Posted on 08/07/2004 8:16:33 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Excellent. Thanks for the ping. I have seen you around on FR, but I hadn't realized what a good writer and debater you are. I am now very impressed with your column.
I love you.
That's a copoout. The crux of your entire article is that the records are in the Pentagon (unless 9/11 torched them, BTW), and if it were a Republican - when it was Republican GWB - a cry for the candidate's signature to release them would be overwhelming.But journalism is doing its job. Not the job they say they do - their claims of objectivity are mere PR - but the job that they are getting paid to do. They are paid to attack anyone who can't hit back, anyone who doesn't buy ink by the truckload or behave as a sycophant to those who do.
"Objective journalism" is a PR protection racket. No one who won't buy off its threat can be elected unless like Reagan they are able to face it down and beat it at its own PR game.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Media bias bump.
Question for you: What strategy would have had a chance of working for Jean Fraude?
He can't run on his anti-war record, or his Senatorial record. From a national perspective he's clearly unelectable on those. From a national perspective he saw a chance running on his Vietnam record, and his narcissism was reinforced by the fact that he's gotten away with that record, albeit a fabricated one, for more than three decades. In addition, he had hopes that running on his Vietnam record would immunize him from his distasteful anti-war record. He also knew that the lamestream media would crawl through broken glass to cover up for him.
Anyway I look at him, Jean Fraude comes out unelectable. I derive great satisfaction knowing that the hate Bushers, most of whom reek with unAmericanism, unceremoniously dumped Howie Dean because he was unelectable only to select someone who may be even more unelectable.
I hope you're right, but thus far the numbers just aren't moving. American politics in 2004 are more partisan than at any time since the Civil War. Twenty five years ago, these sorts of charges that have gone wholly unanswered by Kerry would have cost him high-level support amongst patriotic Democrats. These people no longer exist.
The 8% of the population that are actually swing voters don't seem to care either. The numbers aren't moving. America is set to elect a stone liar to the Presidency, and a man with virtually no platform and no clear idea on how to win the war, or whether he even wants to win it. Frankly I'm scared.
Will he? Will the press pursue him? I see little evidence of it thus far. And I see no evidence that Kerry's voters care whether he's a liar or not. What does the swing voter think? Do they even know?
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
KERRY: American soldiers had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephone to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
Wouldn't it be nice if all the fine people that served this county in Vietnam got their good names back. And by the way Democrats 12.5% of those killed in Vietnam were black. So a good number of blacks must have done what Kerry describes above. Isn't that racist from the Democratic view?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.