rascott.com

news, views, travel and an occasional blog

Up

Now In Dubai

Scott Consulting

The opinions expressed on these pages are entirely personal unless they are credited; you may not agree with all, or anything, that I write. So please use the feedback page to respond, comment or berate me.                                 

The 2004 US Election

Making Vietnam an election issue

21 August 2004

The US election campaign is turning nasty and we can expect some good old fashioned mud slinging over the next 3 months.

The Democrats are very upset about a series of TV ads sponsored by the Republicans that question Kerry's Vietnam war record. Indeed Kerry has had to produce a series of quickly produced advertisements to counter what are clearly damaging claims.

But is is Kerry and his advisors that have made his war experience the centre piece of his campaign for the White House. Kerry's speeches, TV ads, interview, the entire Democratic convention were all focused on Vietnam. After all he did win 5 medals.

But then, and his campaign does not mention this, Kerry became a war protester leading Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Kerry wants to be seen as a strong president in a time of war. His Senate record is much more of a pacifist.

But if Kerry makes his war record the central theme of his campaign then he has to expect it to come under scrutiny.

Try this recent exchange: Vice President Dick Cheney zinged Kerry recently for advocating a "more sensitive war on terror." At a rally in Flint, Michigan, Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, accused Cheney of distorting Kerry's words. Then he added this: "He's talking about a man who still carries shrapnel in his body. He's talking about a man who spilled his blood for the United States of America." Democratic senator Tom Harkin went further, calling Cheney a "coward" for not having joined the military or served in Vietnam.

Kennedy never sold himself based on his war record or the shrapnel in his body. He never needed to.

Worse still Vietnam was over 30 years ago. Kerry is selling himself as a hard man based on something that happened a generation ago. The Democrats complain that Kerry was there and that Bush used family influence to avoid the Vietnam conflict.

But Bush has been the Commander in Chief for almost four years now. The voters can judge him based upon his actual performance not based on historical anecdotes. Bush fails on a judgment of his last four years. What happened 30 years ago is frankly not relevant.

John Kerry has asked the US Federal Election Commission to stop the critical advertisements. The Democratic Campaign announced on Friday that it had filed a legal complaint against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) for "violating the law with inaccurate ads that are illegally coordinated with the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign".

It asked the Federal Election Commission to warn the SBVT and the Bush campaign against "further violations" and oblige them to "repay their illegal contributions" as well as imposing a maximum fine.

The Bush campaign denies any connection to SBVT; but secretly must be enjoying the fight. Bush has refused to condemn the advertisements. And to be honest why should he. Kerry made his 30 year ago war record the cornerstone of his campaign. Now he needs to have the confidence to stand by that record not to hide behind legal suits. That's the trouble with having a high flying lawyer as his running mate.

The long campaign

9 July 2004

Why does it go on so long and why are the candidates so average? On December 1 2002 Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts announced that he would seek the Democratic nomination for president. The election itself is not until November 2004.

In Canada they recently finished an election that ran for six weeks from start to finish. In other countries the leader of the opposition is known and visible. Not in the US. One of the weaknesses of the US style of government is that there is no one who you can turn to who is the official leader and voice of the opposition. In Australia, Canada, Britain, Thailand the opposition has a voice; often a potent voice.

In the US the opposition voice is usually the senate member who most wants to get his or her face onto TV. It is only in the election campaign that there is a real voice for an alternative government.

We now have an opposition in the US that has a real and potent voice. A combination of Kerry and Edwards looks potent and covers the North and South of the US and both privileged and blue collar America.

This is not where the Bush White House thought they would be four months from election day. They were confident that a sitting war president would sail to re-election voted in by a still nervous America.

But: it may be that the US is changing; while most Americans probably are not that concerned with the fabricated evidence that took them to war in Iraq, they are hugely distressed at daily killings of American soldiers and the threat to civilians in Iraq. It is unlikely that anyone in the US feels any safer now that on 12 September 2002, despite the Iraq war and the questionable efforts of the Dept of Homeland Security.

Bush's government said they would make the country safer by taking on Iraq, but it is not. And therein lies a huge opportunity for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Over the next four months this site will track what I hope is the unlamented demise of the Bush administration. One strong advocate for change is Michael Moore; the Guardian review of his biting documentary is here.

The Kerry/Edwards campaign website is here. Sorry, there will be no link to the other team.