Influential Democrat Promises Dirty Tricks Forthcoming

They’re really melting down – first (timeline anyway) this, then Kerry last night – I guess the new poll numbers showing Bush with an 11% lead show why (I still maintain polls this far out don’t tell you much).

This woman is a law professor at USC, and worked for the Dukakis campaign back in 1988 [Update: She was campaign manager for the Dukakis presidential campaign in 1988] - she mouths the unproved charges that Bush is linked to Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, and promises retribution (By the way, as an aside, what’s not to love about referencing unsubstantiated deathbed confessions to buttress one’s argument?):

by Susah Estrich

My Democratic friends are mad as hell, and they aren’t going to take it any more.

They are worried, having watched as another August smear campaign, full of lies and half-truths, takes its toll in the polls.

They are frustrated, mostly at the Kerry campaign, for naively believing that just because all the newspapers and news organizations that investigated the charges of the Swift Boat assassins found them to be full of lies and half-truths, they wouldn’t take their toll. The word on the street is that Kerry himself was ready to fire back the day the story broke, but that his campaign, believing the charges would blow over if they ignored them, counseled restraint.

But most of all, activists Democrats are angry. As one who lived through an August like this, 16 years ago – replete with rumors that were lies, which the Bush campaign claimed they had nothing to do with and later admitted they had planted – I’m angry, too. I’ve been to this movie. I know how it works. Lies move numbers.

Remember the one about Dukakis suffering from depression after he lost the governorship? (Dukakis not crazy, more at 11.) We lost six points over that lie, planted by George W.'s close friend and colleague in the 1988 campaign, Lee Atwater. Or how about the one about Kitty Dukakis burning a flag at an antiwar demonstration, another out-and-out lie, which the Bush campaign denied having anything to do with, except that it turned out to have come from a United States senator via the Republican National Committee? Lee Atwater later apologized to me for that, too, on his deathbed. Did I mention that Lee’s wife is connected to the woman running the Swift Boat campaign?

Never again, we said then.

Not again, Democrats are saying now.

What do you do, Democrats keep asking each other.

The answer is not pretty, but everyone knows what it is.

In 1988, in the days before the so-called independent groups, the candidate called the shots. To Michael Dukakis’ credit, depending on how you look at it, he absolutely refused to get into the gutter, even to answer the charges. His theory, like that of some on the Kerry staff, was that answering such charges would only elevate them, give them more attention than they deserved. He thought the American people wanted to hear about issues, not watch a mud-wrestling match. In theory, he was right. In practice, the sad truth is that smears work – that if you throw enough mud, some of it is bound to stick.

You can’t just answer the charges. You can’t just say it ain’t so.

You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt.

The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we’re not mean enough. Dukakis wasn’t. I wasn’t. I don’t particularly like destroying people. I got into politics because of issues, not anger. But too much is at stake to play by Dukakis rules, and lose again.

That is the conclusion Democrats have reached. So watch out. Millions of dollars will be on the table. And there are plenty of choices for what to spend it on.

I’m not promising pretty.

What will it be?

Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up? (Bush’s Texas record has been sealed. Now why would that be? Who seals a perfect driving record?)

After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment. Could Dick Cheney get a license to drive a school bus with his record of drunken driving? (I can see the ad now.) A job at a nuclear power plant? Is any alcoholic ever really cured? So why put him in the most stressful job in the world, with a war going south, a thousand Americans already dead and control of weapons capable of destroying the world at his fingertips.

It has been said that in the worst of times, Kissinger gave orders to the military not to obey Nixon if he ordered a first strike. What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president?

Or how about Dead Texans for Truth, highlighting those who served in Vietnam instead of the privileged draft-dodging president, and ended up as names on the wall instead of members of the Air National Guard. I’m sure there are some mothers out there who are still mourning their sons, and never made that connection. It wouldn’t be so hard to find them.

Or maybe it will be Texas National Guardsmen for Truth, who can explain exactly what George W. Bush was doing while John Kerry was putting his life on the line. So far, all W. can do is come up with dental records to prove that he met his obligations. Perhaps with money on the table, or investigators on their trail, we will learn just what kind of wild and crazy things the president was doing while Kerry was saving a man’s life, facing enemy fire and serving his country.

Or could it be George Bush’s Former Female Friends for Truth. A forthcoming book by Kitty Kelly raises questions about whether the president has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion. As Larry Flynt discovered, a million dollars loosens lips. Are there others to be loosened?

Are you shocked? Not fair? Who said anything about fair? Remember President Dukakis? He was very fair. Now he teaches at Northeastern University. John Kerry has been very fair in dealing with the Swift Boat charges. That’s why so many of my Democrat friends have decided to stop talking to the campaign, and start putting money together independently.

The arrogant little Republican boys who have been strutting around New York this week, claiming that they have this one won, would do well to take a step back. It could be a long and ugly road to November.

To find out more about Susan Estrich, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2004 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Originally Published on Wednesday September 1, 2004

I fully expect a dirty campaign. Why would this election be any different than most others.

Four years ago the democrats brought out the DUI Bush had just two days from the election. This year you have the swift boat group…I really hate that stuff and so wish they would debate the issues.

Susan Estrich is much easier to read than she is to listen to.

Have you ever heard her talk? Like fingernails on the chalkboard.

The worst things Democrats could do to themselves is go after Cheney, only to have him step down and be replaced with McCain or Guliani.

Do you think the Swiftboat ads will be the 2004 version of the Willie Horton ads thank sunk Dukakis in 1988?

Seems to me that, regardless of the trash the dems will try to come up with, the swiftboat ads will be the millstone around Kerry’s neck - especially if he insists on running as a war hero.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Do you think the Swiftboat ads will be the 2004 version of the Willie Horton ads thank sunk Dukakis in 1988?[/quote]

Really? You think bush lite is as sleezy as his daddy? I do, but I’m kind of surprised to hear if from someone like the rainman.

[quote]
Seems to me that, regardless of the trash the dems will try to come up with, the swiftboat ads will be the millstone around Kerry’s neck - especially if he insists on running as a war hero. [/quote]

You’re probably right here. Unless the Kerry campaign is willing to sink to Rove’s level, they won’t be able to come up with enough mud to matter. Rove is a total piece of shit who will always go for the knees, no matter how low that means he has to go. That’s why georgieboy has relied on him all these years.

Well that and the hummers of course, but there are no cigars involved so they don’t really count. If Laura wasn’t too prudish to slobber on the knob once and a while we probably wouldn’t even be in this mess now. Karl wouldn’t be providing that “need” for georgie, and politics would be a whole lot cleaner.

[quote]tme wrote:

Well that and the hummers of course, but there are no cigars involved so they don’t really count. If Laura wasn’t too prudish to slobber on the knob once and a while we probably wouldn’t even be in this mess now. Karl wouldn’t be providing that “need” for georgie, and politics would be a whole lot cleaner.
[/quote]

I love the smell Democratic desperation in the morning!!!

What strikes me about the whole Swiftees debacle is this:

John Kerry could defuse the whole thing by simply replying to the charges. By releasing his military records in whole, instead of bits & pieces that seem to support his version of events, he could perhaps prove the Swiftees are lying. Instead, he does not refute the claims, he merely accuses Bush of being behind them. That sounds rather fishy to me.

I also must wonder how one man could be in-country for only four months, in combat for three, and have so many people who apparently hate his guts. My husband has been USN for 12 years, and I doubt you could find enough people who hate him to make up a squad.

I do not, however, think Kerry will have a Dukakis-like implosion. I think he will fall prey to the same thing Gore did. There’s no definition to John Kerry. No one knows what he stands for~~not even other Democrats. While there are people in this country who hate Bush, I doubt the “anyone but W” crowd is extensive enough to get John Kerry elected.

tme,

Wow, that post was low for even you!

BellaLinda:

Couldn’t have said it better myself. =-)

[quote]BellaLinda wrote:
There’s no definition to John Kerry. No one knows what he stands for~~not even other Democrats. While there are people in this country who hate Bush, I doubt the “anyone but W” crowd is extensive enough to get John Kerry elected. [/quote]

Oh, there’s a definition of who John Kerry is - just look at his 19-year record in Congress.

I think he will have a very hard time defining himself in a way that will appeal to the center.

She misses the point. The truthfulness of the ads isn’t the issue.

The issue is how does a man who wants to be commander in cheif respond to what he claims is a dastardly attack.

Kerry hasn’t handled this attack any better than he would handle an attack by Alqeada or North Korea.

Interesting –

I would assume Russell Feingold knows the provisions of the McCain Feingold Act, and according to his website, one would think that the Democrat 527s (and the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth) would not be prohibited from running even “issue ads”, because we are now within 60 days of the election - and note the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment applies specifically to 527s and 501(c)(4)'s, which are the two dominant types of orgs that have been organized:

Relevant Excerpt:

Restrictions on “Phony Issue Ads” Run by Corporations and Unions (The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment). First adopted as part of McCain-Feingold during the Senate?s February 1998 campaign finance debate, the Snowe-Jeffords amendment addresses the explosion of thinly-veiled campaign advertising funded by corporate and union treasuries. These ads skirt federal election law by avoiding the use of direct entreaties to “vote for” or “vote against” a particular candidate. Under the bill, labor unions and corporations would be prohibited from spending their treasury funds on “electioneering communications.” “Electioneering communications” are defined as radio or TV ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate or candidates and appear within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. This definition does not include any printed communication, direct mail, voter guides, or the Internet. It would also not cover issue advertising that does not identify a specific candidate or appears outside of the 30/60 day pre-election window.

The Snowe-Jeffords amendment applies to 501(c)(4) non-profit corporations and incorporated 527 organizations, but should that coverage be thrown out in court, the bill prevents unions or corporations from laundering funds through non-profits to make electioneering communications. Furthermore, the bill requires any individual or organization legally making electioneering communications to disclose both its spending and its large donors.

The Snowe-Jeffords amendment treats corporations and unions fairly and equally. It does not prohibit any election ad, since all such entities remain free to pay for any ad with money contributed to their political action committees. But this amendment will prevent corporate and union treasury money from being spent to influence elections.


Once again, check with OpenSecrets.org to find info on the various organizations:

Here’s a link to the actual text of McCain-Feingold:

http://www.fecwatch.org/law/statutes/publaw107-155.pdf

Unfortunately, it’s a pdf, and I’m too lazy to type the relevant provisions.

However, refer to Section 201(a) for the definition of “Electioneering Communication” - the definition contains the 60 day time restriction.

It appears, from closer examination of Section 203, that the specific restriction is not applicable to 527s and 504(c)(4)'s if the organizations do not use money from corporations or unions, so money from individuals may still be spent on the commercials.

Still, in the past, it’s been predominantly unions who have run the commercials – I guess if George Soros and Susan Estrich’s friends give enough money as individuals they can still fund some of the commercials she threatened, but without access to the union warchests you have to wonder how committed the individuals will be in terms of providing funds.

Looks like it’s beginning – I guess you don’t need to spend a whole lot of money when the major media are pulling for one candidate to win:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002430.php

September 04, 2004
More To Ben Barnes Than Meets The (CBS) Eye

60 Minutes plans on running an “expose’” on Sunday night regarding George Bush’s assignment to the Texas Air National Guard. Ben Barnes, former Lieutenant Governor of Texas, will tell CBS audiences that he arranged for Bush’s assignment, expecting that the Bush family would be grateful for the assistance even though no one asked him for his help. CBS also will tie in the fact that Bush had a drinking problem at the time, although Bush himself admitted that years ago.

But McQ at QandO (an invaluable neolibertarian blog) wondered about who Ben Barnes is and whether he has any connections to John Kerry. Certainly the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been tarred with the contributions of Bob Perry, who gave them $200,000 in contributions. That led to all sorts of Rube Goldberg charting at the New York Times, trying to tie Republican policymakers to the Swiftvets. It began to resemble a boring game of Six Degrees of Separation.

Fortunately, we don’t have to go six degrees with Ben Barnes. Capital Eye, which tracks political contributions to candidates, finds that Ben Barnes is a lot closer to Kerry than that.

http://www.capitaleye.org/KerryFRchart.11.13.03.asp

Take a look at the top three individual fundraisers for John Kerry between 1999-2003:

Contributor…Total 1999-2002…2004 Cycle
Alan Solomont…$612,327…$82,500
Orin Kramer…$425,835…$83,500
Ben Barnes…$389,750…$74,500

If the Swiftees are less credible because they took a contribution from a common contributor to Republicans, then Ben Barnes’ status as the third largest contributor to John Kerry’s campaigns should render any testimony from him completely invalid.

Do you think that the Tiffany Network will mention Ben Barnes’ finance connections to John Kerry when discussing his testimony regarding George Bush, in that he has half a million reasons to make up bogus charges against the President? Not likely. Had they done any kind of vetting about their character assassination, it wouldn’t be going on the air tomorrow night.

UPDATE: Blogspirator has more on Ben Barnes http://blogspirator.blogspot.com/2004/08/exclusive-dirt-on-ben-barnes-claims.html

– much more http://blogspirator.blogspot.com/2004/08/exclusive-dirt-on-ben-barnes-claims_29.html

And more here, too. Former Texas Commish Hits the Jackpot

Not dirty enough to make a difference.

BB,

I doubt very much that CBS will make an issue of Ben Barnes obvious political agenda.

Do you know why I’m not up in arms about the obvious double-standard?

Bush will win despite the liberal press.

CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are losing more and more of their market share. People are voting with their controllers.

Thanks to some of the posts on this forum, I have begun to watch more and more FOX news.

Thanks,

JeffR

Zeb, I think you’re correct – but, I foresee increasing dirtiness as this stuff doesn’t move the polls.

No doubt BB! The democrats do not want to lose another one. Therefore, they (or a like minded group) will pull every dirty trick in the book in order to make President Bush look bad.

The problem might be that everything has already been tried on him the first time around. He was in the Gurard, instead of serving in Viet Nam…DUI…bla bla bla. It think everyone knows it all and really it matters not.

Then again, Moore could make another film and show that Bush and Osama are really twins separated at birth. Some of the liberals on this forum might just believe that. Well, a couple of them might.

Jeff –

For at least one of the nights of the RNC, Fox was saying that its numbers beat the 3 networks COMBINED audiences – for the others, it almost did, and Fox News doubled NBC, which was the biggest of the 3 networks.