Month: October 2004

Nightline did an excellent reporting job on Vietnamese memories of the incidents under dispute from the Swift Boat anti-Kerry vets. No big surprise that the evidence there comports with the bulk of the evidence here: that the Swiftees are simply wrong. Check out the whole story. Money quote:

According to the citation for Kerry’s Silver Star, when the boats approached the hamlet, “a B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF 94” – Kerry’s boat. He “personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy,” the citation says, before commending Kerry’s “extraordinary daring and personal courage” for “attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire.”
That account is disputed by Swift boat veteran John O’Neill, author of “Unfit for Command,” who maintains in his book that the statement “is simply false. There was little or no fire.”
Villagers say this is what they saw: “Firing from over here. Firing from over there. Firing from the boat,” Vo Thi Vi told Nightline.
She was only a couple hundred yards away when a Swift boat turned and approached the shore, she said, adding that the boat was unleashing a barrage of gunfire as it approached.
“I ran,” she recalled, “Running fast. … And the Americans came from down there, yelling ‘Attack, Attack!’ And we ran.”
Her husband Tam said the man who fired the B-40 rocket was hit in this barrage of gunfire. Then, he said, “he ran about 18 meters before he died, falling dead.”

Little or no fire, eh?

TARANTO’S BRILLIANT SPIN: Oh, now I get it. James Taranto is suddenly aghast and upset at gay-baiting! Better late than never, I suppose. In fact, I’m deeply heartened by so many Republicans suddenly concerned about the smearing of homosexuals for political purposes. The reason for Taranto’s assertion? He says that Kerry was pandering to the anti-gay parts of the Democratic base, by letting the last few souls on earth know, in an entirely positive way, that the vice-president’s daughter is openly gay. And the way Kerry “gay-baited” was to say that homosexuality is not a choice, that he supports equal rights for gay couples, and that Mary Cheney helps prove that being gay isn’t a choice. That’ll rile ’em up in the trenches, won’t it? Seriously, I’ve called out anti-gay statements by Democrats in the past; and have a long record of sniffing out homophobia and the use of it, wherever it’s coming from. Certainly my record is, shall we say, more substantial than Taranto’s in this regard. And I fail to see how Kerry’s remark could be understood in any conceivable way as gay-baiting. It never occurred to me when I heard it. It does not occur to me now. You know what is based in gay-baiting? Implicitly, clearly, shamelessly: the Bush-Cheney campaign. The GOP has a nutty candidate in Illinois who called Mary Cheney a “selfish hedonist” – but Dick Cheney wasn’t an “angry dad,” then. Lynne Cheney didn’t call that “tawdry.” So Bush runs the most anti-gay national campaign ever and it’s his opponent who gets tarred as a homophobe! Brilliant, even by Rove’s standards. And when it comes to gay-baiting, there are few as practised as Rove. The sheer nerve of these hypocrites never ceases to amaze.

Here’s an email that makes a point many others have. I cite it because it’s representative:

You won’t read this or reply, but that’s fine. Your support of Kerry’s bringing up Mary Cheney in the debate just lost my respect completely. The best analogy I can think of would have been Carter mentioning Betty Ford’s addiction or someone mentioning Martha Mitchell’s instability and alcoholism in a presidential debate. Just beyond the pale. The young woman, and the family, are entitled to their privacy on private matters.

Notice two things. First, the equation of gayness with some sort of embarrassing problem or, worse, some kind of affliction. For people who believe this, of course Kerry was out of line. That’s why Rove’s base is so outraged. But if you don’t believe this, it’s no different than, say, if a candidate were to mention another candidate’s son in the Marines. Or if, in a debate on immigration, a pro-immigrant candidate mentioned Kerry’s immigrant wife. You have to regard homosexuality as immoral or wrong or shameful to even get to the beginning of the case against Kerry. That’s why it’s a Rorschach test. Secondly, Mary Cheney isn’t private. She ran gay outreach for Coors, for pete’s sake. She appears in public with her partner. Her family acknowledges this. She’s running her dad’s campaign! Whatever else this has to do with – and essentially, it has to do whether you approve of homosexuality or not – privacy is irrelevant.

“Had the president, when speaking about immigration, referenced Teresa Heinz Kerry’s experience in a positive or neutral light, would that have been inappropriate? Is Mary Cheney’s homosexuality some sort of affliction? A verboten family tragedy like the death of John Edwards’ son? The only “cheap and tawdry political trick” performed Wednesday night was the one turned by the Cheney parental units. It was they who used their daughter’s sexuality as a weapon against John Kerry’s sympathetic (and very general) remark. If only Dick and Lynne were so indignant when their daughter was legitimately under attack by an administration willing to write gays and lesbians out of the nation’s founding document. Selective indignation has never been so crass …” – Kevin Arnovitz, Slate. Amen. It’s legitimate to threaten every gay couple with the removal of their basic rights, but it is not legitimate to point out that Cheney’s own daughter will be directly affected? By what twisted logic?

The usually even-keeled Instapundit says that Kerry’s “position on gay marriage is the same as the President’s.” I can’t see how that’s even remotely the case. Both Bush and Kerry oppose civil marriage for gays. True. But Kerry supports giving gays every single right that civil marriage has – on a state and federal level – and just wants to call it something different. Kerry also believes that the individual states should decide what their own policies should be. Bush opposes civil unions, and has supported a constitutional amendment that would forbid any state from granting the “incidents” of marriage to any gay couple. Kerry: 100 percent of the rights of civil marriage. Bush: none. I’d say that’s a pretty huge difference, wouldn’t you? Some say the president supports civil unions. Funny, I’ve never heard him say that in public and his FMA would ban them. If the president believes gay couples should have some limited rights – but not marriage rights – I’d love to hear him say it. But he won’t. Why? Because he’s catering to people who think gay couples are an abomination, that’s why. One last gripe about Glenn: he also writes that Kerry “dissed” Mary Cheney. How? Is calling an openly gay person gay an insult?

Kerry’s electoral college math, explained.

I’ve been noting the collapse of security even in the Green Zone in Baghdad these past few weeks. It’s getting worse.

The Mary Cheney thing really is a fascinating Rorschach test. Many conservatives are appalled and cast their anti-Kerry opinion as a defense of Mary. Here’s one:

Last night he allowed his obsession with his own selfish desire to win a point overshadow the appropriate boundaries of taste, compassion, and kindess. Lynne Cheney has the right to call him a bad man. And woman across the nation have the right to see for themselves that he is willing to victimize THEM if it comes to padding his advantage, reputation, position, or standing.

Victimize? All Kerry did was invoke the veep’s daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn’t a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to “victimization” is if you believe someone’s sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn’t. What’s revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many – even in the mildest “we’ll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don’t-complain” form. Mickey Kaus, for his part, cannot see any reason for Kerry to mention Mary except as some Machiavellian scheme to pander to bigots. Again: huh? Couldn’t it just be that Kerry thinks of gay people as human beings like straight people – and mentioning their lives is not something we should shrink from? Isn’t that the simplest interpretation? In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like president Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don’t believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I’m not outing any gay person. I’m outing the double standards of straight ones. They’ve had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: Let me give you an example of the double standards here. I remember once being driven around by a charming woman on a stop on a book tour. We talked about my book, and she averred, after chatting all day, that she had nothing against gay people, she just wished they wouldn’t “bring it up” all the time. I responded: “But you’ve been talking about your heterosexuality ever since I got in the car.” She said: “I haven’t. I’ve never once discussed sex.” My response: “Within two minutes, you mentioned your children and your husband. You talked about your son’s work at high school. You mentioned your husband’s line of work. And on and on. You wear your heterosexuality on your sleeve all the time. And that’s fine. But if I so much as mention the fact that I’m gay, I’m told it’s all I care about, and that I should pipe down. Don’t you see the double standard?” Candidates mention their families all the time. An entire question last night was devoted to the relationship between men and their wives and daughters. Mentioning Mary Cheney is no more and no less offensive than that. What is offensive is denying gay couples equal rights in the constitution itself. Why don’t conservatives get exercized about that?

LET MARY SPEAK: Mickey posits a perilous race analogy:

What if Kerry were debating a conservative on affirmative action, and that conservative had a black wife, and Kerry gratuitously brought that up in an attempt to cost his opponent the racist vote? Would Andrew Sullivan approve? I don’t think so. …

First off, I don’t buy the cynical explanation of Kerry’s reference. But secondly, affirmative action isn’t a strong enough analogy. Let’s say the president was proposing the real analogy: a constitutional amendment to ban inter-racial marriage. Now let’s say the veep’s daughter was married to a black man. Would it be relevant then? Of course it would. But there is an obvious solution to this debate: let Mary speak. She’s running the veep’s campaign. She’s an adult. Why can’t she tell us if she’s upset by Kerry’s and Edwards’ remarks? Give her a microphone, guys. What are you afraid of?

CNN finds a clear victory for Kerry in their insta-poll, 53 – 39. CBS gives it to Kerry as well: 39 – 25, with 36 calling it a tie. In ABCNews’ poll, you get a 42-41 tie, but the poll is slanted toward Republicans, giving Kerry an edge. Critically, independents went for Kerry 42 – 35 percent. If these numbers hold, and the impression solidifies that Kerry won all three debates, Bush’s troubles just got a lot worse.

SOMETHING ABOUT MARY: I keep getting emails asserting that Kerry’s mentioning of Mary Cheney is somehow offensive or gratuitous or a “low blow”. Huh? Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president’s family. That’s a public fact. No one’s privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Kerry cites Bush’s wife or daughters, no one says it’s a “low blow.” The double standards are entirely a function of people’s lingering prejudice against gay people. And by mentioning it, Kerry showed something important. This issue is not an abstract one. It’s a concrete, human and real one. It affects many families, and Bush has decided to use this cynically as a divisive weapon in an election campaign. He deserves to be held to account for this – and how much more effective than showing a real person whose relationship and dignity he has attacked and minimized? Does this makes Bush’s base uncomfortable? Well, good. It’s about time they were made uncomfortable in their acquiescence to discrimination. Does it make Bush uncomfortable? Even better. His decision to bar gay couples from having any protections for their relationships in the constitution is not just a direct attack on the family member of the vice-president. It’s an attack on all families with gay members – and on the family as an institution. That’s a central issue in this campaign, a key indictment of Bush’s record and more than relevant to any debate. For four years, this president has tried to make gay people invisible, to avoid any mention of us, to pretend we don’t exist. Well, we do. Right in front of him.

EMAIL OF THE DAY II: “I agree with your assessment of the humanity conveyed by Bush this evening. But for me this was a transition from loathing an arrogant man who isolates himself to seeing a man who finally has realized that he may lose and has to answer to the American people. I question whether he has ever truly felt that before. Tonight he almost seemed overcome by it. The recent article in TNR, “Legend in His Own Mind”, by Noam Scheiber, portrays Bush as man manipulated by those around him who play to his egotistical and ritualistic tendencies. I saw a different Bush tonight. A Bush, who perhaps for the first time since the beginning of his presidency, was truly questioning himself. He seemed unsure of himself and because of that open to new ideas. To me, that made him stronger. But he is four years too late. Kerry questions himself all the time. Call it flip-flopping if you like. I call it strength. And I am voting for Kerry.” Much more feedback on the Letters Page.

“I wonder if anyone will remark on a curious redux of the 2000 debates. Something that makes you wonder if turnabout is fair play.
One of the main criticisms directed at Gore during the 2000 debates – and rightfully so – was that, with each change of venue, Gore changed his approach, fueling an impression that nobody knew the ‘real’ Al Gore. First he was the condescending sigher. Then subdued to the point of sleep inducement. Then back on the attack. They were widely varying performances. Will swing voters note the same of Bush in 2004? In the first debate, all grimaces and discomfort. The second, an aggressive attack dog. Third, that lovable guy with the goofy grin (how many times did he direct it at Bob Schieffer after answering a question, displaying again that southern confidence in its power?). Do we know the real George Bush?”

First, where Bush scored. He did so much better on social than on economic questions. When he spoke about his own faith and prayer, he was genuine without betraying an ounce of the sanctimony so common in others. On abortion, he has the abstract lingo down cold. On marriage, he has also perfected the art of seeming inclusive of the people he is intending to exclude (while never mentioning them). But on both issues, he came off as a moderate last night. He never spoke of banning abortion; he artfully said he simply didn’t know whether homosexuality is a choice; he even framed a constitutional amendment as a means to facilitate civic discussion. (Hey, let’s have dozens of constitutional amendments if that’s the case.) These were clearly not answers designed to rally his base. He’s done that enough already. But Bush was by far his best on the women in his life. He was funny, humane and must have scored extremely well with women voters. That response was a home run. But there were obvious weaknesses as well. At the beginning, he was too animated, too petulant, banging his hand up and down on the lectern like a schoolboy demanding attention. To be blunt, he seemed and seems less presidential than Kerry. He’s more excitable, less knowledgeable, and, in the way he pronounces sentences with the wrong emphasis invariably on the wrong noun, can come off as condescending when he’s not just just weird. Some of his pat lines – “retreat and defeat in Iraq,” “a mainstream in American politics and my opponent is way on the left bank” – seemed, well, scripted and forced. He reached for them as if for a life-raft.

CATCHING THE FLU: His worst moment came when responding to the flu vaccine question. The shortage is an obvious government screw-up. He merely described it. He took no responsibility for it; and his response was to tell people not to get the shot if they don’t have to. Not smooth. And it was a metaphor for his refusal to be held accountable for anything. Then there was his literal rendition of not being held accountable for anything: when asked who was responsible for higher healthcare costs, he joked, “Well I hope it’s not my administration’s.” His record is not good enough, to put it mildly, to be cracking jokes like that. I was also a little baffled by his notion that the healthcare industry is still in the “buggy and horse” stage in technology. Maybe I misheard him. But he was flailing at that point. He only really annoyed me when he repeated that Kerry has said he will give foreign countries a veto over foreign policy. Kerry has denied it a zillion times. Doesn’t the president at some point have to stop saying what is the opposite of the recorded truth? Bush also said that the bulk of his taxes went to the middle class. I’m amazed his nose didn’t grow a couple of inches on the spot.

DUMB KERRY: As for Kerry, he had two awful answers. The worst was on marriage. Yes, he’s honest enough to say outright that being gay is not a choice. But when you want to illustrate that, it’s more than a litlle dumb to pick the tiny number of gay men or lesbians who have gotten married to the opposite gender and then regretted it. Yes, it’s a logical example – but it gives the impression you’re hostile to straight marriages, provides a rare example of actual choice – leaving a woman for a man – and muddies the waters. Kerry also failed to nail Bush not on marriage but on going to the extreme of a constitutional amendment. Bush won the exchange hands down, much to my chagrin. Kerry also – finally! – got walloped on the first Gulf War. About bloody time, Mr Bush.

CONSERVATIVE KERRY: But the big surprise is that Kerry clearly won the exchanges on fiscal discipline, guns and immigration. I sat slack-jawed as I watched Kerry clearly seem touger on illegal immigrants than Bush! This is Bush’s big weakness with his base – and he didn’t help himself. Kerry was able to use the ban on AK-47s to buttress his tough stance on terrorism. Again: great move. On fiscal matters, Bush was destroyed. He simply has no credible answer on deficits or spending. Kerry’s insistence on pay-as-you-go, his reminder of his support for balancing the budget in the 1990s, and his great “Tony Soprano” line was enough to dispense with the president. He was also smart to give an instance of standing up to the left in his answer on “outsourcing:” a twofer. On healthcare, it was a draw. Over all, Kerry seemed defensive and unsure on social issues, but far more commanding on economic ones.

THE GOLD WATCH NARRATIVE: Taken as a whole, the debate both melted some of Bush’s hard edges, while keeping Kerry as the man with more presidential manner. Indeed, over the three debates, Kerry has seemed the most even-keeled emotionally, the most constant, the least prone to turning up in a different guise each time. But, after a disastrous start and a middling second debate, last night Bush pulled out his frat president persona and charmed people again. That does and will matter. Nevertheless, we live in dire times and frat presidents may not be the best choice in such circumstances. One reason I think Bush has slid in the polls recently is that he has simply seemed a little out of his depth in these debates – and that’s the last thing we need in a nerve-wracking war. Kerry’s liberalism emerged more strongly last night, and that may play against him in the next few weeks. But he didn’t lose his calm; his graciousness toward the president was a sign of underlying strength and self-confidence in the debate; and he seemed trustworthy in a very old-fashioned kind of way. Stylistically, he was the conservative. And the message that sends is that it’s safe to switch leaders. You don’t have to demonize them to move on from them. You can even, as Kerry did, praise them. But that very dynamic suggests a certain logic to this election: “Thanks, Mr President, and good-bye.” Bush now has to fight very hard to reverse that logic.