NYT: Brooks: Kerry Off the Leash

[Marcus Bryant]

The ends justify the means for the ABB cluster .

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/op...tml?oref=login

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Kerry Off the Leash

By DAVID BROOKS
The New York Times

Published: October 19, 2004

John Kerry wasn't nominated because of his sparkling personality. He wasn't nominated because of his selfless commitment to causes larger than himself. He was nominated because he's a fighter. At the end of every campaign he comes out brawling. This was the guy who could take on Bush.

So nobody could imagine how incompetent, crude and over-the-top Kerry has been in this final phase of the campaign. At this point, smart candidates are launching attacks that play up the doubts voters already have about their opponents. Incredibly, Kerry is launching attacks that play up doubts voters have about him. Over the past few days, he has underscored the feeling that he will say or do anything to further his career.

In so doing, he has managed to squelch any momentum he may have had coming out of the first two debates. Some polls have him stagnant against Bush. More polls show Bush recovering from the debate season and now pulling slightly ahead. The blunt truth is that Kerry is losing the final phase of this campaign.

Let's review the string of heavy-handed assaults from the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

On Monday, Kerry told seniors in Florida that Bush is plotting a "January surprise" to cut their Social Security benefits by as much as 45 percent. "That's up to $500 a month less for food, for clothing, for the occasional gift for a grandchild."

As Kerry knows, that's ludicrous - it's a stale and transparent canard that Democrats have brought out in election after election, to less and less effect. President Bush has not entertained and would not entertain any plan that cut benefits to seniors. Bush would sooner give up any Social Security reform than cut benefits.

Kerry's second wild attack is that Bush would reinstate the draft. The administration, which hasn't even asked for trivial public sacrifices in a time of war, does not want to bring back the draft. The Pentagon does not want to bring back the draft. The Republican Party does not want to bring back the draft. Given the nature of military technology, it doesn't make sense to bring back the draft. There may be some in the bureaucracy taking precautions, but it is hard to imagine an attack with less basis in fact.

Kerry's third attack is the whole Mary Cheney thing. That's been hashed over enough. But remarkably, Kerry has not apologized. You use somebody's daughter to attack the father and his running mate. The parents are upset. The only decent thing is to apologize. If anything, an apology would make Kerry look admirable. But Kerry, in his permanent attack dog mode, can't do the decent and politically advantageous thing.

The fourth assault is Kerry's attack on the Bush administration's supposed "ban" on stem cell research. John Edwards's ludicrous statement that if Kerry was president, people like Christopher Reeve would be able to get up and walk was only the farcical culmination of a series of exaggerations about the possibilities of finding cures for Alzheimer's and spinal cord injuries.

I'm not trying to make a moral point here about sleazy campaigning. Politics ain't beanbag, and in the final days of a close campaign, exaggerations are the norm. I'm talking about competence and what this period says about Kerry and his campaign.

Bush's key vulnerability is that people fear he is in over his head. By lashing out wildly, Kerry muddles all that. Instead his blunderbuss approach suggests a candidate devoid of perspective, driven by unattractive and naked ambition.

Why is he doing this? First, because in the insular Democratic world, George Bush is presumed to be guilty of everything, so the more vicious you can be about him, the better everybody feels.

But there is a deeper assumption, which has marred Democratic politics for years. Some Democrats have been unable to face the reality that people have been voting for Republicans because they agree with them. So these Democrats have invented the comforting theory that they've been losing because they are too virtuous for the country.

According to this theory, Republicans - or usually some omniscient, omnipotent and malevolent strategists, like Lee A er or Karl Rove - have been tricking the American people into voting against their true interests. This year, many Democrats decided, we'll be vicious in return.

The truth, however, is that voters are not idiots. They are capable of independent thought. If you attack your opponent wildly, ruthlessly, they will come to their own conclusions.

[boutons]

"If you attack your opponent wildly, ruthlessly, they will come to their own conclusions."

When I read this in NYT, I could not believe what an idiot Brooks could be to apply this point ONLY to Kerry, when the real slime and way-over-the-line attacks have been initiated much sooner and have been coming more furiously from shrub, head ("I have never met (Edwards)," when head had met Edwards 3 times earlier) , Hastert (Soros gets his money from drug trafficking), etc, etc.

While I don't agree with Brooks, he does write some good, well-reasoned articles, but this one is so untypically ridiculous I think he's panicking and freeking out that his boy shrub is in such a tight race.

[Yonivore]

"If you attack your opponent wildly, ruthlessly, they will come to their own conclusions."

When I read this in NYT, I could not believe what an idiot Brooks could be to apply this point ONLY to Kerry, when the real slime and way-over-the-line attacks have been initiated much sooner and have been coming more furiously from shrub, head ("I have never met (Edwards)," when head had met Edwards 3 times earlier) , Hastert (Soros gets his money from drug trafficking), etc, etc.

While I don't agree with Brooks, he does write some good, well-reasoned articles, but this one is so untypically ridiculous I think he's panicking and freeking out that his boy shrub is in such a tight race.

Your example of a "way-over-the-line" attack from the Bush campaign is Vice President Cheney forgetting three very forgettable encounters with the Breck Girl?

C'mon, give us some real examples of the type of venom you see spewing out of the mouths of Kerrwards, Teeeraaahza, Miss Piggy, and the rest of the DNC machine.

[Useruser666]

I think claiming that Bush will slash SS benefits by 45% and reinstate the draft are bigger issues than not remembering/lying about meeting Edwards or the other comment. Those are two totally different levels of comments. I also believe the focus of the article was on what statements the candidates have made about each other, not what other party members have stated. I think the article lost a little bit of that focus towards the end. This article reminds me of that line from "The American President". The part of the speech where President Shephard makes about character is what I’m referring to. It goes something like, "Bob Rumpsend is not interested in your problems, he is only interested in making the public fear it, and selling it to them." Sorry I don't remember the exact lines. What is funny though is that I believe Shephard's character was supposedly a more liberal president while Rumpsend was a conservative opponent. Ironic?

[Marcus Bryant]

Oh, I think Brooks hit the dirty rusty nail on its head.

Bush's key vulnerability is that people fear he is in over his head. By lashing out wildly, Kerry muddles all that. Instead his blunderbuss approach suggests a candidate devoid of perspective, driven by unattractive and naked ambition.

Why is he doing this? First, because in the insular Democratic world, George Bush is presumed to be guilty of everything, so the more vicious you can be about him, the better everybody feels.

When I read this in NYT, I could not believe what an idiot Brooks could be to apply this point ONLY to Kerry, when the real slime and way-over-the-line attacks have been initiated much sooner and have been coming more furiously from shrub, head ("I have never met (Edwards)," when head had met Edwards 3 times earlier) , Hastert (Soros gets his money from drug trafficking), etc, etc.

[boutons]

shrub will re-instate the draft, after he exhausts the tactic of capturing reservists indefinitely with the "stop-loss" , with because there simply aren't enough soldiers and equipment.

Why doesn't shrub sign up his daughters to go die for his bogus war(s)? Or why don't his daughters sign up on their own initiative? don't they believe shrub's BS rationale for Iraq?

From WP:

"In fact, the all-volunteer Army is under severe stress. A
study commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld arrived at the same
conclusion as every independent study: the U.S. has
"inadequate total numbers" of troops to sustain operations
at the current pace. In Iraq, the lack of sufficient
soldiers to protect supply convoys, let alone pacify the
country, is the root cause of incidents like the case of
the reservists who refused to go on what they described as
a "suicide mission."

Commanders in Iraq have asked for more troops (ignore the
administration's denials) - but there are no more troops to
send. The manpower shortage is so severe that training
units like the famous Black Horse Regiment, which
specializes in teaching other units the ways of battle, are
being sent into combat. As the military expert Phillip
Carter says, "This is like eating your seed corn."

So Rummy's bureaucratic fantasy that technology allows the US to fight foreign wars with small deployments while watcing video screens is total BS.

But a military manned and equipped for shrubs bogus wars, and post-wars in, eg Iraq, would consume so much budget that tax cuts for the rich and corps would be impossible, and tax cuts and fiscal destabilization of the US Govt , above all, have been shrub's overriding objective since (before) taking office.

[Spurminator]

You are oozing with hate. Take a breath.

[boutons]

"Cheney forgetting three very forgettable encounters"

Why assume that head's zinger/sound-bite was not prepared and rehearsed, even scripted by his handlers? Your "forgettable" angle is not credible. He lied in a prepared sound-bite. As he lied when he said he had never said Iraq and al-Qaida/WTC were connected. He and shrub made this connection so thoroughly and repeatedly as one of their many lying justifications for their bogus war, that a huge percentage of US still thinks Saddam was behind WTC, but after all this time, shrub and head (nor anybody else) haven't presented any evidence, only bogus claims.

[boutons]

"You are oozing with hate. Take a breath."

do you have anything substantive to contribute, and just make bogus personal attacks?

[Marcus Bryant]

do you have anything substantive to contribute, and just make bogus personal attacks?

Oh, I think you have cornered the market for that.

[boutons]

quote my personal attacks on posters in this forum?

[Spurminator]

I pick and choose when to contribute something substantial. I've found it's usually not worth my time to attempt intellectual discourse with someone whose best material is a hackneyed insult like "shrub."

And anyway, I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out that your obvious hate for the President distracts from any legitimate criticism you might have of him. This sort of rabid venom-spewing only alienates people who might be inclined to side with you.

[1369]

after he exhausts the tactic of capturing reservists indefinitely with the "stop-loss"

Incorrect.

"Stop/Loss" is a term used when the government suspends someone's discharge due to the fact that there is a shortage of personnel with a certain MOS.

[Spurminator]

As he lied when he said he had never said Iraq and al-Qaida/WTC were connected. He and shrub made this connection so thoroughly and repeatedly as one of their many lying justifications for their bogus war

Link? Quote? Anything?

[Hook Dem]

"You are oozing with hate. Take a breath."

do you have anything substantive to contribute, and just make bogus personal attacks?

Pot meet Kettle! You sit there and refer to Bush as "shrub" and Cheney as " head" and you're gonna lecture someone about personal attacks? You're one bitter mofo who represents the Democrats well.

[Useruser666]

Why assume that head's zinger/sound-bite was not prepared and rehearsed, even scripted by his handlers? Your "forgettable" angle is not credible. He lied in a prepared sound-bite.

I don't understand, why he would state an obvious falsehood if it was a rehearsed and prepared sound-bite? If you're going to come out with something like that, it would make more sense for it to be based in absolute fact. That's like laying down a 3 in poker, and telling everyone it's an ace. I bet you in one or two days time I will totally forget posting on this thread. If some one asked me in a week and I said I never did, would that be a lie?