The Dish

We have several stories in major papers in Britain on the alleged Kerry story. Some interesting angles. The conservative Telegraph suggests the following:

Democratic sources blamed the allegation on Republican “dirty tricks”. They said it marked the long-expected start of a campaign from the Right to smear the frontrunner and damage his chances of fighting a strong campaign against President George W Bush.

I don’t see any evidence of this at all, despite my reader’s worries yesterday. (I’m even beginning, in my paranoid moments, to wonder if that email was a plant. It reads a little too convincingly. Was I being set up by some Democratic activist to promote the new Dem line? I have no idea. But I’m ready to believe anything in this town.) In fact, it now turns out that the first blog reference to the story – which I linked to yesterday – was made by a man who worked for Wesley Clark. (Hat tip: Jonah.) Of course, that might mean nothing, as well. The story is on the front-page of the Times of London, which I think means it’s arrived globally. Oddly, it’s not in the Guardian. Maybe they think it’s a Republican plot as well. This is another new feature of the Internet, isn’t it? The English-speaking media are fusing somewhat – it’s so easy to click and read – so the number of “serious” English-speaking outlets increases the odds of any rumor story going mainstream. To recap: the food-chain is Clark or “X” blabbing to Washington reporters off-the-record; said reporters spilling to Drudge; Drudge to the blogs; then the Brits get to write about an “Internet scandal,” which loops back to Drudge. And now … Imus. Dizzy yet?

SILVER LINING WATCH: “Well, this is a good test for the general election. The Kerry campaign will have to swiftly respond to this stuff, and get Time, ABC, etc. to contradict Drudge. Otherwise, we have no chance against the Bush slime machine in the fall.” – an optimist on the John Kerry blog forum.

I’ll be on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” this weekend with Howie Kurtz, on the Michael Medved radio show from 4 – 5 pm ET, and, as of last night, due to be on the Newshour on PBS this evening.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran a dry but challenging piece by Martin Feldstein. It’s behind a subscriber firewall, alas. It’s a piece that essentially argues that the spending increases we have seen under Bush are, in fact, Clinton’s fault. Here’s the critical paragraph:

The appropriations for discretionary spending outside defense and homeland security rose 16% in the final Clinton budget, propelling future spending on these programs. The Bush administration reduced the growth of these appropriations to 9.2% in 2002 and then to 2.7% in 2003 and 2004. As a result, such appropriations fell from 3.5% of GDP in the first Bush budget to 3.3% in 2004 (including all supplemental appropriations.) The president’s latest budget proposes to keep the 2004 dollar amount unchanged in 2005, implying a decline to less than 3.2% of GDP. Despite these tight controls on appropriations, the earlier appropriations caused actual outlays to rise 12.3% in 2002 and kept their growth at 5.8% in 2004. This long-term effect of past appropriations shows that bringing spending under control requires the passage of time as well as tough budget choices.

I’m afraid I don’t know what this means. Does he mean that the Republican Congress under Clinton increased proposed spending so much that it took a few years for the government to actually spend the money? And that therefore the Bush administration doesn’t deserve the blame for the money it actually spent? Is that a good analysis or the weakest excuse you ever heard? And that 16 percent figure is a new one to me. Should it be 15 percent? Nevertheless, Feldstein ignores the new Medicare entitlement, and warns that “tight spending controls” are needed now, as well as “reforms” of Social Security and Medicare. But the reform of Social Security will cost a huge amount; and the latest Medicare “reform” will cost trillions. I was hoping to be reassured by this piece. Alas, I’m mainly puzzled.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I really enjoyed listening to you on Boston’s NPR tonight. After listening to the Christian Coalition spokesman tonight, I write in what I suppose is a defense of Evangelicals — we’re not all like that. I’m 20 years old, a senior at a large (liberal) public university, straight, female, an evangelical christian, a conservative, and a vehement supporter of civil gay marriage. I’ve been involved in theatre and the arts for most of my life, and have known and loved a number of gays, and seen the war waged on them by the religious right, which is what brings me to this fight anyway…
I was once walking across campus and found myself trying to navigate between a group of LGBT folks and the Fred Phelps psychos, and I thought “If I have to pick sides here, whose side do I stand on?” and it was without question with the LGBT folks. I’m willing to cede gay marriage because it’s practical, and because I dream of the day that gay people don’t automatically assume that Christians are out to get them. What Jesus has to offer is for everyone, not just heteros, and in any case, he never sought to change the laws of his culture, he set out to change people. And he hung out with the beautiful people that made the Pharisees uncomfortable. I still have issues with gay marriage in the church (if I thought I could rationalize it with the Bible, I’d support it in a heartbeat, but as much as it kills me, I can’t) but as far as I’m concerned, if you want to marry the man you love at the courthouse (or wherever, really), that’s fine by me. The amazing thing is that most of my conservative Christian friends agree with me on civil marriage for various reasons. We’re not all the Christian Coalition.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

A reader writes:

“I can see where Jonah is coming from, jumping your case about posting an impressively detailed letter speculating about Republican involvement; and I am amused by Lucianne’s reply; and if you hear from Rube, I suppose that ends the matter.

As for Lucianne and the VRWC, could this be an opening shot of the TRWC (tiny right wing conspiracy)? It all seems like such a hall of mirrors at this point, and once through, who the hell cares? To throw a final mirror into play, what if it originates from the Kerry camp itself – i.e. self-false-smearing, to further the image of strength in the face of adversity. I’m waiting to see someone suggest that.

What useless twaddle.”

Rube, are you out there?

Goldberg, that is:

You can set your readers’ minds at ease. As the mother of the VRWC I can assure you we had absolutely nothing to do with the Kerry rumor. Time will tell where it came from.

Indeed.

I have absolutely no idea where this Kerry story came from. I posted the letter below because it strikes me as a slightly new angle on the story and worth airing. I wrote that the possibility that some Republicans might be behind it worries me. That’s not the same thing as believing it’s true. I think it should worry anyone who doesn’t want this campaign to degenerate into one side yelling “Deserter!” and the other side yelling “Adulterer!” (Can it get any worse? Gulp.) If I had to guess, I’d say it strikes me as far more likely that this is a Lehane internecine Democratic smear than some Republican plot. But I don’t know. Perhaps the best idea at this point is for me (and others) to shut up. So I will. Unless and until there’s a real story with real facts that has actual merit. Promise.

I’m beginning to worry that the Republicans might be behind this smear-job on Kerry. So does a reader:

“Well, this may be it. As a life-long Republican, I have defended my party and its leaders through thick and thin over the years, but I don’t know if I can do it any longer. I voted for Reagan in 1984 (my first Presidential election), despite my misgivings about the rising influence of the Religious Right and my displeasure at the ludicrous budget deficits, because of his moral clarity on the issue of Communism. I voted for Bush Sr. in ’88 and ’92, and for Dole in ’96. Both were serious men, deserving of respect. Nevertheless, I was disgusted by the conduct of my party in the 1990s, vis-a-vis the Clinton scandals. That man has no moral compass, in my opinion, but the debased and lurid tone of the Republican attacks was reprehensible. The further intrusion of the Religious Right into the private lives of the American people, including the President, was not what I signed on for when I joined the Republican party.

When 2000 rolled around, and the “Clinton Wars” finally seemed to be behind us, I breathed an enormous sigh of relief. I was not overly impressed with George W. Bush (I voted for McCain in the primaries), but I was confident that the “grown ups” in the party would steer a responsible course for the ship of state. That has obviously not happened. The budget deficits are nigh unforgivable, and though I agree entirely with the vision of the President’s foreign policy, the diplomatic execution has been, shall we say, somewhat less impressive than his father’s. Further, the proposal to reverse the course of history and once again enshrine discrimination in our Constitution via the Gay Marriage Amendment, about which you have spoken quite eloquently, almost makes me embarassed to admit I’m a Republican. This is what the party of Lincoln has come to?

Now, after all this, it appears that the conservative/Republican diaspora is preparing yet another round of peeping-tom character assassination rather than a substantive debate on the very important issues our country actually faces, using Drudge as its point-man. I just can’t take it anymore. I realize the feelings of one person are irrelevant in political calculations at this level, but if the Republicans really do take us back down the Lewinsky path, this is one vote they will most assuredly be losing in November.”

I agree. If the Republicans are behind this, they deserve to be trashed. This is absolutely not something that deserves to be a factor in our current debate.

An old Boston Herald story has been unearthed by Mickey.

On the alleged Kerry scandal. Hat tip: Glenn. I guess I should say two things: I do not give a damn about Kerry’s private life and do not believe that it should be a part of this campaign. But the deeper point is that the internet has ended any semblance of a barrier between respectable news and gossip. Once Drudge has posted, the story is public. This is an awful development, but it is real. I should also say: I know of no hard evidence that this rumor is even faintly true. But true or not, if the Republicans planted it, they should be excoriated. If a rival Democratic candidate did, ditto.

“It’s never too early to change the world — women interns are our future!” I got this from Taranto – which means the Kerry intern story has now been aired by the Wall Street Journal. It took a few hours to go from Drudge to the WSJ Online.