Hugh Hewitt's Blog Regarding Double Standards

Hugh Hewitt ^ | 2/13/04 | Hugh Hewitt

[William McKinley]

February 13, 2004

Posted at 6:15 AM, Pacific

John Kerry denied the Drudge allegations on the Imus radio program this morning.  Great Britain's The Sun names the woman said to be at the center of the controversy and quotes her parents.  The dad on Kerry: "I think he's a sleazeball."  Slate's Timthy Noah has a lengthy post on the subject, as does Wonkette, and Andrew Sullivan.  Philly.com, affiliated with the Philadelphia Inquirer, and "Best of the Web," a Wall Street Journal publication and prince of the blogosphere, also cover the story.

What we have, then, is an interesting set of parallels.  Michael Moore/Matt Drudge launch serious allegations against a candidate for the presidency which are premised on widely circulated rumors.  Terry McAullife, the senior Democratic Party official endorses the "AWOL" charge against President Bush, though he offers no evidence.  No senior member of the GOP or the Administration makes a comment on the Drudge allegations.  A media frenzy erupts over the AWOL charge although there is zero evidence to support it: None.  Most major media in the United States is silent on the Kerry allegations, though the international press feature the allegations prominently. The AWOL charge is built on the declaration of a retired one-star General, William Turnipseed, who says he does not recall seeing Bush in Alabama during Bush's ANG duty there, though Turnipseed later states that doesn't mean Bush wasn't there.  Although Turnipseed's statement is cited by scandal mongers pressed for an accounting of their ethics, his statement does not remotely approach a charge of AWOL or desertion, charges for which --to repeat-- there is zero evidence, but for which there is a blanket denial by President Bush.  The allegations against Kerry are launched by the "off-the-record" declaration of retired four star general Wesley Clark, whose campaign aide, Chris Lehane, was a Kerry staffer for a time, as well as a Gore staffer during the period in which Kerry was vetted for a possible Vice Presidential slot in 2000.  While Turnipseed has been pursued by the media --as has every other individual remotely connected with Bush's ANG service of 30 years ago-- Clark sat through an interview with CNN's Judy Woodruff on "Inside Politics" hours after his role in the Kerry allegations surfaced and was not asked about them (which could have been done even without referencing his "off-the-record" comments to up to a dozen reporters.)

In short, most of "elite" media in America is practicing a steely resolve not to dignify the Kerry allegations absent some "proof," while relentlessy probing President Bush's ANG record of three decades ago.  The hyprocisy is so enormous that it defies categorization, though not explanation:  Standards for Beltway media differ when the "scandal" involves a man of the left than when it involves a man of the center-right.

I'll buy Kerry's denial until there is credible evidence to the contrary, but I will certainly report that he made the denial as I reported the Drudge allegations yesterday.  Whenever you see a reporter or a commentator bring up the Bush ANG story, though, listen to see if the Kerry infidelity story is covered in the same segment or even on the same program. Each have the same predicate --allegations by media ruffians embraced by retired generals with intriguing bits of info like the parents quoted in The Sun and both were subject to complete denials by the candidates-- and each should get the same coverage.

February 12, 2004

Posted at 4:00 PM, Pacific

The New Republic's Peter Beinart and I mixed it up today, when after dancing around the fact that he and the staff at TNR had been discussing the Kerry allegations he chastised me for bringing up the DrudgeReport's allegations on air without any evidence for their veracity.  Trap sprung.  I asked Peter for the evidence supporting the allegations that Bush was a "deserter" or "AWOL", allegations that he and the TNR staff have been rolling about in for days.   The only "evidence" he could cite was General Turnipseed's alleged charge. 

Understand that Turnipseed has never alleged that Bush was AWOL or a deserter.  Never.  Four years ago he said he doesn't recall seeing him.  On Tuesday he stated that Bush could well have been on the base, but that he just didn't see him. 

In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever to support Terry McAuliffe's slanderous charge that was repeated in Congress yesterday by a Democratic congressman and by countless pundits including the increasingly repugnant Begala, and widely read websites of the left like Joshua Marshall's.

But while Beinart and his colleagues of the left have no problem covering the Bush story and shifting coverage from

the lack of evidence for the charges leveled at Bush to their dissatisfaction with the completeness of the Bush denials,

they are feigning shock that a report from Matt Drudge on alleged Kerry infidelity should be mentioned outside their

newsrooms. 

The timing of the new allegations is wonderful especially because it throws such a defining light on the bias of the Washington media --ever ready to carry the water of the Democrats and dismayed that they might be obliged to cover some nasty business about the front-runner from the left.

UPDATE:  Here's a fact sheet from the RNC on the "AWOL" slander.   Keep it handy for use with folks like Peter.

 

Posted at 3:00 PM, Pacific

Across the country today Beltway political pros, reporters and pundits were talking about one issue and one issue only  --off air.  But while the radio hosts openly discussed the accusations swirling around John Kerry that first surfaced at the Drudge Report, television talking heads stayed far away from the story.  Incredibly, Judy Woodruff did not ask Wesley Clark about the allegation that the retired general had himself launched the allegations into play!  Over at Editor&Publisher the question is "Will Press Pounce on Drudge's Kerry Rumor?"  Of course, "the press" will.   The real question is whether they will tell the public before the information is irrelevant.

This reluctance to discuss on air what they are all chatting about off air is both a relic and transparently hypocritical.  The days of a media elite deciding which stories the public got to know and those which had to be held back are long gone.

Recall that the Los Angeles Times tried to burn Arnold by holding its slam piece on him until days before the California

recall election.  There the manipulation was in timing the drop.  With the Kerry story, if there is anything to the allegations, the release should be immediate so that their is no manipulation of the primary cycle to stick the Dems with a wounded duck.  The two spokesmen interviewed by E&P, the AP's Jack Stokes and the Washington Post's Leonard Downie, wouldn't confirm that investigations into Kerry's fidelity to his wife were even underway.

Even more interesting: Will the standard of proof attaching to any Kerry statement on the subject be the same as the standard being applied to President Bush's record of service in the Air National Guard, where no combination of statements, records, and third party testimony is sufficient to satisfy the swamp dwellers with a political interest in keeping the story alive?  Once again there will be a standard established by the left which the left will resist applying to its own candidate.  Calpundit, consumed by the details of dental records and the like these past few days, has at least mentioned the odd silence of the Kerry campaign and the media.  No word from Beltway insider Joshua Micah Marshall, leading me to conclude that Sydney Blumenthal hasn't yet been told by the Clintons how to respond.

In the age of the internet, blogging and Fox News, however, the glaring inconsistencies of the media's coverage of its favorites and its foes are quickly noted and absorbed by the public.  A very amusing few days ahead.

 

Posted at 7:00 AM, Pacific

So some no-name congressman from Ohio and an even less significant staffer decide to bait Secretary Powell?  Not a very good idea.  The Secretary slapped down the kid, which was fine, but he gave the congressman a pass when the bozo from the Buckeye State casually slandered the president as having been AWOL.  On each occasion that someone uses this slander, defenders of the president ought to pause and insist on a full discussion of the subject, beginning with the slanderer's military background and familiarity with terms.  The conversations ought also to cover the Kerry-Fonda connection and the Kerry anti-war activities for balance sake.

 

Posted at 6:00 AM, Pacific

Lileks has added some fine paragraphs to the discussion on the relevance of Kerry's 1971 testimony to the campaign of 2004, as has Ed from Captain's Quarters.  Lileks makes the point that it doesn't matter what stupid kid said in 1971, only what he would say today about what he said then.  Agreed.  Ed points to another astonishing bit of the Kerry testimony that also should get an update from Senator Kerry.  Mitch has a choice Kerry quote from the Harvard Crimson of the day.  Get the picture: John Kerry of the antiwar movement was as completely and foolishly out-of-touch with the consequences of losing the Vietnam War as were Hayden and Fonda and the rest of the gang that couldn't think straight.

The issue is: Has Kerry changed his thinking or merely decked it out in new threads?  This will require a tough interview by someone with the courage to face down the "don't you dare question my patriotism" nonsense.  For the record:  Pointing out that John Kerry has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue of the past 33 years does not equal an attack on his patriotism.  It is an attack on his judgment.

My WeeklyStandard.com column today gets the talking points project on Kerry underway.

 

[counterpunch]