Wonder if that was the same reasoning for sending Max Cleland down to Texas today?
soxblog
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
MAX CRIES FOUL!!
Max Cleland cries foul! Again!
Max Cleland has found a permanent role for himself in the American political scene. He has appointed himself the arbiter in charge of determining when a politician has become a victim. I see Max’s role developing. Whenever a politician doesn’t like what his opponents are saying about him, Max Cleland will rush in lamenting the unfairness of it all. He will tell his own tale of woe, and relate it to the current victim’s predicament, and then do a little more lamenting. The cameras will be there, the New York Times will be there, there’ll be some other veterans milling about. Everyone will salute Max’s heroism and courageous life story. And, best of all, no one will closely scrutinize the often dubious nature of Cleland’s charges.
Max was at it again today. With a caravan of adoring media types in tow, Cleland traveled down to Crawford to hopefully get a face to face to with the President in order to express his outrage over the Swifties’ anti-Kerry ads. Of course, the President isn’t like a professor with office hours who can accept drop-by visits from every aggrieved former Senator who happens to be in the neighborhood. Cleland knows this, but the fact that he couldn’t get an audience with Bush allowed him to amp up the outrage at the obligatory press conference.
And what a press conference it was. The recklessly unsupported assertions flowed fast and furious. First Cleland insisted that Bush personally was behind the Swifties and orchestrating their every maneuver, the President apparently taking a holiday from being an ill-informed dunce. Next Cleland asserted that Bush habitually assaults Vietnam vets. He said that Bush personally went after McCain, Kerry and himself. He repeated a few times that Bush ran ads in 2002 comparing him to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, a charge that is an outright falsehood.
On that last charge, a few facts. Cleland in 2002 was opposed by Saxby Chambliss, not George W. Bush. Chambliss ran a hard-nosed campaign which focused on Cleland’s insistence that the potential Homeland Security Department be staffed by unionized workers. Chambliss alleged accurately that Cleland supported the potential department’s unionization as a sop to his Union supporters. Chambliss also asserted, again accurately, that there was no possible way that allowing Homeland Security Department employees the right to strike would strengthen the department or the country. Chambliss also pointed out that Cleland was hindering the birth of the department over the unionization issue.
At no time did Chambliss question Cleland’s patriotism. He did most definitely question his priorities. Chambliss stated that Cleland cared more about his union supporters than the country’s security. Maybe it was a fair charge, maybe it was an unfair charge. Maybe it was unduly harsh politics. But there was nothing about the charge that was even close to being unprecedented in the rough and tumble of American politics.
But the heart of the Max Cleland “Permanently Outraged” campaign is that he and others upon whom he visits favor should somehow be above the rough and tumble of politics. Cleland’s personal story is indeed a sad and noble one. He served his country and paid a very high price. But he’s dead wrong – when you enter the political arena, regardless of your background, you can expect no quarter.
Max is also wrong on strategy. Americans don’t want leaders who whine. Bush knows this, and that’s why you’ve never heard him complain about the “fear and smear” (Kerry’s term from yesterday) machine at any time in the past four years. Bush has been compared to Hitler, accused of being a deserter, and charged with wanting to repeal the Constitution. If he’s outraged or hurt, he hasn’t shown it.
But Max, now apparently Kerry’s ranking surrogate, goes to the cameras and bemoans the unfairness of it all. He cries foul. He makes unsubstantiated charges. But most of all, he paints himself and the Democratic nominee as victims.
If you were John Kerry, and your strength as a leader were in question, would you want to be portrayed in such a way?
Responses? Thoughts? Please email them to me at soxblog@aol.com