Over the years I have often been amused when one side or the other (by “side” I mean Dems or Reps) who will bemoan how their side doesn’t know how to fight, but the other side does. Usually said assessments take place when one’s own side is losing at the moment, whether it be in an electoral campaign or over a legislative issue. And I would underscore that both sides do this. Right now, many Democrats are bemoaning their party’s ability to fight.
Stephen Bainbridge notes the following from Kevin Drum that goes along with the above notion:
For all the hatred of Bush among liberals, we still aren’t as dedicated to our cause as conservatives are to theirs. After all, they’re dedicated enough to figure that fighting fair is just a sign of weakness. For better or worse, we’re not quite there yet.
Other recent examples of this syndrome include Susan Estrich’s column this week which stated “The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we’re not mean enough.” Also, Sam Donaldson this morning on the Chris Matthews Show noted that Republicans attack well, but Democrats do not.
Bainbridge responds with a lengthy list of examples of Democrats hardly sticking solely to public policy arguments. The short version: it is a specious claim to make the suggestion that Democrats are so focuses on fighting fair that those shifty GOPers are taking advantage with their shameless mudslinging and now the Party of Jefferson had better learn to fight dirty or else.
What I find especially remarkable is that the “attacks” that have some Democrats frothing are not based on some personal likening of John Kerry to brutal dictators, but rather to his Senate record and the fact that he has a habit of being on more than one side of an issue. If chanting “flip flop” hurts Kerry’s feelings, then perhaps he isn’t cut out for the high-pressure job of President of the United States.
The main area that I can understand the anger on the part of the Democrats is that of the Swift Boat ads (at least the first one). The attack on the medals is harsh and difficult to prove, and is a clear attack on Kerry’s charater and veracity without the needed clear-cut evidence needed to back such charges. Now, the second commercial is factually accurate, so if the Kerry campaign can’t handle the truth, well, you know the line.
I can also understand the anger at Zell, as Democrats can rightly see his actions as traitorous–his anger at Kerry not surprisingly is met with anger by the Kerry camp. Still, while one can argue over the facts of the voting record and its significance, the bottom line is that an attack on a Senator’s record is wholly fair–especially when said Senator has not taken the care to defend his own record (especially when said Senator has scrupulously ignored his own record).
Here are some other examples that should put to rest the idea that Democrats only fight “fair”:
- Al Gore accussed the President of “betraying this country” (rather strong words, since the penalty for treason is death–and what could be worse for a President to do than to betray the country?).
- Senator Kennedy called the war a fraud “made up in Texas” and fraud.
- Judge Calabresi of the 2nd Circuit likened Bush to both Hitler and Mussolini (he did later apologize).
- Andrew Greeley likened the Bush administration to Hitler’s in the 1930s.
- Of course, there’s the MoveOn.org ad comparing Bush to Hitler.
- Here’s a long list of ‘Bush = Hitler’ Allusions.
- Update: Here’re two more: Michael Moore refered to Bush as a “deserter” in front of Wes Clark withou repudiation from Clark.
- Update: DNC National Chair Terry McAuliffe accussed the Presient of being “AWOL” during his Air National Guard Service.
I think perhaps that some Dems need to remove their faux halos and recognize that the attacks aren’t coming from just one side, and that their own side has made some pretty remarkable assertions–indeed, the numerous Hitler allusions alone trump, in my mind, anything said at the RNC.
Update: James Joyner also comments. He also notes that both sides tend to think that their side doesn’t know how to fight, while the other side does. He correctly notes a long history in US politics of negative ads, and concludes with the following:
Kerry and company point to the harping on his Senate defense votes by Zell Miller and others at the GOP convention, arguing that they’re taken out of context. But they never explain what it is the context was. Further, they claim that pointing out that Kerry voted against important weapons programs is a challenge to his “patriotism,” which is absurd. Meanwhile, charges that Bush “misled us into war” for political purposes are viewed as perfectly legitimate. One can’t have it both ways.
Indeed.
Another Update Straying Thoughts adds a few more examples and discusses the topic as well.
I just read the Drum quote to Deb and said “can you say ’strike that, reverse it’.” I liked her response. To paraphrase: “That is one delusional guy who displays an unusual and socially unacceptable level of maternal physical affection.”
Talk about an “I know you are but what am I” moment.
Comment by Jay Solo — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 11:04 am
Wow, it always pays to actually follow the links. It’s stunning to note that your proof consists of 99% completely unknown “democrats”. A poet at a NOW convention. An ad submitted to a contest which was rejected by the organization. A long laundry list of completely unknown people making references to fascism and Hitler. An obscure democratic congressman saying we’re sinking into a pit of fascism.
It almost makes one wonder at the thought processes that collated this information and decided that all these obscure and essentially nameless people were the premier members of the Democratic Party.
Of course, the explanation could be that the intent is not so much as to actually analyze the difference between the two parties by actual comparative measures (i.e. Keynote to Keynote, Same status spokesman, perhaps by content analysis as was done by the NY Times) using something that at least approaches a real methodology. Perhaps the intent is merely to distort and further confuse the debate so that some semblance of self respect can be obtained in creating an illusion where Democrats are just the same as the Republicans, and therefore “no harm, no foul” when the contrast between the styles of the party’s convention reflect poorly.
I stand in stunned awe of your abilities.
Comment by Hal — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 11:21 am
Dirty, filthy tricks and party cohesion
James Joyner and Steven Taylor ponder the cognitive dissonance (or perceptual screens) that allow partisans to think their party never resorts to “dirty tricks” while the other does so routinely. Helpfully, Steven Bainbridge produces an inc…
Trackback by Signifying Nothing — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 11:22 am
Hal,
You mean obscure folks like Al Gore and Senator Kennedy? And Soros’ millions into pro-Kerry 527s? You seem to be ignoring those. Andrew Greely is hardly an obscure figure either.
And some of the folks that the Kerry camp is mad at (i.e., the Swiftees) are as disconnected from the Bush campaign as those folks you dismiss are fromthe Kerry campaign. Plus, it is a totality argument
Really Hal, you are being rather disengenous.
And what did Zell say that was so over the top? Since when are accusation based on voting records so hideous?
Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 11:57 am
And, I would note, that the argument is whether or not only the Reps attack, while the Dems fight fair. I mean please: take off the partisan glasses for a moment and tell me that there haven’t been attacks on both sides.
I understand your grumpy demeanor when I am making solely partisan points, but these are emprical observations.
Further, did I absolve the Reps and their allies? No, I did not.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 12:01 pm
As I said, 99%. You have 2 out well over 200 otherwise obscure personalities. You also claim, without evidence or metrics or any hint of methodology, that all the 527 ads are equivalent. Sure, they all attack their opponents, but they aren’t all based on the same standard of objective evidence and argument. As John Cleese once said “all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan”.
It seems absolutely ludicrous to claim equivalency because both sides attack the other. It is, after all, a political contest. And the Senate record remark you make is just further proof. The argument that has been put forth doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Anyone with brain one knows that legislative issues are complicated, and the fact that Cheney and many other Republicans were doing precisely the same thing certainly means that there was a defensible position (from a Republican’s perspective) that may be applicable to explaining Kerry’s position.
But that’s not to your advantage. What is to your advantage is pushing the phrase “flip-flop” because it strikes a chord in the average person who is completely clueless as to what actually is going on.
Oh, and by the way, just to touch upon one non controversial thing that Zell said that was “over the top”. That was the remark about “those who call us occupiers”. It’s perfectly clear as to what he was referring to. Go ahead and parse it so that you can stomach it coming from your party’s keynote, but it’s pretty clear what he meant. Worse, it was an asinine comment that is a fact so obviously wrong as to wonder how that got past the people who were reviewing the speech. And the fact that no one raised a flag and kept it the speech speaks volumes about the ethics of the republican’s campaign.
Comment by Hal — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 12:21 pm
As I said, 99%. You have 2 out well over 200 otherwise obscure personalities. You also claim, without evidence or metrics or any hint of methodology, that all the 527 ads are equivalent. Sure, they all attack their opponents, but they aren’t all based on the same standard of objective evidence and argument. As John Cleese once said “all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan”.
It seems absolutely ludicrous to claim equivalency because both sides attack the other. It is, after all, a political contest. And the Senate record remark you make is just further proof. The argument that has been put forth doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Anyone with brain one knows that legislative issues are complicated, and the fact that Cheney and many other Republicans were doing precisely the same thing certainly means that there was a defensible position (from a Republican’s perspective) that may be applicable to explaining Kerry’s position.
But that’s not to your advantage. What is to your advantage is pushing the phrase “flip-flop” because it strikes a chord in the average person who is completely clueless as to what actually is going on.
Oh, and by the way, just to touch upon one non controversial thing that Zell said that was “over the top”. That was the remark about “those who call us occupiers”. It’s perfectly clear as to what he was referring to. Go ahead and parse it so that you can stomach it coming from your party’s keynote, but it’s pretty clear what he meant. Worse, it was an asinine comment that is a fact so obviously wrong as to wonder how that got past the people who were reviewing the speech. And the fact that no one raised a flag and kept it the speech speaks volumes about the ethics of the republican’s campaign.
Comment by Hal — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 12:21 pm
Add Howard Dean to the list of “obscure” Democrats smearing the President when he talked about the theory that Bush was warned about 9/11 ahead of time and did nothing to stop it.
Comment by LauraB — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 1:21 pm
There are other prominent examples than two in the list: Bainbridge’s list contains at least one US House member, and organizations like NOW are key Democratic allies.
I would daresay I have a fuller understanding on the legislative process than do a lot of commenters, teaching the Congress and all. And yes, the process is complex. However, it is rather difficult to argue that Kerry’s record is pro-military/defense. His Cold War positions aloe are clearly in the more dovish category. To simple claim that it is “complicated” is to avoid directly answering he questions.
That he agreed with Cheney on some of the votes is inconsequential. The issue is what the pattern is, not a specific weapon. If you have evidence that would demonstrate that Kerry has, indeed, had a pro-defense voting record, let’s hear it.
In all seriousness, is having the former Vice President accuse the president of betraying the country and having the Senior Senator of Massachusetts claim that the war was a fraud concocted for political reasons not at least as vicious as the Swift boat attacks–and made moreso by the fact that they were made by prominent members of the opposition party?
And there is the Democrat’s embrace of F9/11 that has to be addressed as well: hardly a non-hit piece. You also dismiss MoveOn.org and the other 527s that Soros has contributed to. And remember: I am of the opinon that Soros ought to be able to give as much money as he wants to whomever he wants, including the Kerry campaign itself.
And the Hitler litany, including remarks by Greeley, US Rep Owens and a Circuit Court Judge are hardly fringe attacks.
There are plenty of people who are anti-war who have compared our troops to an occupying force (just read the signs from the protestors at the convention) in the most negative sense of the term. What precisely has you incensed over that line?
Still even if that explanation is insufficient, or you want to point out that Bush has used the same word to describe our troops, fine. Are you going to tell me, as a matter of simple comparison, that that statement is radically worse than the Greeley column or Gore’s rantings, or Ted’s accusation?
Really, try to look at this from a non-partisan perspective for a moment. I can at least acknowledge without reservation that Zell’s speech was offensive to Democrats, and I can understand why. Still, as poltical negativity goes, it really wasn’t as radical as you are suggesting.
It may make you angry (Sharpton’s suggestions at the DNC that Reps want to put Blacks back in chains made me angry, for the that matter–and that is worse than anything Zell said, btw) but analyzing from a POV of anger isn’t helpful.
I really don’t see that the claim can be credibly made that only the Reps attack and the Dems runs around simply talking like innocent polcy wonks who don’t even know how to attack.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 1:29 pm
Laura:
Good point.
Dean has suggested that Bush might’ve known about 911, but did nothing to stop it because of ties to the Saudis and recently accussed the admin of issuing terror alerts solely for political reasons, despite serious evidence to the contrary.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 1:30 pm
Oh, I forgot to note: Sentor John Glenn compared Bush’s tactics to hitler’s as well. The list goes on…
To claim that the attacks on Bush are solely from a bunch of obscure poets is to be ignoring some rather obvious examples.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 1:42 pm
Dude, you’re going to have to start putting links in these claims. John Glenn said Bush was Hitler? I’m trying to google these things to check them out, and the results are swamped from Right Wing Fascist sites comparing John Glenn to Hitler or just about the greatness of Hitler and some guy named Glenn.
Just saying.
So, Okay, the gloves are off. It’s now within acceptable bounds of discourse to say Bush is a Nazi? Is that what you’re saying?
Gee, I guess MoveOn could have accepted the submitted entry and you would just be happy as a clam at high tide.
Again, I sit in stunned awe.
Comment by Hal — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 2:18 pm
Here you go:
Source: The Chicago Tribune (btw, when in doubt of my claims, news.google.com is quite cool
Link: here.
And ok, he just comparing the GOP, not Bush per se.
And how do you cotrue my statements to be an endorsement of the usage of Hitler as a subject for comparison?
Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 2:31 pm
Translation: Republicans know how to fight with actual FACTS, while we poor Democrats are reducted to ad homoinem attacks. It is so unfair.
Comment by Scott Harris — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 2:33 pm
They’re Going To Go Negative?
There have been a spate of columns by Democrats bemoaning that they’re just too nice. They’ve been too nice in this election and maybe they should consider “going negative”. Going negative? Who are they trying to kid? ProfessorBainbridge has a
Trackback by Straying Thoughts — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 2:33 pm
And I would respectfully suggest that you have lost this debate, as
1) It is manifestly obvious that the claim that only Reps attack, not Dems, is unsupportable.
and
2) There are sufficient examples of prominent Dems making rather egregious attacks to blunt Democratic claims of moral indignation as to the vicious nature of Rep attacks.
And, I would note: the point of my post was not to justify any particular statement by either side, but to point out that claims by Drum and others that the Dems have been fighting with kid gloves up and until this point are simply silly.
Really, as I noted earlier, if one steps back from defending one’s own “side” I don’t see how my claim can be construed as all that controversial.
All you are doing is arguing over the relative nasitness of given attacks, not really addressing my claim anyway.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 2:35 pm
Drum on Fighting Fair
I like Kevin Drum quite a lot (our email exchanges are always quite civil and pleasant) and I greatly admire (well, really envy) the success he’s had with his blog, but I think this is a bit over the top:For
Trackback by ProfessorBainbridge.com — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 2:40 pm
The Dems aren’t exactly playing beanbag either
It has become conventional wisdom among Dems that the real reason they are losing isn’t because their ideas are unpopular, but because the Republicans are just playing the game dirtier than they are. Professor Bainbridge has a good roundup of
Trackback by The H-Bomb — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 2:48 pm
Well, it seems the whole premise of your post is “See, all these horrible ad hominems that Democrats raise? When you contrast what the Republicans say about Democrats, they don’t look so bad.” This implies a close equivalence (i.e. something like: it’s okay if you call me a stalinist because I’m calling you a fascist).
To which I replied that you’ve cherry picked the quotes, deliberately misrepresented the statements, or out and out fabricated a connection between a flatly rejected MoveOn.org contest entry and George Soros.
Like I said, I know the tactic works. I’ve seen the evidence in the polls.
Comment by Hal — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 2:54 pm
#2) Egregious attacks in what form? Are they based on actual evidence and well reasoned arguments, or are they based on wild eyed theories like Zell Miller’s occupation planning.
A single incident by a random person in the Democratic Party doesn’t prove your thesis. Nor does the mention of fascism and republicans prove it either unless you establish criteria.
And then there’s the strict content analysis. Find me the political equivalent of Ann Coulter, or the zillions of other attack dogs. We’ve got some on the left, but this does not balance out the other side by a zillion miles. Show me who has the radio audience of right wing radio on the left. It simply isn’t there. And if you just take what the right wing talk shows say and nothing else, the sheer volume of difference between what is said on the right and what is said on the left is stunning.
I mean, any hint of a methodology here would soon show your thesis relies entirely on magnifying the evidence on the democratic side to laughably huge proportions.
Thus the continued use of the rejected MoveOn Hitler entry.
Classy.
Comment by Hal — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 3:04 pm
Hal,
Go re-read the original post: the argument is made by myself and Bainbridge (and Joyner, for that matter) that Kevin Drum’s claim (and Susan Estrich;s and Sam Donaldson’s for that mattter–all made post-RNC) that the Democrats, writ large, don’t know how to go on the attack is ludicrious. I was not trying to determine the exact measure of each attack. I do think that the speech that had the Dems the angriest (you included, I think), i.e., Zell’s, pales in comparison to some of the personal attacks that have already been leveled by prominent Democrats.
At any rate: the point was not to justify any particualr statement, certainly not the facist/stalinst argument you seem to think I am making.
Further, I would note that I did concede that I could understand the anger of pro-Kerry forces ove the Swiftees and Zell. Your response: to dismiss a raft of personal and quite vicious attacks from your side.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 3:12 pm
Hal,
The Bush=Hitler meme was in almost every anti-war demonstration that there was. There is no need to point to the MoveOn stuff for that. There were plenty of examples in plain view for the last three and a half years.
There are none so blind as those who just don’t want to see.
Comment by David R. Block — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 3:34 pm
There are none so blind as those who just don’t want to see
You guys just crack me up everytime I hear that stuff.
Hey, have we got the speaker of the House accusing George Soros of being a drug lord lately?
Oh wait, we don’t have anything even remotely comparable in the democratic ranks.
Comment by Hal — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 4:03 pm
Let’s ask Clarence Thomas, Ken Starr, Linda Tripp, Robert Bork, Juanita Broadderick and John Ashcroft if the Dems play dirty.
AAMOF, what person has spoken out against the left who HASN’T been smeared by Democrats (well, okay, and Andrew Sullivan, the ‘bigot’ wielding writer who, by the way, supports gay marriage)?
Comment by RW — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 4:07 pm
Fighting Fair
I love it. Talk about ideological blinders. Prof. Bainbridge has the answer, some highlights: A Democrat Congressman says the Bush administration is taking America “into a snake pit of fascism.” Getting former astronaut and Democrat Senator John Glen…
Trackback by <i>Deinonychus antirrhopus</i> — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 4:12 pm
I suggest that the attempts to minimize or dismiss Democratic and leftist attacks on Bush are another manifestation of the tactic used since Afghanistan: i.e., “Ploni is merely a fringe lunatic with no respectable following”.
Comment by John "Akatsukami" Braue — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 4:21 pm
Add to your list Joe Conason’s Salon article Triumph of the W. This reference to Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will is a rather literary Bush = Hitler allusion.
Comment by Dave Schuler — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 6:17 pm
Steven,
It is always this way. Noting the silliness of a claim such as (Democrats fight fair/Republicans don’t) by pointing to instances of unfair tactics by Democrats always draws squeals of indignation from Democrats. Conversely if you were to do the same but with the roles reversed, many Republicans would show up squealing. For some people taking off the ideological blinders is just not possible. The other usual defense (mechanism?) is for people to complain that the other side started it, as if this were second grade or something.
I’ve seen it a number of times on my blog.
Comment by Steve — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 6:33 pm
I am an independent voter who was turned off months ago by the Bush bashing from the left. I lived through WWII and all future conflicts. Never do I recall the personal, hate filled attacks on a president in time of war. Kerry with his attacks on our country and troops is remembered by this voter. Kerry betrayed my country by aiding and abetting the North Vietnamese while in the Naval Reserves.
Comment by Pat in NC — Sunday, September 5, 2024 @ 6:56 pm
Surprised no mention of the Viacom/CBS phased conspiracy to drown Bush in a sea of fiery charges. Starting with inept (ex)Treasury Secretary O’Neill, through Joe Wilson and then Richard Clark, we were treated to six months of first one book being published to generally laudatory reviews, a 60 Minutes special on CBS, rounds of all the talk/interview shows, and a series of stinging editorials against Bush. Interestingly, almost all the charges by these courageous authors have been successfully debunked. In some instances, their level of conscious falsehood has been astonishing. The lies of Wilson and Clark were particularly smarmy. Toss in the 9/11 families and all the Tidewater foundation stuff and you have a tsunami of mendacity emanating from the left.
Comment by Billy Hank — Monday, September 6, 2024 @ 12:45 am
Remember how everyone LOVED Harry Truman back in 1952…How everyone thought Lyndon
Johnson was peachy in 1968?
How much did the Federal government spend to discover Clinton was getting his cock sucked in the oval office anyway?
Kerry and the veteran against the war fought hard to stop the horrid treatment of Vietnam vets coming home from the war.
Comment by ericl — Monday, September 6, 2024 @ 7:24 am
If “Hal” wants “metrics” he ought to explore the work done by the Media Research Center http://www.mediaresearch.org/ documenting liberal bias. The organization also posts during the week highlighting outrageous statements by liberals about conservatives, Republicans and Bush. Also, given the surveys over the years that have documented the political affiliations of the “mainstream” media, putting them squarely left, even far left of center, does Hal really think such sentiment does not translate into what they cover and how they portray events of the day? Can Hal really be serious about arguing that Kerry is a victim as compared to Bush?! Does he not remember any of the comments said of Bush by Terry McCauliff? Does Hal watch any of the political talking head shows? Does he not at least see a tit for tat of hyperbole? If not he is delusional.
Comment by Roger Mall — Monday, September 6, 2024 @ 10:58 pm
“Kerry and the veteran against the war fought hard to stop the horrid treatment of Vietnam vets coming home from the war.”
Black is white, war is peace, Kerry and the VVAW fought to stop the horrid treatment of returning vets…
Comment by Stan — Tuesday, September 7, 2024 @ 9:25 am