in public that I doubt his views on issues 30 years ago will stick to him as much as some sort of fund raising scandal.

Jane asks if it is useful to look back at what candidates did and said decades ago.

I think it's moderately useful. For example I think it's perfectly appropriate to ask Kerry if he still believes what he said back then and if not why not. Understanding how his views have evolved helps us understand how he thinks today.

What I don't understand about Bush is why he doesn't release everything and get over this.

Both are equally silly. Much of the population had the same attitude as John Kerry in 1970. George Bush probably did use pull to lessen duty. John Kerry did not change his mind. He still is an internationalist.

I, personally, think neither would be a good President. However, John Kerry should have let sleeping dogs lie.

Let's further agree that the only exception to the statute of limitations will be life events that bear directly on character and judgment.

I'm thinking primarily here of major felonies (e.g., dealing drugs, not just using them, vehicular manslaughter (Teddy Kennedy coughs nervously), not DUI, etc.), and personal betrayals (e.g., hanging friends, relatives, or spouses out to dry because it was expedient and standing up for them was inconvenient (Teddy coughs again)).

These things speak to character and judgment, and it is fair to take them into account without limitation on when they occurred. But ancient political views and youthful peccadilloes...no, regardless of party affiliation.

Kerry's reported comments in the interview from 1970 seem to pretty accurately predict what kind of senator he became. However, there are more interesting things in the interview than have been reported, such as:

" When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy."

and

" 'I don't think we should give Vietnam any more than the foreign aid given any other one country.' He does not feel there would be a massive slaughter of American, sympathizers once the United States pulled out."

and

" Referring to the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by L. Mendel Rivers (D-S.C.), Kerry said, 'I want to go down to Washington and confront Medel Rivers, who never fought in a war'."

and

" Kerry is a pilot, and on October 14 and 15 he flew Ted Kennedy's advisor Adam Walinsky by private plane throughout the State of New York so that Walinsky could give speeches against the Vietnam War. But Kerry was smart enough not to put down 'Moratorium' on the Navy signout sheet for that Tuesday and Wednesday. "

"Both are equally silly. Much of the population had the same attitude as John Kerry in 1970. George Bush probably did use pull to lessen duty. John Kerry did not change his mind. He still is an internationalist."

That last is the key for me--Kerry's still bowing and scraping to the UN thirty plus years after the quote in question. Kerry should establish that his current internationalism isn't based on the same squirrel-brained nonsense that animated him in the early '70s. Given his record in the Senate, that might be a tall order.

"The child is father to the man." Actually it's quite interesting and revealing to read these accounts of past behavior. I've lived in Boston for 25 years and really didn't know anything about our junior Senator for all these years, except that he's been married to two very very wealthy women and he was in combat in Viet Nam. He's basically been a cipher in the shadow of Teddy Kennedy. Now it's clear he was a lefty then and he's a lefty now. His association with the anti-war movement is consistent with his record in the Senate. It's also clear that Bush has been fairly conservative all his adult life as well as a risk taker. Flying jet fighters is a dangerous business, a high probablity of death is part of the job description. So, yes it matters what they did in the past to give us a sense of who they are and how they will react to various situations in the future. We don't want a coward or a fool for President. As they say in management school, Jane, past performance is the best indicator of future performance. The election will be decided on what Bush or Kerry propose to do about the defense of the nation and the future welfare of the US folded in with the voters' perception of the candidate's character.

GT: "What I don't understand about Bush is why he doesn't release everything and get over this."

What hasn't Bush released? Monday the Administration released Bush's ANG pay records [which had been found in Colorado the prior Friday (I think)]. These records prove that Bush was paid for duty served while in Alabama. This, in combination with his ANG retirement records (which had already been released in 2000) demonstrate that Bush served the total required days in EACH year of his 6 year commitment.

Despite this evidence, the left is still demanding Bush "come clean." Promising do forgive if he'll just own up to something (ALL the evidence proves he didn't do). This is unfair to compare Kerry's statements from 30 years ago with Bush's ANG service. Kerry, at least, is being asked to explain something he said. Bush is being asked to explain why he did what he did not in fact do. We all do and say things that, with 20/20 hindsight we would not do today. Bush has admitted to one of those -- he drank too much. It's not fair to ask him to explain why he didn't complete his service in the Guard when he, in fact, did.

Everyone who has commented have good thoughts, but they haven't addressed the issue of your biography.

Whether or not such a thing is every written, don't throw out your old papers. Keep them for yourself. One day you may want to read them again for nostalgia.

GT: "What I don't understand about Bush is why he doesn't release everything and get over this."

What hasn't Bush released? Monday the Administration released Bush's ANG pay records [which had been found in Colorado the prior Friday (I think)]. These records prove that Bush was paid for duty served while in Alabama. This, in combination with his ANG retirement records (which had already been released in 2000) demonstrate that Bush served the total required days in EACH year of his 6 year commitment.

Despite this evidence, the left is still demanding Bush "come clean." Promising do forgive if he'll just own up to something (ALL the evidence proves he didn't do). This is unfair to compare Kerry's statements from 30 years ago with Bush's ANG service. Kerry, at least, is being asked to explain something he said. Bush is being asked to explain why he did what he did not in fact do. We all do and say things that, with 20/20 hindsight we would not do today. Bush has admitted to one of those -- he drank too much. It's not fair to ask him to explain why he didn't complete his service in the Guard when he, in fact, did.

If I may, the purpose of all this back looking is to make some judgement about the future. With that in mind I agree that the older the information (quotes, whatever) the less valuable it is likely to be as a predictor of future behavior.

If patterns emerge, consistencies - or inconsistencies - are discovered, then the long view is instructive. But to pull one quote or one event or even a series of small events forward from thirty something years ago and then use it as a pure indicator of how the person will - in this case - behave as President, well, I find that to be just plain silly.

Oh, and I should add that there are a bunch of things that I did a long time ago that none of you will ever hear about - despite Jane's heroic attempt to turn this into True Confessions.

Why don't Presidents ever learn that the cover-up is worse than the misdeed? Not such a big deal that Bush didn't serve his entire time (if indeed true) but if the White House deems it a big enough deal to be evasive about it, then it's suddenly a big deal for me.

And they are evasive about it. Listen to Scott McClellan bat around with the White House press corps for forty minutes on 2/10 and tell me he's being forthcoming.

We can debate the various pieces of evidence until we arrive at the Zapruder film, but the bottom line is that the White House refuses to simply release Bush's complete records for the press to pore over. There's plenty of precedent for this, so why aren't they doing it?

Just as the question with Clinton was not the affair but the perjury, the question with Bush is not the service but the evasion. It's a pattern with this administration; if there's nothing there, what are you hiding?

Jane you ignorant... The reason why people like Drudge are digging into Kerry circa 1970 is because Kerry has been passive aggressive vocal on the Bush Natiional Guard issue. Anyone with any political savvy knows that raising the Bush issue as a question in any public forum is a campaign tactic to give Kerry an opportunityto fan the flames by saying it's a disturbing allegation that should be looked into. The Dean and Clark campaigns have been swishing this one around for more than two months. Now the serious candidate does it because he wants to raise questions about Bush. So guess what? The Republicans will spend the next couple of months doing it to him in spades.

If Kerry had any courage, he would not have fanned the flames, and had he encountered the question honestly, he would have taken it off the table by saying Vietnam was a confusing situation that he was ultimately against.

Really... So what if Bush did the minimum needed to fulfill his service obligation? Who does that really offend? It riles up the liberal crowd who (or whose parents) were running to Canada during the war. The people who served and the families of those who died have come to mostly realize that Vietnam was bullshit from the start, completely senseless. You might be talking about 1 or 2 million citizens in that pool anyway, maybe 750,000 voters.

The real question about Senator Heinz is why he was so convinced that Saddam was such an imminent threat to use WMDs before the war, and now that he's running against Bush, he's gone Howard Dean on the issue.

-Brad

Kerry is misguided to push the AWOL issue. There are many important matters that should be discussed in the 2004 campaign. The exact status of Bush's guard service in 1972 is not one of them.

The fact that Kerry is pushing this issue tells me that he's not a serious candidate, and that his priorities are deranged. I was willing to listen to what he had to say, but he seems to be a moron.

Dear Contributor B,

And just what "complete records" do you think exist that the Bush Administration is not releasing? I'm surprised that so much actually exists, especially after the St. Louis fire that destroyed so many paper records. Or do you think that Bush personally has his ANG records from so long ago? I don't keep any sort of coherent personal records, and I just retired from the Marine Reserves 7 years ago.

The only records I can think of have already been produced: pertinent pages from his service record book, his record of drill points, his pay records indicating paid drills, his honorable discharge. Just what else are you looking for?

What was Bush saying about the military in 1970?

Can somebody go through some back issues of High Times or The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers and find out?

Here's the problem with Bush's military background.

His father's friend, Lt. Governor Ben Barnes, arranged for Bush's place in TANG.

Thirty years later, Barnes earns over $20 million aslobbyist for a company operating Texas that receives a no-bid contract from Governor Bush.

The company became involved in a nasty whistleblower lawsuit in 1997, and Barnes had to testify in court that he arranged for Bush's TANG position.

So if you want to talk about character and background, let's look a bit more carefully at Bush. He bends over backwards to protect his family friends.

A member of the bin Laden family lost over $100,000 in one of Bush's oil companies in the late 70's. Immediately after 9/11, Bush allowed all of the bin Ladens to leave the country without meeting with intelligence officers.

The Saudi Royal family have many connections to the Bush family. Even though the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and were funded by Saudi money, there has been little demand for accountability from the Saudis involved.

It's time to take a closer look at the people supporting the Bush family.

(Can I squeeze in more one word? Great. How about 'Funeralgate'.)

The only records I can think of have already been produced: pertinent pages from his service record book, his record of drill points, his pay records indicating paid drills, his honorable discharge. Just what else are you looking for?

A signed confession, most likely. Time weighs rather heavily on some of these people's hands, and the Principles of Logical Reasoning suffer unspeakable horrors as a result.

Okay, so first the problem is that Bush went AWOL. Then when that gets debunked, it's that he joined the National Guard to get out of going to Vietnam. Now I was like Jane and busy not existing at the time, but from what I've heard, *everyone* was trying to get out of going to Vietnam. John Kerry, Howard Dean, Dan Quayle, Bill Clinton. Do I blame them? Hell no. I believe in a volunteer army except in extreme cases. Vietnam may have been a war worth fighting, but not with conscripted boys who should have just been starting their lives.

But I suppose until the boomers fade from the political spotlight and the Gen Xers take over, we'll have to deal with the Vietnam issue in every campaign. Whether Kerry's protesting or Bush's National Guard service are relevant or not.

"the only exception to the statute of limitations will be life events that bear directly on character and judgment."

Sounds fine, but it still leaves room for endless arguments about what is a character or judgment issue.

Anyway, scratch that part about judgment - it's not natural for 20-somethings to have good judgment. Humanity would hardly have survived the first million years or so without young women willing to bear one baby after another without any doctors, and young men willing to put themselves between a tiger and the women and children. If this didn't get them killed, they'd learn better judgment. The learning process is slower in the protected modern world, but it's wrong to assume that a person's actions 30 years ago say anything about their judgment now.

Character changes much less. Kerry sided with his country's enemies 30-some years ago, and it doesn't sound like he's changed much. IMO, that's much worse than Bush's drunkenness, alleged theft and vandalism arrests, and anything else there's a shred of evidence about - and there actually are signs that Bush changed.[1] If the other Democratic leaders don't see it that way - it says a lot about their own character and judgment.

Note [1] As a reformed drunk myself, I'm jealous as hell that I had to dry myself out at 22 and start trying to become self-supporting, while W's family carried him until he was 40, but still it's clear that W really did straighten out at last...

Just for those folks who might have seen the copy of Bush's drill point record on Baldilocks via Instapundit--you should know that the overiding requirement for drills is to have a "good" year, i.e., 50 drill points. There is also some minimum attendance required, but it is not 100%. (There are also excused absences and unexcused absences, and makeup drills, and rescheduled drills, etc., but I won't get into all that.) A good year is normally obtained by getting 15 points for being in a drilling reserve status, 4 points per weekend normally done once a month (2 points per day or one point per 4 hour period), and 14 active duty points for the 2-week annual training duty aka "summer camp." 50 points are required for a good year, and accumulation of inactive duty points (aka drilling points) is limited, for retirement purposes, to 60 inactive duty points per year. Add up the points for a "normal" reserve year and you come up with 63 inactive duty points and 14 active duty points for a total of 77 points. Remember that the requirement is only 50 points for a good year, i.e., one that meets the minimum standards for counting towards retirement. Also note that if you make all monthly drills, you end up with more inactive duty points (63) than will count towards retirement (max 60), which says to me that "the system" doesn't expect everyone to have 100% attendance all the time.

Looking at Bush's drilling record, and squinting at the small print, it appears that he did a normal drill in October '72, a double drill in November (which took care of his December drill), two extended drills in January which took care of his drills through March, a normal drill in April, and then four different drills in May which took him up through July.

By the way, it is also possible to earn drill points on a non-paid basis, and it is possible to be on active duty on a non-paid basis. And drill points can be earned for completing correspondence courses. None of this pertains to the Bush question, but it does show the flexibility of the reserve system to permit people to be flexible in how they meet their reserve commitment. For some units and people, paid drills are at a premium, so you take what you can get.

To prevent fraud, which is something the military is death on, reservists weren't paid for drills until a month or two after the fact, because the paperwork documenting the drill has to make its way up the line to the paying authority. Part of this chain used to be automated, but not at the lower levels where the records were originated. (Now it's pretty much automated all the way, with the originating unit also entering the data in the automated pay system.) For Bush to have been paid, he had to have completed the drills he was paid for.

Contrariwise, even if he wasn't paid, it wouldn't be dispositive on the issue because I could sure tell you some horror stories about trying to get reservists paid for their drills. Fortunately, most of these stories had to do with transitioning to a fully automated system before the system had been adequately tested, but a large number of Marine reservists went over a year without getting paid.

Sorry for the tedious details, but isn't it interesting that those people who have an understanding of the military reserve system don't see what the fuss is about, while some of those who don't are still raising inane questions?

The Democrats have embraced the 'Nam tar-baby with all fours. The Republicans will be more than happy to revisit the Counterculture.

I'm not going to read your blog anymore, now that I've seen that 1991 quote.

You're right, Chris, I don't have a particularly detailed understanding of how the Guard works -- I can't weigh in on that discussion, and as for what point counts mean, I'll defer to you. Honestly.

I do, however, watch how Scott McClellan phrases his words. What the White House press corps heard on February 10 was the phrase "all the records that existed that were relevant." Repeated. Seven or eight times. If you watch McClellan's press briefings obsessively, (and it is to my discredit that I do) you'll notice that every time he memorizes a phrase it means something; a memorized, repeated phrase signifies some crucial issue where he doesn't want to say anything that could be later construed as a lie.

So why the caveat "that were relevant"? If all available records had indeed been released, why didn't he just say "all available records"? I can't argue the specifics of the file, but I also can't answer the question I just asked. Why the caveat? This White House, or any White House, isn't careful for nothing.

As for "time weighs heavily on these peoples' hands," anyone - you, I, heads of state - who posts a comment on a blog has too much time on his hands. We're all guilty of pedantry, or else we'd wouldn't be on this site. We'd be out in the kitchen, cooking dinner for our families.

My guess is that if he had said, "All Records", then people would have looked for Bush's complete service record book, and not just the parts which were relevant to the drill issue. Part of the problem with being a media flack is that unless you know a lot about the subject, you tend to stick with the phrases that you know are safe. A truly good media flack knows as much about everything as his/her principle, and knows how to get the points across clearly. Ari Fleisher was quite good, the current guy is not as good.

It's not an easy business; my last 7 years in the Marine reserves were with a public affairs unit in NYC where we specialized in training Marine officers, Majors, Lieutenant Colonels, and Colonels, both active duty and reserve, in how to interact with the media. Some of us also assisted in "Charm School" where we trained those officers selected for general officer. It makes a difference in how well a military unit gets the word out to the American people as to what they are doing, and all too often, people want to hear what the commander thinks and not the media flack. So we trained the commanders. Jim Conway (CG, I MEF--the Marines who were in Iraq and who are getting ready to go back) was one such that we trained back when he was a colonel. The Marines know the value of good public relations and that the best PR comes from letting the media talk directly to the young Marines. The Army is slowly learning this lesson, especially after GW1 (the biggest armored assault since WW2 and all you heard about was two Marine Divisions taking the Kuwait airfield), but based on some of the blogs I have read, the Army is still slow to learn. As we used to tell the officers we trained, if you're worried about what your troops will tell the media, you've got bigger leadership problems than we can deal with in the classroom.

Jane:

The main reason to look at Kerry's actions 30-35 years ago is not so much to hold him to statements he made then (though his testimony about war crimes committed by U.S. soliders in Vietnam does seem in need of extrapolation), but to view it as part of a pattern during his adult life of always attempting to mold his beliefs to wherever he thinks the most votes are. His voting record and statements down through the years since in politics have followed that pattern.

Kerry certainly wouldn't be the first politician to morph his beliefs based on the latest internal polling numbers, but when it comes to crunch time, you would really like to have a president to hold certain core beliefs that he is going to stand by, even if doing so means loss of political support and possible defeat in the nex election.

Kerry came home to an anti-war state in 1970 and became a vocal anti-war politician because that's where the votes were. He threw "his" medals over the fence because that's where the votes were during th Vietnam era. Fifteen years later, when the image of the military was far less hostile among Massachusetts voters, his medals were up in his office because that's where the votes were. Fifteen years after that he votes to support the war on terror and then the Iraq war because he perceives that's where the votes are. Six months after that he votes against funding the Iraq/Afghan recovery efforts because with a Democratic primary coming up he perceives that's where the votes are. And today's AP story indicates Kerry has managed to be on both sides of the gay marriage issue in the past eight years.

A 30-year record of doing whatever the trendy thing of the moment is has to be taken into consideration, since whoever the president is in 2005 does not have the luxury of acting like it's "party time" the way Clinton could after the fall of the Soviet Union and the supposed "final victory" over Saddam in Gulf War I. It's hard to see Kerry willing to risk his political capital for some unpopular action if electd president, and that's not a good thing to have in that office's occupant for any time in the forseeable future.

Isn't that one of the reasons why we remember MacArthur? Isn't he supposed to have been brilliant at PR?

There are analogues in the corporate world; often CEOs are reluctant to publicize direct telephone numbers or email addresses for fear that headhunters will use the information to pick off valuable executives. If you're worried chiefly about losing employees to better offers, however, what's wrong with the way you're running your company?

Agree about Fleischer. I'm a conflicted Democrat - I voted for Bush 41 and grew up on several different Marine Corps air stations - but Fleischer, all conflicts aside, God Fleischer was good at his job. McClellan looks scared, like he knows he's lying even if he isn't. Fleischer, he made it look like a prickly question was wasting his time - he made you appreciate just how difficult it is to NEVER look like you're on the defensive.

Agreements aside, however, what's wrong with asking for Bush's complete service record book? I'm not concerned about whether he or not he showed up for Guard duty; if true it's a minor sin, hard for me - too young to have had to serve - to judge and absolutely less important than a lot of other things going on in America right now.

I am a little curious, however, about this administration's obsession with secrecy. If there's nothing going on, why not fling a complete and exhaustive service record at the press and instruct them to get back to worrying about the economy?

Will Allen,

"I can think of any number of reasons to not vote for Bush, but anybody who trusts someone who wants to be President of the United States isn't nealry cynical enough."

Strange as it feels to agree with you, I think this is 100% correct. Well said.

Jane,

The difference between you and John Kerry is that he has a legistlative track record that is logically consistent with his youthful viewpoints. This guy has spent his career trying to gut our intelligence and military services. You've changed. Kerry hasn't.

The problem with ascribing to a policy of full disclosure and honesty (read: witholding nothing) in politics is that by doing so you are arming your opponent, who will then take the facts and twist and turn them, often out of context, as a way to attack you.

As media converage has increased over the years and secrecy has become more difficult, obfuscation has evolved to be the norm.

I think giving up as little information as necessary, even if it is likely to be good information, has become the normative position for politicians.

Ted Kennedy killed a young woman more than 30 years ago. He must have changed his views on drunken driving as he hasn't killed anyone in a one car accident lately.

Teddy leaves the driving to his chauffeur these days.

I will go further, Mr. Yomtov, and don't expect you to agree, by saying that anyone who affiliates with a political party for anything but purely utilitarian reasons, is seriously disconnected from reality. The primary function of a political party is to form a large enough coalition so as to be able to force smaller coalitions to submit to the larger coalition's will, and, when push comes to shove, all considerations of morality and ethics tend to be rendered secondary to the primary function. People who actually adhere to the belief, as opposed to adopting the stance in pursuit of rhetorical advantage, that the political party they affiliate with is somehow possessed of a finer moral understanding of the world,
are deluding themselves.

Similalry, people who wish to be President of the United States have a gigantic hunger to wield power over other human beings, and their behavior has a great tendency to be designed to satisfy hunger, other considerations be damned. Now, many hunger for such power out of a desire to "improve" the world, in the manner they define "improvement", but it is the hunger for power, in and of itself, that tends to dominate, for no person is completely capable of ignoring self interest.

People with such a hunger for power are needed; indeed, civilization never would have developed without them. They aren't to be trusted however, and it is a giant mistake to do so, as it is to ever develop the conceit that one knows these people, by observations from afar. Of course, the age of mass communications has made it infinitely easier for those with a hunger for power to project the illusion (if they have the requisite skills) that we know these people, and can therefore trust them. All the more reason to be wary.

If Jane finds her high school papers embarrassing, I'm sooo glad that mine are long lost, with no possibility of a backup file reappearing, because in 1971 we didn't have word processors. OK, some of it may not have been that bad - I remember writing on freedom and on how the government can never make better decisions for you than you can make for yourself. And my main complaint about the Vietnam War was that we weren't killing enough commies... But I also remember a lot of nearly socialist crap.

One thing I have realized only recently is that my education in American public schools included 13 years of subtle indoctrination in socialist principles. Of course, they didn't call it that. It was "sharing". It was "caring" about the kids starving in Africa, or Appalachia, or Harlem. But no mention of how these areas came to be impoverished, and no implication that wealth and food are the product of human labor rather than raining from heaven upon a few lucky people. Although I had libertarian inclinations from the beginning, it took me nearly 30 years to work through all that crap.

My teachers didn't think of themselves as socialists. If they associated a political position with this teaching at all, they thought they were "liberals". Why in hell did we ever let the socialists hijack that great old word?

At least, my teachers never got as obvious as this. But what do you expect when every adult in the school went through the same indoctrination, and very few of those who resisted could stand the atmosphere in a school of education.

Markm, to me there is nothing socialist about teaching people to care about starving kids in Appalachia and Africa. If your teachers were promoting higher taxes to be dumped into AFDC and USAID, then okay, that's a political position. But teaching people that relieving human suffering is a worthy goal seems pretty apolitical.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting we add compassion to the curriculum. Ideally parents teach compassion and teachers teach chemistry. But in the real world classroom, real world issues come up, and teachers are people with opinions, not information-spewing robots. If a teacher is careful to keep his expressed views essentially apolitical ("it's good to help starving people," not "the government should help starving people") and allows the students to express themselves freely, I don't see the problem.

"The government should help (x)" was pretty well implied.

Will Allen,

Without going into point-by-point detail, I agree with much of your followup post. Surprised?

I have no problem with a statute of limitations on foolish things one has done in his youth, but it has to go both ways. If John Kerry is making what he did in the sixties a major part of his campaign, then contradictory actions he took in the seventies are fair game. If he was just promoting himself based on his actions as a Senator over the last dozen years or so, not on his military service, then I would say that his statements in the seventies are irrelevant.

Not entirely, Mr. Yomtov, since I never thought of you as a worshipper at the Democratic alter. It is interesting, however, in that it demonstrates how people can arrive at different conclusions, even when they share some similar assumptions. My anti-statism stems from my deep, deep, distrust of any institution that holds a near-monopoly on violence, and is under control of people whose primary motivation is to force others to submit to their will, and no, my distrust is not mitigated much by the knowledge that a majority of citizens are in agreement with the use of the power.

As bad as Halliburton, or any other corporation, may or may not be, they simply lack the power to incarcerate or kill people who refuse to give them money,or follow their edicts. That is why I generally favor restricting the actions of the state to those areas in which it can be reasonably stated that lack of state action would result in society not being able to function, or people not being able to pursue prosperity, or however else they define happiness, short of infringing on others. Within this sphere, of course, there is still much room for reasonable
disagreement as to what actions the state should engage in, but such a arrangement really doesn't permit citizens using state power to force others to submit, for no other reason than they think "fairness" will result,or that "immorality" will be avoided.

"I have no problem with a statute of limitations on foolish things one has done in his youth, but it has to go both ways. If John Kerry is making what he did in the sixties a major part of his campaign, then contradictory actions he took in the seventies are fair game. If he was just promoting himself based on his actions as a Senator over the last dozen years or so, not on his military service, then I would say that his statements in the seventies are irrelevant."

I would pay close attention to the phrase 'major part'. It seems to me that his Vietnam experience is a minor part of his campaign therefore looking at his earliest of early political activities should likewise be viewed as a minor reason to criticize him.

I always imagine Bush as Jack Nicholson, whipping out a .45 while on a bender in The Last Detail: "I am the mother*#@!!*ing shore patrol, mother*#@!!*er!"

The Left has towed this AWOL barge for so long, and with such passion. You have to wonder who the market is for this story. What's the point? To estrange the veterans in Bush's base? To motivate fellow lefties? It seems like such a non-issue.

I skipped school one time.

To Boonton:
I agree that this needs to be kept perspective.

The bio his campaign website (www.johnkerry.com/about) devotes two out of seven paragraphs to his service in and opposition to the Vietnam war. Two paragraphs cover his twenty years in the Senate.

A Google search on that same site for the word "Vietnam" produces 424 hits, the second of which is a press clip (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1119a.html) from Atlantic Monthly that starts out:

"Senator John F. Kerry often cites his service in Vietnam as a formative element of his character. A new account of his time there—based on interviews with those who knew him well, and on his never-before-published letters home and his voluminous "war notes"—offers the first intimate look at a traumatic and life-altering experience."

For comparision, I also did a Google search on the site for other key words and found:
Medicare - 158 hits
Education - 499 hits
Housing - 85 hits
Tax - 542 hits
Welfare - 45 hits
Bush - 1140 hits
Iraq - 451 hits
Homeland Security - 246 hits
Agriculture - 84 hits
Transportation - 41 hits

So, I will let others decide whether or not Kerry is using Vietnam as a major or minor part of his campaign. I have never heard him speak, but from his website it does appear to be something he brings up quite frequently.

"I have no problem with a statute of limitations on foolish things one has done in his youth, but it has to go both ways. If John Kerry is making what he did in the sixties a major part of his campaign, then contradictory actions he took in the seventies are fair game. If he was just promoting himself based on his actions as a Senator over the last dozen years or so, not on his military service, then I would say that his statements in the seventies are irrelevant."

I would pay close attention to the phrase 'major part'. It seems to me that his Vietnam experience is a minor part of his campaign therefore looking at his earliest of early political activities should likewise be viewed as a minor reason to criticize him.

Well let's put it in perspective....if the word 'Vietnam' gets 424 hits on his site and Education gets 499 hits will critics of his protesting devote an equal amount of time on his education proposals? Likewise, since Bush gets over 1100 hits will Kerry's criticisms of Bush merit nearly twice the attention from Kerry's critics?

I guess we shall see if this goes anywhere.

The elitism that got Bush skipped ahead of a waiting list into the cushy ANG unit and out of the draft *is* an important part of his progams and policies.

The "blogger obsession with Bush's attendance, or non-attendance, at five National Guard drills in 1971" is perfectly relevant, for the simple reason that (along with Kerry's service in Vietnam)it neutralizes a non-rational but extremely powerful political weapon that Bush and his strategists have been using to the hilt ever since 9-11 -- namely, the tendency of the average voter to believe that most Democrats are cowardly kneejerk doves. Bush hasn't just been campaigning as having more sensible military policies than the Democrats; he's been campaigning as more PATRIOTIC than they are, right down to the celebrated Flight Suit Performance.

Well, that powerful issue has now been defanged -- which means that, with luck, we might actually have a halfway rational debate during this campaign over which man's military policies actually are wiser. That is, the American people may now actually be forced to THINK about this issue, whether they want to or not.

Comments are Closed.