THE 'FLIP-FLOP' CHARGE WAS A DIVERSION?
The guys at CrushKerry.com interview a GOP campaign operative - I think I know who they're talking to, and if I'm right, their description of his title and duties is accurate - and get a sense of an emerging strategy shift on the Bush campaign:
We recently expressed our frustration over the "flip-flop" narrative with a veteran GOP campaign operative in daily contact with, and in some cases working side by side with, high-level 'Bush/Cheney 04' campaign officials, and asked them why, given all the evidence that this message had long since played itself out, did the campaign continue to hammer away on it, ala Bush v. Clinton, '92? When were Republicans going to pummel this clown with his own record ala Reagan v. Mondale, '84 and Bush v. Dukakis, '88?
"October," the operative, who asked to remain nameless, told us. "We couldn't stay quiet all year. And if we'd been hitting him [Kerry] on his liberal record all year, it would have grown stale and lost its punch, like the flip-flop stuff has. The plan was always to barrage him with his record and brand him a Massachusetts and Washington liberal during the crucial month of October."
So the "flip-flop" stuff was just entertaining background noise?
"That's exactly right," we were told. "Look, we know we can beat John Kerry on his liberal voting record. But that decision is made in finality by most voters during the closing days of an election. We needed to give people something to talk about for the past year while Kerry has tried to slash the President down with his vicious, negative attacks."
But now the campaign is on? We're going to see and hear a more offensive posture from the President and his campaign? "
WAS CHENEY THE 'PRESIDING OFFICER'? NO, BUT YES.
There's an e-mail circulating that Cheney lied during the debate:
"Cheney says that he presides (as the VP is supposed to do) most Tuesdays. Here is a list of Tuesday dates and corresponding presiding members. His ability to tell the truth extends to Iraq and most other policy issues."
The e-mailer then lists the presiding members of the Senate on Tuesdays, and finds Cheney's name only listed twice.
Problem one: Let's go to the transcript. (Facts, people, facts!)
Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.
The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.
From the Senate's web site:
presiding officer - A majority-party Senator who presides over the Senate and is charged with maintaining order and decorum, recognizing Members to speak, and interpreting the Senate's rules, practices and precedents.
Also from the Congressional Research Service:
The Vice President of the United States is the President of theSenate and its presiding officer. He usually assumes this role only during ceremonialfunctions; when key administration issues are being debated; or if a pending vote isexpected to be close (he can only vote to break a tie). In his absence, the President protempore, the senior Senator from the majority party, fills the role of presiding officer.However, other members of the majority party usually serve as the presiding officer ona rotating basis throughout a day’s session.
So the list that the e-mailer points to is the list of who's playing referee on the floor of the Senate that day — and unsurprisingly, Cheney doesn't do that very often.
Facts, people, facts!
The point of Cheney's comment is clear - as Veep, he's probably met with Tom Daschle, Joe Biden, and other prominent Democrats dozens of times over the past four years, even if it's just to argue over judges or whatever the issue of the week is. John Edwards, for whatever reason, was never one of those Democrats that the vice president had to meet with.
My conclusion? How important a member of the Senate can you be if Dick Cheney's never told you to "go [you-know-what] yourself'?
ABOUT THE $87 BILLION
I just recieved a nicer-than-usual critical e-mail.
Please read the $87 billion bill and Senate debate previewing it. Kerry's version of the bill would not have charged the $87 billion on the US credit card as Bush did, but rather paid for it by repealing some of the tax cuts of the top 1%. To say he "voted against {the second version, Mr Bush's totally irresponsible] bill" is misleading and blatently dishonest. Sadly, I assume you know all of this already, but print the complete opposite because it gets traction from the undeducated masses. Like the other distortions: Swift boat vets, Most liberal career senator, ad infinitum. Shame on you. I expect more from a nationally respected web site.
Well, it's nice to be called "nationally respected." Unfortunately, this e-mailer is attempting to spin this vote.
Yes, John Kerry wanted to pay for the $87 billion by raising taxes. That was, to him (and presumably to John Edwards as well), the ideal way to pay for what was needed in Iraq.
If you put the same question to NRO editors, they would probably recommend that the $87 billion be covered by cutting farm subsidies, pork-laden transportation projects, corporate welfare, homeland security funding to small towns that are unlikely terrorist targets, mohair subsidies, and everything else in Citizens Against Government Waste's "Pig Book."
NRO editors weren't going to get their ideal plan, and John Kerry wasn't going to get his ideal plan. The point was, $87 billion or not, up or down, add to the deficit or leave the troops hanging.
Kerry's contention that (paraphrased) "well, I would have voted for the $87 billion, if we had been allowed to raise taxes by that much, too" is a lame excuse, because in a GOP-controlled Congress and Republican presidency, tax hikes are a nonstarter. (Marshall Wittmann, Bob Novak, and Grover Norquist have all been quoted as saying, "God put Republicans on earth to cut taxes.") NRO editors would have liked to chop what they see as wasteful spending, but that option wasn't on the table.
There is no "maybe" or "Yes, but" button on the voting system in the U.S. Senate. You only get two choices - yes or no. (Okay, two other options: you can vote "present," and you can miss the vote.) Kerry knew the political consequences of this vote. And we know the real reason why Kerry voted the way that he did:
"Off the record, he did it because of Howard Dean. On the record, he has an elaborate explanation," — a Kerry adviser to Philip Gourevitch, "Damage Control," The New Yorker, 7/26/04)
JIM, IT DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD, 'ATTACK'
From the first debate:
SENATOR KERRY: Jim, the President just said something extraordinarily revealing and, frankly, very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, the enemy attacked us. Saddam Hussein didn't attack us.
The text of the joint resolution that Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards voted for:
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us… except for the thousands of times that he shot at our pilots flying overhead.
Is it possible that John Kerry didn’t actually read the resolution he voted for? Wouldn’t that explain a lot? Wouldn’t that explain how Kerry can insist that the resolution didn’t really authorize war, when it says, explicitly:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
The Kerry Spot on National Review Online:
No comments:
Post a Comment