I gather that Susan Estrich, Dukakis' former campaign manager is having a fit over the fact the electoral politics ain't a pretty business altogether that often:
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.
(Courtesy Vodker Punditer)
So, what, the ABB campaign has been a friggin' paragon of virtue?
We could, perhaps start with the entire set of charges of being AWOL, which, if you'll be so kind to notice, resulted in a full disclosure of Bush's military record. Although, as others have pointed out, Senator Kerry still will not sign the Form 180 for full disclosure of all his military records. I'm just sayin'...
Then we can just write reams of stuff about the fabrications by that Feckless Crapweasel, Michael Moore. But, rather than repeat the litany, I'll just let the links do the talking. But, perhaps, my reader, knows of someone who can tell me how, exactly, Michael Moore is not a one-man smear industry?
Moving on... Wait a minute, let's go check out what our nice and oh-so-above-board, smear-free friends at MoveOn.org have been up to lately. Well, here's a nice ad those kind folks ran in the Washington Post explaining how Bush let 9/11 happen so he could go whatever the mind-control beams from space tell the tinfoil hat brigade. Nope, I'll bet that assertion is based on all manner of well-documented research. No smear here.
From there, we could go take a peak at some of the well-reasoned and sensible books that have been generated by the "Dear Lordy Jesus, But How I Hate Bush" cottage industry. There's this notable title from that paragon of wit, Al Franken. What was his so very civilized tome called again? Then there was that fascinating cover art selection for Paul Krugman's book (which is merely a maraschino cherry on a spectacular shit Sundae).
Speaking of NYT op-ed writers, how could we possibly miss Dowd and her truthful, objective, non-smearing quote usage? But be it far from me to do something like imply that, perhaps, just perhaps, that all media treatments of President Bush are not axiomatically "fair and balanced" all the time - let me just note that the same paper that runs Dowd as a columnist, ran some 70 stories reporting Joe Wilsons allegations that Uranium and Niger just shouldn't be used in the same sentence. And a romping, stomping three stories bring the fact that the charges has been manufactured, or, in other words, a smear, to the attention of the American public. But hey, it's three more stories than CBS ran.
I could go on flogging this particular dead horse, but let me just wrap up quickly by noting a couple of things. First, as Ms. Estrich, and much of the world is (or will soon) discovering, the internet is a hell of a cure for the traditionally short American attention span. You can still spin crap, but expect someone to call "Bullshit!" on you when you do it. Second, I have no doubt that the Republican Party aren't a bunch of sainted angles, pure as the driven snow on this front either.
And third - if she wants to see an increase in the already abundant bile and venom this campaign, it's her call. But she should expect retaliation with a quickness.
UPDATE:
As Ace of Spades notes, you best not start bitching about getting your poor little feelings hurt after you start telling your opposition to "Bring it On."
Launched by Bravo Romeo Delta at September 4, 2004 12:59 AM