As I recall, Kerry preferred to be the first (or second) debater, so he could boldly state his points.Typical.
Thank you John. Great article as always.
Posted on 08/07/2004 8:16:33 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
It’s been a LONG time and almost everything has changed. So there’s not much left that can make me think back to my college years. But John Kerry forced the issue last week by siccing his attack lawyers on assorted TV stations. Say what?
Here’s how it happened. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth started running an ad in which several of their members stood up, faced the camera, gave their name, rank and serial numbers, and called John Kerry a liar about his service in Vietnam. This veterans’ organization has 260 members and Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (ret.), is its Founder and Chairman. In response to the first broadcasts of the Swift Boat ad, two lawyers jointly sent a threatening letter to TV stations across the country, seeking to make the program managers afraid to accept payment and run the ads.
But what does that have to do with “bright college days” so long ago? The most challenging and interesting debates we had were in the Yale Political Union. These were Oxford-style debates, under a detailed structure. A proposition is put before the House – one I remember was, “Resolved that the United States should use military force to defend Quemoy and Matsu.” To realize how little progress is made in some conflicts, that old subject is new again. Quemoy and Matsu are islands belonging to Taiwan that China will necessarily attack if and when it decides to “reunite” with Taiwan by force.
An Oxford debate consists of two debaters for each side. The first one to speak favors the proposition. The second is an opponent, and so on. What makes Oxford debates interesting, though, is that every speaker after the first one should be well enough prepared, and quick enough on his/her feet, to set aside part of the prepared speech in order to attack points just made by the speakers for the other side. The one set speech is the first debater. The most challenging and free-form speech is the last one, because that is the synopsis of everything before.
Well, that was vaguely interesting, I hear you cry. But what does it have to do with the truth about John Kerry’s service in Vietnam? John Kerry came into the Yale Political Union when I was already an officer of the Union and an experienced debater. As I recall, Kerry preferred to be the first (or second) debater, so he could boldly state his points. I preferred to go last, or next to last, because the extemporaneous counterattack on the views of the other side was more interesting.
Here’s how a team of two would prepare for a debate. You would discuss and decide with your partner three points: 1) What are the main issues we want to make? 2) What are the main issues the other side it likely to make? And 3) What counterattacks can we expect from the other side, and how do we counter those? It is the last point which is most difficult to prepare for.
It’s also the point at which even veteran debaters can lose the whole contest. John Kerry may have just made just that fatal mistake on the subject of Vietnam, and it may be the final nail in the coffin of his campaign for President.
I have a number of friends who were “in country” when John Kerry was. A couple were in the Swift Boat service. Before Kerry’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, I already knew the kind of charges of dishonesty that were possible. They were already being made, but well below the radar of national media. No one in the broader audience was listening.
Then Kerry decided, and it was obviously a deliberate and calculated decision, to promote his four months of service in Vietnam as the centerpiece of his campaign. And as I watched him do that, I knew he’d made a serious mistake right from our old Political Union days. Out of either arrogance or ignorance, Kerry did not anticipate the reaction that his Vietnam-centric speech would generate. As of this week, the proof is in that Kerry was not prepared to respond to what he should have known was coming, the truth squad of many more Swift Boat veterans than the dozen he featured on the stage in Boston.
The letter of 5 August is written by the “counsel for the Democratic Committee and for John Kerry.” It accuses Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as running a “dishonest” ad by fake crewmates and a “doctor.” Well the doctor is a real doctor, and none of the men on screen claimed that they were in his boat, only that they saw what happened. (The Kerry lawyers knock down a straw man by saying that they weren’t “in Kerry’s boat,” and blithely ignore that Swift Boats usually operate in flotillas of three or more boats.) And the letter implicitly threatens the station managers with lawsuits if they don’t back off.
Marc Elian, General Counsel, Kerry-Edwards ‘04, and Joseph Sandler, General Counsel, DNC, were the signers of this 2 1/2-page attack on the Swift Boat Veterans.
The tactics of Kerry’s (and the DNC’s) lawyers amount to this: They unfortunately paint Kerry as a small child in the backseat of a car with his siblings, headed for the beach. It’s been a long ride; the kids are getting fractious. And suddenly one of them whines to the mother, “Ma, he’s touching me.” That wussy tactic may work in the back seat of a Buick, but it won’t work in a presidential campaign. A man who cannot stand up to a vigorous debate conducted in English can hardly be expected to stand up to foreign enemies who are willing to kill Americans at any time and who speak the language of explosives.
If John Kerry had not put his Vietnam “service” at the very heart of his campaign, the counterattack that has come would not have occurred. Or, more accurately, it would have remained underground, known to only a few. It was Kerry’s choice to make Vietnam a front-burner issue, and that put the counterattack on the front-burner as well.
Now that the issue is joined in public, with the book-length treatment of this subject, Unfit for Command, coming out in a week, there’s only one way for Kerry to deal with the subject. He must give permission to make his Vietnam records public. That means ALL records – the ones concerning his Purple Hearts, and the ones concerned with the missions he did, and did not, take part in.
The best proof of what happened in Vietnam almost forty years ago does not rest on the memories of men who were there then, whether they support or oppose Kerry for President. Records made at the time are a far better indicator of the truth because those records were not generally made to influence an election four decades yet to come.
So far, Kerry has refused to release those records, which he could do at the stroke of a pen. George Bush has released all of his military records. As long as Kerry keeps his heels dug in, and withholds his records, it’s a reasonable conclusion that there are details buried in those old files which will harm Kerry if they get out.
And every bit of this was entirely foreseeable by Kerry before he decided to feature Vietnam. He forgot, or he never bothered to learn, the lesson from the Union debates so long ago. If you can see a counterattack which you cannot answer, then drop the initial argument like a hot rock. Don’t start down a path on a subject which you cannot win. I knew that when I was 20 and debating in the Union. Kerry doesn’t know it when he is 60 and running for President.
And that’s one more reason why John Kerry shouldn’t wind up in the White House. He’s a wuss.
While we’re on that subject, my profound thanks to Hershl Hartman, Faculty, International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism vegvayzer/Leader, The Sholem Community, L.A. He wrote to me about my column on “The Wussification of America ....” He’s the expert, and he properly corrected my mistaken claim that “wuss” was a Yiddish word. I had the meaning right, but not the source. And I appreciate rather than resent it, when my readers are smarter than I am and correct what I have written.
Post Script: This week’s employment figures generated much press dishonesty and demand a mention here. The Corporate Survey reported a job growth of only 32,000 last month. But the Employment Survey, also from the Department of Labor, reported a job growth of 629,000. Only the latter is consistent with the drop in the unemployment rate from 5.6% to 5.5%..
I covered the reasons for the difference between these two numbers about six months ago. Any competent and honest reporter can read the official report from the Labor Department and get this story straight. The only reason why any reporters (and their editors) get this story wrong is that they WANT to, because the false story plays into their biased view of the American economy.
Here are three groups who are NOT in the Corporate Survey, but ARE in the Household one. These total more than a million employees: domestic and medical workers in homes, military Reservists whose salaries are continued while they’re on duty, and self-employed workers in all careers.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is a civil rights attorney who lives in the Blue Ridge of North Carolina. CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net
- 30 -
L
Please ping this out, as you deem appropriate.
John / Billybob
I'm surprised we don't hear more about the parallel to the famous Gary Hart "Follow me around" challenge. Isn't that exactly what we hear John Edwards saying at the opening of the ad? "If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him." Well, why aren't reporters asking?
U.S. Senate 77% absentee rate
20 years in the Senate = 5 insignificant bills sponsored into law.
I would think a billionaire gigolo with mansions, a yacht, a jet and a fleet of SUVs would have the decency to return the salary he hasn't earned and doesn't need.
Ping
Does anyone know If John Kerry (a confessed war criminal) would sign on the the International criminal court treaty?
The only difference between the two is ease of taking the challenge. Following Hart to spot the bimbos was a simple matter, compared to the shoe leather reporting required to spot the lies from Vietnam. But the fact that some types of reporting require some serious work, is no excuse for the press to avoid such a subject.
John / Billybob
Thanks
Thanks!
Much of the news yesterday had to do with threats of lawsuits over the SwiftVets claims.
Here's an excerpt from a great article today:
"John Edwards said that all we have to do is ask anyone who served with John Kerry about his honor, and then we do, and then they get sued. Normally I might agree that taking an issue from over three decades ago and using it against a candidate today is a pretty lame smear. Like if three days before an election a twenty plus year-old DUI suddenly “appeared” in a little dusty box from a small rusty courthouse. But it is equally lame when you take an issue from over thirty years ago, wrap yourself around it, and run up and down Iowa like it is the only thing you have going for you." This is from http://www.dustinmhawkins.com
The threats of lawsuits are just another indication of the mentality of these two clowns who are presenting themselves as capable of defending America from the haters of freedom worldwide.
Highlands bump.
you know, the whole 'lawsuit' bit could work in our favor. if the Johns get elected, VP Edwards could file a lawsuit against bin Laden, and when he shows up for court, WE NAB HIM!!!
it's bulletproof!
Good point! The press is a willing and active accomplice of the left, and is going out of its way to print proven lies and distortions, while comitting planned omissions. They are truly an accessory to the actions of the left, as they prove daily in print.
They should get NO PASS. And Washington is guilty of giving their biased partisanship a boost with the so-called "Campaign Reform" which gave them license to flag their favorite liberal party, at will, while legally ignoring the right...after the candidates can no longer take out ads to defend and present their positions.
You are joking of course. Bin Laden does not do things like laws and courts, he does bombs and guns.
Nonetheless, the bias that is so obvious in the treatment of GWB's service versus JFK's service is striking.
As I recall, Kerry preferred to be the first (or second) debater, so he could boldly state his points.Typical.
Thank you John. Great article as always.
Which is why the "international community" wants him there: A Kerry presidency would make it easier to loot America and the world.
I vote for arrogance.
Also he was totally enclosed in the "Boston" culture, who think like he does (in their isolated enclave of wacky elitism). Talking only to "yes" men can lead to unreal views of the world (another reason he should not be commander-in-chief).
Also the poodle liberal press does him a disservice by letting him think that he can walk on water and get away with it.
And finally the Bush campaign is so very good at letting the opposition go way out on a branch and then cutting it off.
Good piece!
Was testimony, descriptions, accounts of events, etc., from men on other boats ever used or taken into account during decisions to award medals?
If that were the case, the lawyer's ploy is absurd, and more so if that happened in the case of Kerry's medals.
longjack
Bookmark for later read.
That's a good point. In addition to GWB's reserve record, he MSM was quite willing to expend all sorts of time, money and effort to unseal Jack Ryan's supposedly private divorce records (in order to boost the campaign of their new darling Barack Obama, while allowing Kerry's to remain sealed. They will persue items relentlessly as long as it serves the greater cause. The MSM os more properly classified as propagandists, rather than journalists.
Yes, but be clear that the Bush campaign has nothing to do with the Swiftboat ads.
Another great post, Congressman. Thanks for giving us a clear overview of what is going on with the swift boat business.
John,
Another one hit "outta the park." Thanks again for your efforts. Be encouraged; we're out here reading and enjoying your work.
-R
It is true that the Bush campaign had nothing to do with the Swiftees.
My point is that they are good at letting the other side go way too far, and not saying anything, and then in a couple of strikes cutting off the limb.
In this case the campaign does not even need to get involved. The truth will come out and Kerry is in trouble.
Touche!
"the whole 'lawsuit' bit could work in our favor. if the Johns get elected, VP Edwards could file a lawsuit against bin Laden, and when he shows up for court, WE NAB HIM!!!
"it's bulletproof!"
Your sarcasm is well taken. On the other hand, perhaps Edwards' famous courtroom manipulation of juries can be used to full advantage by letting him "negotiate" with bin Laden. I'm sure his great hair, southern drawl, boyish smile, and demonstrative hands would persuade bin Laden to just call off his goons!
Edwards' perpetual smile alone should push bin Laden into further madness, possibly make him suicidal.
Thanks again,John !
I think this subject is of huge interest to Freepers and you have outlined it well.
I don't know if you saw, but last night Tony Snow was in for Bill O'Reilly and had a dem guest (I believe his name was Matt Baer--I made notes at the time), and in studio was Monica Crowley.
While some Freepers were unhappy with Snow's amiable host demeanor, I noted that he got Baer to concede that George W. Bush had released all of his Guard records and that Kerry should release all of his own records, too. Baer explicitly agreed not once, but twice.
Crowley was probably the strongest on an issue as I have ever seen her. She made your (and Freepers') point that Kerry had chosen to make his Vietnam service the central plank of his qualifications for office.
Crowley also opined that she did think that "30 year old" service was at the very least tangentially relevant to review when evaluating a candidate for office. She said she thought it was fair that Bush's records had been reviewed and they seem to be in order and he served well and honorably.
As to Kerry, again he has made it a huge issue and these men have stepped forward to offer a different point of view. These men deserve to have their voices heard, Crowley firmly stated.
Hannity and Colmes was fascinating and there are a couple threads on it. The guest, Chris Horner, identified on screen as a "Republican lawyer" was excellent. Just excellent. Susan Estrich was in for Colmes and Horner's demeanor, points and language was so spot on it was fantastic to behold. The dem guest kept a big "what, me worry?" smile plastered on his face as he said things like "I hope they do keep running this ad as it will only hurt the Republicans". Horner asked if that was why the DNC had lawyers send threatening letters to the media trying to squash this ad.
Well, I hope we see more of Chris Horner.
BTW, I was on my high school debate team and enjoyed reading your review above of how a debate is structured.
No, if the nightmare comes true and the Johns are elected, VP Edwards sues Kerry and gets him ousted as President. Voila! President Edwards.
wuss: n. Slang A person regarded as weak or timid and especially as unmanly,: “Cats are for wusses, dog men say” (Laura Blumenfeld).
[Probably blend of wimp, and pussy.] wussy adj.
Sounds like Hanoi John to me!
THEY brought up his swift boat days, and the vets shot it down.
THEY brought up that none of his detractors were on his boat, and now someone from his boat has come forward and shot that down.
THEY brought up the seven minute delay, and surprise, surprise, out comes an interview transcript in which Kerry stated he couldn't even think and did nothing for thirty-five minutes after the second tower was hit.
He would be wise to not bring anything else up. He has nothing to run on - every lie comes back to bite him.
I'm really enjoying this election - the most important in my lifetime. Of course 2008 will be more important, on which Hillary is already hard at work.
The republicans need to say this everytime this story come up.
Thanks, Congressman Billybob. Good essay today.Says the Wuss: Ma, He’s Touching Me
Excerpt:
Here’s how a team of two would prepare for a debate. You would discuss and decide with your partner three points: 1) What are the main issues we want to make? 2) What are the main issues the other side it likely to make? And 3) What counterattacks can we expect from the other side, and how do we counter those? It is the last point which is most difficult to prepare for.
It’s also the point at which even veteran debaters can lose the whole contest. John Kerry may have just made just that fatal mistake on the subject of Vietnam, and it may be the final nail in the coffin of his campaign for President.
I have a number of friends who were “in country” when John Kerry was. A couple were in the Swift Boat service. Before Kerry’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, I already knew the kind of charges of dishonesty that were possible. They were already being made, but well below the radar of national media. No one in the broader audience was listening.
Then Kerry decided, and it was obviously a deliberate and calculated decision, to promote his four months of service in Vietnam as the centerpiece of his campaign. And as I watched him do that, I knew he’d made a serious mistake right from our old Political Union days. Out of either arrogance or ignorance, Kerry did not anticipate the reaction that his Vietnam-centric speech would generate. As of this week, the proof is in that Kerry was not prepared to respond to what he should have known was coming, the truth squad of many more Swift Boat veterans than the dozen he featured on the stage in Boston.
The letter of 5 August is written by the “counsel for the Democratic Committee and for John Kerry.” It accuses Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as running a “dishonest” ad by fake crewmates and a “doctor.” Well the doctor is a real doctor, and none of the men on screen claimed that they were in his boat, only that they saw what happened. (The Kerry lawyers knock down a straw man by saying that they weren’t “in Kerry’s boat,” and blithely ignore that Swift Boats usually operate in flotillas of three or more boats.) And the letter implicitly threatens the station managers with lawsuits if they don’t back off.
Marc Elian, General Counsel, Kerry-Edwards ‘04, and Joseph Sandler, General Counsel, DNC, were the signers of this 2 1/2-page attack on the Swift Boat Veterans.
The tactics of Kerry’s (and the DNC’s) lawyers amount to this: They unfortunately paint Kerry as a small child in the backseat of a car with his siblings, headed for the beach. It’s been a long ride; the kids are getting fractious. And suddenly one of them whines to the mother, “Ma, he’s touching me.” That wussy tactic may work in the back seat of a Buick, but it won’t work in a presidential campaign. A man who cannot stand up to a vigorous debate conducted in English can hardly be expected to stand up to foreign enemies who are willing to kill Americans at any time and who speak the language of explosives.
My thanks to Traumer, Arrowhead1952 and Conspiracy Guy for the concept of this pic
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.
It's worse than you think.
I was contacted by the press (USA Today, Washington Post) to explain some of George Bush's records because I was involved in the Air Guard at the time. I also went over the very few released records from Kerry's campaign, showing discrepancies therein and Kerry's failure to show up for mandatory Reserve duty in 1970-72.
Their response? Essentially, "we don't care about that, we're only interested in Bush".
Interesting info on the job surveys.
Excellent column - thanks! I hope at least one of the news shows tomorrow devotes time to the Swifties' allegations. They are deserving of objective investigation. Where are the "investigative reporters" of the Watergate era? Are the new journalistic heroes of today not Woodward and Bernstein but Geraldo and Jerry Springer (not to mention Goebels)?
PS - I wonder if the Swifties could sue the Dem lawyers for slander because of the letter they sent to the TV stations? Then they could demand Kerry's military records as part of the efforts to clear their names.
I am no lawyer but wish this could happen.
I said some time ago that his bringing up the Vietnam War was going to come back and bite him in the A&%.
Thanks for posting this most informative essay.
Enjoyed your personal impressions and analysis of Kerry way back then.
MUST READ PING by Congressman Billybob
John Kerry : "war hero" or a "war criminal"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1186991/posts
BTTT!!!!!!
I agree Kerry has made a strategic mistake by concentrating his entire campaign on just four months (and very questionable ones at that) of the last 37 years.
Even more incredibly, these 4 months highlight things his supporters detest the most about America but consist of the only mainstream, honorable (I use the term loosely here) thing he has done in his entire sorry story of a career. But it's the only thing which has a chance of mainstreaming him enough to get him elected. After all, most American don't live in Massachusetts nor do they have the same values, thankfully.
But when one has the weak hand he holds and is unlikeable to boot, what else can you do? Now it's up to his lawyers and the MSM to run interference for him - and they will - long enough to fool a plurality of voters in this country. His only hope is to stagger across the Finish Line before everything blows up in his face.
This now exposed chink in his primary campaign flag may well be his undoing. I doubt the Swifties are going away soon. My bet is having once faced genuine bullets and with their principles on the line, they will not be cowed by a few nasty lawyers and political hacks
A man who cannot stand up to a vigorous debate conducted in English can hardly be expected to stand up to foreign enemies who are willing to kill Americans at any time and who speak the language of explosives.
I can scarcely believe that you are only considering a run for Congress. Someone of your veracity and articulating abilities should be considered for a higher station.
Good Luck!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
