Asymmetrical Information

Wesley Clark has Teresa beat by several months.

And Dean.

Oh, and Kerry himself, too - though his is rather craftily not pointed directly at Bush but, rather, at the business interests by whom Kerry spends a lot of time suggesting Bush is controlled.

Who died and declared Jane Galt the new Nedra Pickler?

Yes, She's "interesting", in the sense that Sept. 11th was an "interesting" day.

You go Michael Farris!

Really Meg, do you really want to say:

"People who call us names because we call them names should not call us names because name calling against us looks dumb."

hunh?

I mean I find it interesting that you were silent when Karen Hughes implied all people who were pro-choice are terrorists (which was a damn stupid comment that did not play well and got some bad press) but Teresa Heinz Kerry saying the Cheney is unpatriotic (which a) I think based on his millitary record against Kerry one could claim and b) I'd rather be unpatriotic than compaired to a terrorist) gets your knickers in a twist? PLUEEEEEZZZZZZ. (see eye-roll)

We cannot escape these personal attacks from both sides. They are, and have been since time immemorial, part and parcel of political disputation.

We can however grant them the respect they deserve; reject them out of hand, and demand that the debate be civil and pertinent.

Jane, you are better than this.

Money quote:

Said Racicot: "Every time the discussion focuses on John Kerry's Senate record of voting against weapons systems, voting against support for troops in the field or his positions on both sides of critical questions of national security, his campaign falsely claims that his patriotism is being attacked."

Kate wrote:

I mean I find it interesting that you were silent when Karen Hughes implied all people who were pro-choice are terrorists

Which is a lie since Karen Hughes said no such thing.

Thorley, I saw the interview and that's what I took it to mean. Either the woman is an idiot, which I don't think she is, or she is attempting to imply an "if yo're not with us, you're against us" attitude that anyone against her on any issue is in league with terrorists...or wants terrorists to win...or is unpatriotic...or whatever.

We all should be a little more careful about the name calling. It is unbecoming adults.

Howard Dean: "John Ashcroft is not a patriot, John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy."

So Theresa isn't even original. But, as the Minute Man has pointed out, she has endorsed the Swift Boat veterans claim that her husband isn't fit to be CofC. Which, I guess, makes her not uninteresting.

Eh?

If we are reading everything closely (which we have to do if we are going to agree that Republicans have yet to impugn the patriotism of Dems - not that I've ever seen the words "hate America" associated with Dems), then in the article Heinz didn't actually attack the Pres. or VP. She said:

"To have a couple of people, who escaped four, five, six times and deferred and deferred and deferred calling him anything regarding his service is in and of itself unpatriotic. Unpatriotic."

She might have been referring to the whole class of pairs of people who fit those criteria (deferrals and attacking Kerry's service in Vietnam). Maybe that includes the Pres. and VP. But I doubt it - they've only questioned his votes in Congress, so it seems like they don't fit.

Anywho, enjoy Carolina. You might want to wander south and ask about the 2000 primary with Bush and McCain while you're there - not that the Bush campaign had anything to do with any slurs against McCain that sprang up at that time.

Tim,

Actually, the written quote is incomplete. If you watch the video of the interview (FOX's Special Report played it earlier today), Heinz-Kerry follows up "Unpatriotic" by saying (I don't have the exact line): "I am referring to the Vice President."

So...well...yeah.

Tim wrote:

"Maybe that includes the Pres. and VP. But I doubt it - they've only questioned his votes in Congress, so it seems like they don't fit."

Tim, since when do the facts matter to these folks. They know that the media will gleefully print on the front page anything said to slam the Repubs, and will bury any (unlikely) corrections or retractions on page A-23.

Congress, with a wisdom I would be the last to challenge, decided that even in time of war we would need professionals in many positions, and so established a process whereby otherwise draft elegible folk could, as long as they pursued education goals, have their service defered. While this could sometimes defer until the need for that body was past, it could also result in said body being thrust into basic training at an inflexible 28 rather than at a pliable 18.
For the Ketchup Kween to suggest that taking those deferments while pursuing the education is unpatriotic is to demean the process she never had to fear herself. While Cheney was not drafted upon graduation, neither did he invent an artificial ROTC commitment and then skip away overseas, to the capital of our enemy, to avoid the draft.

Is that now the official campaign spin, Tim? It does sound very Kerry-like: "Impugning someone's patriotism is only bad if you're attacking the guy at the top; miserable underlings are fair game. (Take my overzealous speechwriters-- please!)"

I think I may have expressed my point badly.

What I was really trying to say is that of course the Republicans have been impugning the patriotism of Kerry - they've spent the last three years saying that anyone who doesn't march to their drumbeat "hates America" or is a p**sy. Since Kerry, as the Democratic nominee, clearly falls into that camp, they don't have to do much more than allude to the already extant prior conversation to, in essence, call Kerry unpatriotic.

The rest of it was really just to say that if you are going to give a strained reading to what the Repubs have done so far and find them blameless, then you should do the same for Ms. Heinz. But apparently she fucked me on that point by saying it explicitly, if Chris Cross is right. And however dismayed I am by this war and its supporters, I'm not yet so full of despair that I believe that the genius who wrote "Sailing" would lie to me.

Christopher Cross? Really?

Tim,

Yes, Chris Cross. Really. Though I am far less musical, far less old, and far more law student-ish.

Some disagreements remain though, you write:

...of course the Republicans have been impugning the patriotism of Kerry - they've spent the last three years saying that anyone who doesn't march to their drumbeat "hates America" or is a p**sy.

You will VERY hard pressed to find any GOP figures or leaders (or Bush campaign people) as saying anything close to what you suggest.

Also, being a p**sy (pansy? heh) and "hating America" are distinct, though related characteristics.

Also:

Since Kerry, as the Democratic nominee, clearly falls into that camp, they don't have to do much more than allude to the already extant prior conversation to, in essence, call Kerry unpatriotic.

With that as the standard, it's kinda clear that it isn't Kerry's PATRIOTISM that's being impugned, but rather his voting record.

I will wholeheartedly concede that John Kerry loves his country deeply. That doesn't make his Nat'l Security/Tax/Social votes any less wrong.

What Christopher said. (Except, of course, for the part about how the canvas can do miracles. If it could, you'd be able to sail straight into the wind instead of having to do all that fool tacking all the time.) No sensible Republican thinks Democrats are unpatriotic-- yet. But sooner or later this continual fleeing where no one pursueth is going to make people start to wonder.

"I think I may have expressed my point badly."

Which apparently qualifies you to be an "overzealous speech writer" for Kerry.

But, it isn't necessary for Republicans to question the patriotism of Kerry and friends, because the average American recognizes that this mania for "apoligizing" over and over--and about whatever is the hysteria of the day--IS unpatriotic. It betrays a disgust with America.

But it was the DEMOCRATS who kept bringing up Vietnam service.

Pathetic. John Kerry's wife doesn't hold elected office - like the accused Republicans.

Pathetic. John Kerry's wife doesn't hold elected office - like the accused Republicans.

So are you saying that she shouldn't be able to comment on those who hold elected office or that no one is allowed to respond to her comments because she does not hold elective office?

No. I'm replying to Jane's charge that Democrats should be prepared to eat humble pie. There is a difference between John Kerry's wife and elected Republican politicians.

She (Heinz) has the right to make her comments, and other people have the right to reply. But then to go from there and say her comments has certain consequences (humble pie), is incorrect.

One of the key differences between Mme. Kerry and elected Republican politicians being that Mme. Kerry has actually attacked someone's patriotism. But thanks for making the important point that only attacks by elected officials count. No more of those tiresome complaints about Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh! In fact, unless you really meant to say "elected politicians or appointed officials", no more of those tiresome complaints about John Ashcroft either!

But it was still the DEMOCRATS who insisted on bringing up Vietnam service.

Kate wrote:

Thorley, I saw the interview and that's what I took it to mean. Either the woman is an idiot, which I don't think she is, or she is attempting to imply an "if yo're not with us, you're against us" attitude that anyone against her on any issue is in league with terrorists...or wants terrorists to win...or is unpatriotic...or whatever.

Or more likely Kate is grossly distorting Karen Hughes’ remarks in order to pretend to be offended since Karen Hughes said nothing that suggested or implied that she or her fellow pro-abortionists were terrorists, in league with terrorists, or want the terrorists to win. Usually that’s the case whenever someone claims that someone on the other side had “implied” something which they did not say or ”that’s what I took to mean” without of course quoting them directly or in context.

Andrew Boucher wrote:

No. I'm replying to Jane's charge that Democrats should be prepared to eat humble pie. There is a difference between John Kerry's wife and elected Republican politicians.

Except of course that Jane never said that Democrats were accusing elected Republicans of attacking Kerry’s lack of patriotism. You obviously read that into her comments since she said no such thing. BTW: Kerry and Dean whose comments attacking the patriotism of others preceded Heinz’s are/were both elected officials.

She (Heinz) has the right to make her comments, and other people have the right to reply. But then to go from there and say her comments has certain consequences (humble pie), is incorrect.

You’re kidding yourself if you believe that (a) Kerry can continue to falsely accuse others of attacking his patriotism whenever they criticize his voting record while (b) his wife is the one actually attacking the patriotism of others without (c) this feeding into the growing negative perception of Kerry of being thin-skinned and a hypocrite for not criticizing his wife for doing the very thing he has falsely accused others of doing.

Andrew, the Democratic talking point has been that Republicans have impugned the patriotism of various Democrats during campaigns, for example Cleland/Chambliss. This was not true; they questioned his voting record on national security, which surely ought to be on the table in an election, not his patriotism.

Teresa Kerry is not running for office, but her husband did. Her remarks are taken, just like other candidates' wives remarks, to be associated with the campaign. This is clearly different from political commentators, whatever their political stripe, who are affiliated with news organisations, not political campaigns. If Laura Bush came out tomorrow and (extreme example which should not be taken as a proposed equivalent to Ms Kerry-Heinz's remarks) advocated we consider adopting Fascism rather than democracy, no one in their right mind would argue that this has nothing to do with Mr Bush -- certainly, I doubt you would.

Oh, I understand Andrew's argument now. To paraphrase:

"It's not his accusation of a lack of patriotism, it's his wife's accusation of a lack of patriotism."

Where have I heard that before?

Jane, let us look at the actual remarks:

"To have a couple of people, who escaped four, five, six times and deferred and deferred and deferred calling him anything regarding his service is in and of itself unpatriotic. Unpatriotic."

Now, a few things strike me. First, her remarks were clearly a response to previous remarks by Republicans. To say she was playing the unpatriotic card first is truly wrong (perhaps that is why you didn't actually quote her in your post).

Second, she wasn't calling anyone unpatriotic. She was saying that certain actions are unpatriotic. Is it unpatriotic if those who deliberately evaded serving in a war that they supported criticize the service of vets who volunteered for combat duty? I probably wouldn't say yes in all circumstances, but when the accusations are based on so little ("Kerry got three scratches and ran away") I think the argument has merit.

Let us now reflect back on Republican accusations of unpatriotism. Last year, during the runup to the war, I discounted the WMD claims. I repeatedly stated that Saddam's arsenal, if anything, posed no strategic threat. Like many others, I contended that it was stupid to engage in a costly, dangerous distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda. I said that the initial phase of the war would be relatively smooth but that we would get bogged down in urban warfare. I also stated that the Bush administration was far too incompetent to pull off the reconstruction/peace phase. For this I and millions of other Americans were met with jingoistic attacks on our patriotism and accused of "siding with Saddam" and "not supporting the troops."

Looking back, I was largely right. I admit that I overestimated the degree of initial urban warfare and underestimated the Bush team's stupidity. In other words, the war more winnable than I predicted but they bungled it worse than I imagined.

But, the point is that, unlike attacking the military service of a specific individual, questioning the wisdom of military action is never unpatriotic. It is vital to our nation that we allow dissent on these issues. That is the key distinction that transcends partisan politics. The actions that I took last year or that Kerry took in 1971 (the equivilent of today's Abu Ghraib whistleblower) were simply NOT unpatriotic. They are necessary, even if wrong.

Space, suggest you check preceding comments.

As Christopher Cross said, she followed immediately with: "I am referring to the Vice President."

I heard it too, and I think that it was more like: "Yes, I am referring to the Vice President."

In any case, she knew who she meant by "four, five, six times", and at the end she confirmed to the interviewer that she meant the Vice President.

Space wrote:

Now, a few things strike me. First, her remarks were clearly a response to previous remarks by Republicans. To say she was playing the unpatriotic card first is truly wrong (perhaps that is why you didn't actually quote her in your post).

Not necessarily. Kerry and other Democrats have played the “they’re questioning my/our patriotism” card in response to criticism of their voting record on national security issues when no one in fact said boo about their patriotism (or lack of it). There is no reason to believe (unless you have specific comments by Republicans) that Heinz-Kerry wasn’t using the same strawman argument.

Rod Paige called the NEA members terrorists, yet we are worried about Theresa Heintz, a non elected official? Give me a break!

Actually, Eamon, you've got a couple of points wrong.

1) Paige called the NEA "a terrorist organization", and was drawing a distinction between teachers and their union leaders. No surprise that the union immediately claimed Paige was insulting teachers, but that's not true. (Also, fwiw, he later apologized for a poor choice of words.)

2) Paige is also a "non-elected official", since he's Secretary of Education; that's an appointed position. In fact, he's not even a politician; he used to be a school superintendent.

3) Theresa Heinz Kerry's last name (middle name?) does not have a "t" in it; it's spelled like the ketchup, y'know?

Also, Paige made his comment in February. It's now May.

PJ, I got nothing of substance wrong. Paige did refer to the NEA members as terrorists. If you call an organization that I belong to a terrorist group, you are calling me a terrorist. I don't know why you raise the red herring of him not being an elected official, since I never raised that issue. So I misspelled "Heinz", I am not sure why you raise that either, since it doesn't change anything at all, but I guess being a defender of this adminstration is indeed a diffcult job these days and you have to grasp at anything you can.

Comments are Closed.