Posted on 11/05/2006 10:36:21 PM PST by Maelstorm
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. -- Can you call what backers of West Virginia Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan are doing to Republican challenger Chris Wakim "swiftboating?" Here's the evidence. The media, the ethics-challenged Mr. Mollohan and his supporters are questioning whether Mr. Wakim can justifiably call himself a Persian Gulf War veteran when he never served in that military theater. This Swiftee-reminiscent move knocked a previously surging Mr. Wakim off message, at which time deep-pocketed Swiftboat-funder Bob Perry intervened, this time on behalf of the targeted. At minimum, this is an echo of the scrutiny John Kerry's military service received in the last presidential election. Except now, Democrats are doing the scrutinizing. Merits aside, this should raise hope that Democrats now can agree that a candidate who claims military accomplishments on the stump should be challenged if the claims don't tell the whole story. Whether you think a fact-check is warranted in this case depends on your definition of "Gulf War veteran." It all started earlier this year when Mr. Wakim -- a West Point graduate, 11-year Army officer and disabled vet -- characterized himself that way on the stump. His opponents pounced. Mr. Wakim, who sustained back, elbow and knee injuries while serving, spent the war on active duty at Ft. Devens, Mass., 35 miles outside Boston. This paralleled a controversy over whether Mr. Wakim had trumped up a Harvard master's degree by calling it a credential in "public policy" (It was actually in liberal arts). It didn't take Mollohan backers long to start touting Swiftee-like local vets who accused Mr. Wakim of stretching his military resume. "He led soldiers to the bus, but never made it to the Gulf War," one anti-Wakim vet says in a particularly nasty commercial from a 527 group. (Last week the Wakim campaign filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against the group, West Virginia Values, alleging illegal coordination with Mr. Mollohan.) No wonder Mr. Mollohan's supporters went negative: A strong-campaigning Mr. Wakim had been gaining quickly in a conservative-trending district and Mr. Mollohan's swirling ethics questions were threatening to make this year his last in the House. He is currently under investigation in connection with $202 million in earmarks to nonprofits he helped found which employ some of his campaign donors. Earlier this year he stepped down as ranking member of the House Ethics Committee. The anti-Wakim line of attack literally boils down to which medals the Republican has -- and it infuriates him. "The crux of the issue is pretty simple," Mr. Wakim told me recently. "Alan Mollohan is trying to discredit the fact that I am a West Point graduate, that I am a Gulf War veteran, that I served in the infantry for over 11 years, that I am a disabled vet. He doesn't understand how the Army works...What happens in one end of the front is the same thing -- is all related to what happens on the other." So, who's right? Technically speaking, the law is on Mr. Wakim's side. The U.S. Code defines a veteran of a given conflict as "any veteran who served in the active military, naval, or air service during a period of war." If you served, you helped the war effort, and according to 38 U.S.C. 101(12) you can call yourself a veteran of that conflict. But perception is a different matter. The man on the street can be forgiven for thinking that a Gulf War vet -- just like a Vietnam vet in Vietnam -- would need to have spent time in Iraq or Kuwait or another Middle Eastern country to earn that designation. It's also true that the Veterans of Foreign Wars stipulates that members must hold one or more foreign-theater campaign medals or badges to join. That's more than enough ammunition for Mollohan backers. Of course, the fact that the issue is even being discussed means that the Mollohan camp has used some variant of "swiftboating" to cut down a challenger. It was probably quite effective: Election handicappers have started calling the race a likely Democratic retention. This should quiet some of the more histrionic Democratic indignation over the questioning of Mr. Kerry's military service. Last month at Washington's Phoenix Park Hotel, for instance, I listened to a visibly angry Paul Bucha, board chairman of the liberal veterans' group VETPAC, vow: "Let no person think that they have been anointed in such a way as to question the validity of service and patriotism of anybody who has had the courage to don the uniform of this great country." The context was the effort to question Mr. Kerry's Purple Hearts. This gets things precisely backward. If a candidate wants to use his military biography to seek high office, why shouldn't people be allowed to corroborate his self-portrayal for the voting public? In a democracy, elections are one of the few things more hallowed than Mr. Kerry's or anyone else's service. There are no free passes.
I don't like the term "swiftboating". Under the liberal connotation, it implies that there is error in the attack.
For that, use the more appropriate terms "yellow journalism" or even Zogbyism. The Swift Boat Veterans were on target in their criticism of John F. Kerry, American traitor and North Vietnamese hero.
The Democrats will go far to destroy a military hero.
I agree...just this week I saw a lie spouted by the MSM (I know, not the first by a long shot) in which they said none of the accusations had been proved accurate and many were proved false. I seem to have at least one of Kerry's lies seared, seared in my memory as having been proved a lie and that was having been sent on a secret mission by a president who wasn't even in office yet on a secret Christmas mission.
Sorry about that. The place I copied it from didn't have any.
:-) I was in a hurry too. I agree with everything you said though. I was listening this morning to a Washington Post led round table of media types and they were talking about how they have to step up and set things right when someone takes comments like Kerry's "Stuck in Iraq" gaff out of context.
Sometimes it makes me sick and not just from a partisan perspective. They act as if they are defenders of the Democrats. I think Kerry's context were clearly in context of his history and his expressed views about the military. The guy had lower scores than the President and then jokes about who is stupid? Come on? What I want from the media is balanced scrutiny. It is not their job to defend anyone.
They should be asking the questions like. What kind of person when asked about Terrorists makes excuses for them?
What kind of person automatically thinks of the most negative thing to say concerning our military when asked about Iraq? These are leaders of America? I have always liked the phrase "Words mean things.". It is interesting how quickly the media can tie things together when they are trying to torpedo a Republican Senator such as Trent lot but rush to defend the most egregious statements by any number of Democrats.
I can't think of one Republican that has said anything that could be construed to be anti-soldier or anti-military but it is a daily occurrence with the Democrat party. It should be big news when after Kerry's gaff a NJ Democrat questions military voting by email and fax, clearly trying to find a way to make it harder for our soldiers to vote. Yet every small story where Republicans suggest the reasonable idea of voter id the Democrats scream voter suppression. I saw a black Michael Steele supporter having to respond to a witchy
Cardin supporter about accusations of voter suppression!
When will the left just stop the insanity? They did hold back today when the verdict was read. Howard Dean, I'm sure, had to practice the smile and praise for the verdict.
If you tune into biased media, take notes, but not so much about content. Who are their advertisers? Write letters to all of their advertisers, letting them know you're shocked to see they support such insulting garbage. Adding to the viewership of garbage, without countering it in a way that may have an affect to change it, you're sorta getting what you're paying for.
The left will never end their insanity, which is why we have to do whatever we can to block them.
Yes his December 1968 mission that "President Nixon" sent him on.
Until John F. Kerry signs his 180 form and turns it in and releases his military records, he has done nothing to disprove their claims of his suspicious past.
Sometimes it makes me sick and not just from a partisan perspective. They act as if they are defenders of the Democrats.
They are:
ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave
I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.
The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.
I have the star on my NDSM for being a veteran of the "Gulf War Era" as well as the Vietnam Era but would never call myself a Gulf War veteran.
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.