Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Susan Estrich going Nuclear
creators.com ^ | September 1, 2004 | Susan Estrich

Posted on 09/03/2004 10:48:47 AM PDT by Roscoe Karns

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.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: angrydems; borntodrool; crazedwitch; kooks; looneyleft; loser; panicattack; rotinhellsusan; sheisnotpretty; susanestrich; viciouswitch; wantsomecheese; withthatwhine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-387 last
To: psjones

Susan Estrich all mouth no b@lls! She's half the man she pretends to be.


381 posted on 09/03/2004 10:39:46 PM PDT by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns

Oh Susan, go drink some more bourbon.


382 posted on 09/04/2004 12:50:10 AM PDT by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

Crush says: On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for 6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves.

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training.

Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war. It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released? ...................

Here's more to consider about Kerry's military service (From Unfit for Command:):

John Kerry has often implied that he volunteered for the military right after college. But Kerry petitioned his draft board for a student deferment. At Yale, Kerry's antiwar political views were well known. He . . . used his commencement address in 1966 to criticize the foreign policy of President Lyndon Johnson, especially with regard to Vietnam. When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy. . . . The top choice was the Navy Reserves where the duty commitment was shorter and a larger proportion of the period could be served stateside on inactive duty.
John Kerry's service record indicates that on February 18, 1966, he enlisted in the United States Naval Reserves, status 'inactive,' not in the U.S. Navy. These details are conveniently left out of all pro-Kerry biographies. Douglas Brinkley records that Kerry entered Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island; however, again he fails to note that Kerry was seeking to be an officer of the U.S. Naval Reserves.


383 posted on 09/04/2004 2:15:02 AM PDT by AWestCoaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: willyboyishere
KESG!!!! So YOU'RE the one who stole "The Scream"!!!!

I swear it wasn't me. But at least whoever it was has done something useful what that piece of trash:


384 posted on 09/04/2004 1:47:52 PM PDT by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Join me in mocking Susan in song --- OH SUSANNA
385 posted on 09/04/2004 2:08:48 PM PDT by doug from upland (John Kerry cried and asked TaRAYaz to make the SwiftVets stop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kesg

You are right in calling it a piece of trash---I've always thought it was the most undeservedly famous modern painting.
Probably owing to the overheated iconic pseudo-Freudian imagery, that even an 8 year old could understand.


386 posted on 09/04/2004 5:37:05 PM PDT by willyboyishere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

bump


387 posted on 09/05/2004 1:41:16 PM PDT by prognostigaator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-387 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson