Posted on 08/12/2004 9:09:45 PM PDT by Jenya
The Swift Boat Blues
The partisans are running wild over this Swift Boat business, talk radio is crazy with it and the smell of blood is in the air. John Kerry has made a major deal of his Vietnam War record and now his opponents have opened fire on the Senator's experiences. It's all tawdry and distasteful of course, but let's examine things unemotionally.
First off, I believe Jim Rassmann when he says that Kerry saved his life by pulling him out of a Vietnam river while under fire. Rassmann is a former Green Beret, a former police officer and a long time registered Republican until earlier this year. If he says John Kerry is a hero, nobody should doubt it. Rassmann has earned the right to be trusted and insulting his testimony is way out of line.
But I also believe Steve Gardner, a former Navy gunner who was also present on one of Kerry's Swift Boats. He says the Senator wrote up a false report, neglecting to inform the Navy that he, Gardner, had accidentally shot a Vietnamese child during a firefight. This is a tough one. Gardner is implicating himself and has no reason to do so. But perhaps Kerry was looking out for him by not reporting the incident. Only Kerry knows.
It is very possible to perform heroically on some occasions and do less than admirable things on others. All human beings are flawed and we are capable of both valor and deceit. That's what I think happened here. John Kerry was brave, but was also calculating. His heroism impressed most of his Swift Boat mates, but his civilian anti-war activities and perceived grandstanding also alienated many other Vietnam Vets. And so the battle lines are drawn.
What should we, on the sidelines, make of all this? Well, it's a judgment call. It is absolutely wrong for Americans to condemn Kerry's war record because he demonstrated provable valor. However, those who distrust him do deserve to be heard although facts not emotion should be demanded.
I think the Swift Boat political advertisement calling Kerry a charlatan is in poor taste, and if this kind of thing continues it might well backfire on the Kerry haters. Most Americans are fair minded, and bitter personal attacks do not go down well with folks who are not driven by partisanship. Remember, General Wesley Clark was knocked out of the Presidential sweepstakes when he would not disown Michael Moore's insane remark that President Bush was a "deserter." Mr. Bush received an honorable discharge from the National Guard. Admiral Elmo Zumwalt pinned a medal on John Kerry's chest. The record is the record, unless rock solid proof refutes it.
The lesson here is that blind partisanship is not an attribute. No person or candidate is all good or all bad. In America today, with both sides peddling lies and defamation and spin, it is alarmingly difficult just to get simple facts on which to base a responsible vote.
Somewhere Jack Webb is weeping.
Bonaparte, drop it.
You're far more conservative than O'Reilly, and you're reading a lot more liberalism into his stances than is there.
FDR was one of the last great Democrats, and I think he would be appalled by the turn to the far left that Democrats have taken. In the last century, there are only two defining men, FDR and JFK. FDR changed the political landscape. (Centrist)
Religion. Conservatism isn't only about Christianity. It is about having a strong conviction about certain values that have a high regard for life, family, and country. Anyone who believes in something that imparts that conviction is conservative. (Conservative)
Ah, the Death Penalty - the death penalty needs to be reviewed for its effectiveness. The lag time between conviction and execution does not help. I support the death penalty myself, I want a smaller lag time. OReilly takes a different stance, but when you consider that so many of our death row inmates sit around forever before execution, it might as well have been a life sentence rather than a death sentence. Conservatism is about effective government, and an ineffective death penalty is a problem. On this, OReilly is a centrist.
State rights over Federal rights. O'Reilly is definitely a centrist with left leanings here. But there must always be a flow of responsibilities between the state and the federal government. They should be in competition to do better for the American people. If the states aren't living up to their end of the bargain, the Federal government should step and threaten to take it away if the state doesn't shape up. Remember the Civil War? It came down to that, and the Federal Government had to step in and set things right. Civil Rights? Once again, some states wouldn't step up to the plate, and the Feds stepped in and set it right. Marriage? If the states continue to equivocate on this and don't define marriage in their constitutions, then the Federal Government is going to have to step in. But there is also the flow backward to the states, which occurs when States say that they can handle certain things better than the Feds. It doesn't happen often but it should happen more often. On this item, OReilly is left of center, but just barely.
You didn't mention abortion, which is OReilly's most liberal stance. He is pro-choice. But there are qualifications on his pro-choice stance that move him from liberal to centrist. He wants restrictions on obtaining abortions, and he wants an education/awareness program that emphasizes abortions as a human rights issue (morals). He wants to reduce the need for abortions by changing people's views on it, making women more responsible for their bodies so they don't get pregnant, even accidentally. You know, combination of male and female contraceptives between consenting adults. So if one fails, the other will stop a pregnancy. If both fail, the chances of that are so low... it would be almost inconceivable. Or if a woman uses two types of contraception, barrier, and birth control medication, then chances are further reduced, and men should always wear rubbers. OReilly is definitely a centrist on this issue, not a liberal. A liberal wants unfettered abortion rights for women, and we all know that is wrong.
So OReilly is left of you, but not liberal. He views the extreme views of the liberals to be dangerous and wrong, and even if he doesn't see eye to eye with you, he serves an important job of presenting the best case to be a moderate to many moderate Americans. Far right conservatives frighten moderates into the arms of liberals, and when that happens people like Clinton get elected.
So can it. OReilly is part of the enemy camp. He is part of an allied camp with the right conservatives. He is a centrist-conservative. He has progressive (centrist) ideas but conservative methodology, which means when the chips are down he leans right, if not too far.
You know OReilly is on the "right" team because liberals hate him. So, he's a flavor of conservative you dislike. Get over it. The far right conservatives will never convert the moderates to conservative voting. Moderates only listen to other moderates and liberals. Let's keep OReilly out there for the conservative team, and try not to force him over to the other side by attacking him. He'd be dangerous to the "right" if he ever took it into his head to sponsor the liberal agenda, just like he's a danger to the "left" so long as he sponsors the gist of the conservative agenda.
As for not labeling himself as conservative? He has a tv show called the no-spin zone. If he had that label and endorsed it, he'd lose his credibility and his job, and we'd lose the anchor many moderates have on centrist conservatism. Think about it Bonaparte and put your poisoned pills away.
Exactly!
Mr. O'Bloviator -- you nailed him!
He doesn't do his homework and rants on subjects he knows very little about.
He rarely misses an opportunity to slam "partisans" and "talk radio," by which he means Rush.
He is so jealous of Rush he can barely contain himself, but Rush DOES his homework and has the credibility O'Reilly lacks.
Thanks for the ping!
Bottom line: Where was Rassman??
I'm sure Mr. O'Reilly will now note that the Swift Vets have refuted the "Christmas in Cambodia" story, and Kerry has "corrected" the "record".
All with no help from the no-spin zone.
I was an avid fan of this BS for years but o'reilly showed his true colors on the moore interview as he was reaching for the colon to ensure that this fat POS looked good and now this.
Funny how kerry has all of the creditability on this but the 250 veterens have none. His tired crap of we don't know because we were not there, if applied to any other topic he discusses, would indicate that we really cannot report or discuss any topic unless we were actually there.
What a moron.
Bill said he was glad this story is dying out. He should heed his own opinion, and STFU about it, and move on to what HE thinks is important.
Has Rassmann been interviewed in person on any shows?
And, Kerry's sycophants are trying to bring Rassmann's background in to attest to his veracity. i.e.: 30 year Los Angeles policeman.
O'Reilly is a mirror image of Kerry. They merely took different career paths.
First, nobody tells me to let anything go. Second, you don't know what you're talking about.
Here's a little history lesson on the origins of the saying, Jump The Shark. Do a little research before you attempt to give anyone marching orders. http://www.jumptheshark.com/
The saying is based on a Happy Days episode where Fonzie "jumped a shark" while water skiing. The ratings of Happy Days went downhill, shrply, after that episode (but not necessarily because of it). TIme will tell the point at which O'Reilly has "jumped the shark." The ratings tell the entire tale, and can only be viewed in retrospective.
I don't watch him much. Tend to turn the channel when he is on.
John O'Neill spoke about donating a kidney to his wife when he was interviewed on C-Span on 4/21/04.
Meg33 mentioned it in Post#35 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121721/posts
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know if kerry's records will actually help the swiftvets. And kerry is playing a good game of holding on to them. He'll probably release them at the last minute, and if there isn't anything big, we'll look pretty stupid and we will have wasted a lot of time on his records. I think the best thing that can be done is to buy Unfit for Command and pass it around.
I'd much rather watch interviews with the swiftvets than hear more of Scott Petersen, Kobe Bryant, and Mark Hacking. All the news shows are beating these trials to death, while even O'Reilly hardly gives much time to the swiftvets.
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.