August 23, 2004
A Foul StenchRove, Bush, the whole skanky mob -- they are the kings of the smear campaign. Doesn't everyone know this? Don't people know who these people are? Rove, the king of spin, who learned dirty tricks at the knee of the master, Richard Nixon. And Bush Jr. himself, who convinced his father to "go negative." And what a legacy of successes the party of Nixon has had with smearing people. It was the way Nixon started his career, smearing the incumbents holding the offices he wanted, first in the House, then in the Senate. They didn't know what hit them. They were decent people, old fashioned and unequipped to deal with a cynicism as monumental as Nixon's. Proudly smearing an opponent with fabrications was a technique Nixon perfected in the late '40s and early '50s. How many careers have he and his heirs ruined with slander? How many opponents have they mowed down with vicious lies?
Now these absurd attacks on Kerry's military record, as if his wounds were -- "self inflicted" -- are they kidding? This is really something that has been said as part of this campaign. And people are believing it. It has measurably crashed Kerry's approval rating with military people.
What are they thinking? Even if you entertain the notion that Kerry ground a hunk of shrapnel into his leg, the guy was there -- in combat -- in Vietnam. He was decorated, praised, over and over. Then suddenly this big campaign gets going, with lots of money behind it, and some veterans who did some time in Vietnam too, some who brushed shoulders with Kerry, none who were on his boat with him, who say he is unfit. They are also, not coincidentally, sore at him for protesting the war when they all got back. Somehow they felt that it cast a bad light on their own duty in Vietnam, which it didn't at all. It was an indictment of the political leaders.
These poor saps tell inconsistent stories that contradict the official story that has stood from the time the incidents happened until now. To say that somehow Kerry made all of it up and pulled a great deception on his superiors in order to build a political career is just not plausible. But this is how far they will go, and people will buy it. That's the astonishing thing, the really sad thing.
The double standards are amazing. It is documented with sworn court testimony that Bush used his family connections to get put in front of the long line waiting to get into the Texas Air National Guard. That alone is enough contrast Bush with Kerry, who volunteered to go to Vietnam. What else is there to say? But leave it to them. They always come up with something. It doesn't matter how wild and unbelievable. The bigger the lie, the more likely the masses will believe, said Adolf. It appears to be true, and people like Rove have no qualms about using that fact shamelessly. They win because no one can stoop lower. The old smear tactic is tried and true.
This is one of many examples that shows how hard it is to oppose a regime that will gladly violate every principle of morality or decorum to defeat you. It is one of those times when one must ask whether it is worth it to become as lowdown as your opponent. It's going to be very difficult to defeat these people because they have absolutely no reservation about telling any lie that suits them. How can people believe them -- still? It's astonishing.
Another of the absurd double standards: when an editor of the Chicago Tribune who served with Kerry came out in public for the first time to oppose the Swift Bullship of Lies, and the latter dismissed it as "political". What is that supposed to mean? Is the Swift Boat NOT political? This gets very confusing.
No doubt the confusion makes many throw up their hands and stop paying attention, which is what the Bushocracy wants. The lower the vote turnout, the better for Republicans. They can get their robots out there no matter what. But -- the Democrats know this election will be won not by the "middle", the "undecideds" or "independents", the "swing voters". Kerry will win by the new voters. The majority of the population that does not bother to vote. And they aren't so disaffected to refuse to participate in the electoral system because they are Republicans. They are somewhere to the left and out back from the "likely voters".