Swiftboating has become a verb just like McCarthyism.  Like McCarthyism it is a misnomer as McCarthy was more sinned against than sinning.  In a previous post, I mentioned that the Swiftboaters were right, and, if I ever get around to it, I will elaborate on McCarthyism, as a partial defense of Ann Coulter.

As I mentioned we can argue about whether the information that the Swiftboaters were presenting was relevant.  Keep in mind that John Kerry was chosen because Democrats thought someone with military experience would be needed defeat a wartime president.  He also began his nomination acceptance speech with a salute and the phrase, "reporting for duty."  It could certainly be argued that Kerry and the Democrats opened the door to questions about his military record.  This is especially true as his military record was used to bolster his resume.

Of course, some people in the military, swiftboat veterans in particular, also argued that his perjurous, slanderous testimony before congress wherein he claimed to have witnessed things he may only have heard (assuming they were not made up) and called the behavior of his fellow service men as being comparable to Ghengis Kahn disqualified him from later serving as the Commander-in-chief of that same military. It is claimed that even his attire (military fatigues with ribbons) showed his contempt for the military.

There are questions about whether his service was consistent with the best standards of military conduct.  Descriptions form his fellow swiftboat captains called into question his command and whether it demonstrated valor in the face of the enemy.  There were questions about whether the record as it is written accurately reflects what actually happened.  There are questions about whether the purple hearts he was given were deserved.  Kerry released a small trickle of his military records.  Fitness reports were remarkably sparse.  This may have been because some of the reports were pro forma.  They needed to be written as the Navy officer was passing through a particular post without providing the commanding officer much opportunity to get to know the officer they were evaluating.  Other reports talked about the officer's ability to express himself verbally and in writing.  This in a report where we would expect his commanders to be discussing his seamanship and leadership abilities.  Taken together, the fitness reports that were released show nothing bad (of course, we might expect better), but these are the reports that Kerry allowed to be released.  One wonders about the reports that were not released.  Perhaps they provide glowing reports.  But there must be something in each of them that, in Kerry's judgment, should not be made available to the public. To release some mediocre reports but keep the bulk of them secret called into question the quality of the records that were not released.

There were testimonials from people who served with Kerry on his swiftboat confirming Kerry's fitness as a swiftboat commander.  There was even a testimonial from someone saved by Kerry and his crew.  I say nothing bad about any of these people.  I am grateful for their service.  I might also point out that loyalty and gratitude are traits not found wanting in these people.  As crewmen on a swiftboats, the crew members would be occupied with their duty to an extent that would prevent them from being able to evaluate the tactical situation their boat was in.  The testimony of the serviceman saved by Kerry's boat also underlines the danger that he was facing being in the water since he said he had to keep submerging in order to avoid being shot at.  Being in the water and having to avoid bullets may have kept him busy and may have prevented him from being able to make an evaluation of the tactical situation.  Not that these servicemen were being dishonest, but that the depictions of the situation given by other swiftboat captains may be more reliable than Kerry's crew.

Also called into question was the oddity that, in spite of all of the gunfire that Kerry said his boat had to withstand, there was surprisingly little damage to Kerry's boat.

Kerry's defenders point to the fact that reports written at the time support Kerry's version.  One can imagine that nobody would object when an officer with a facility with writing volunteers to write some reports--a task that nobody else relishes in a unit of fighting men.  Who would imagine that those reports might be questioned years later by people discussing the very officer who wrote them?

Ultimately, the effect of this all depends on whether or not you think any of it is relevant.  Kerry must have been worried about it.  The Swiftboaters created a documentary explaining their case.  One TV station had agreed to air it.  Before they even got the chance, Kerry's people contacted the TV station and threatened to organize boycotts against the sponsors if they aired it.  This at a time when Fahrenheit 911 was being released.  My (liberal) colleagues defended this particular bit of libel saying that people should be allowed to watch it and come to their own conclusions and that if conservatives wanted to make their own movie, it should also be shown to allow people to make their own decisions.  Too bad Kerry's people didn't agree with them.

The story is still being written as Kerry promised to allow his entire record to be released.  He still hasn't done this four years later.  Whatever liberals seem to think about Kerry's military record, Kerry seems to think there is something there we shouldn't see.

I never liked Sam Donaldson.  He is liberal, but so is George Stephanopolous.  But George knows he is a liberal and can understand The Other Side.  Sam doesn't get that there are other ways of thinking.  He thought the 2006 Republicans lost because of the Republican's support of the war.

Today he invoked swiftboating as a verb and called on Hillary to release her tax returns.  I also think that Hillary should release her tax returns.  She claims that she will release them on tax day.  Should she win the nomination and then release her tax returns, she deprives Democrats from the ability to consider that information in making their choice.  This would be especially bad for the Democratic party if they contain something damaging that would affect her electability and they get released in time for the general election.  Of course, releasing them at that point would be stupid, and Hillary's team is not stupid.  Watch for her to delay the release of her tax returns the way she is refusing to release her diaries from her time as first lady.  They can make whatever excuses they want, but if she agrees to have them released, they will be released.

Now, let's go back to swiftboating.  First of all, the swiftboaters were right.  You can argue about whether their information was relevant to the election, but the information was true.  Of course, as a liberal, I don't expect him to agree with this.  As Mr. Elder is fond of saying, facts to liberals are like kryptonite to Superman.  But let's talk about Kerry.  If John Kerry's view of his service is correct, he would have filed a simple form that would allow his military records to be released.  He has not.  Here we are, almost four years after the election and John Kerry has still not followed through on his promise to allow his military records to be released.  If Sam Donaldson believes John Kerry, as I am sure the Democrats do, then there should be no reason why Kerry would not release his records.  I'm sure that this little form has just slipped his mind.

Yeah right.


Hillary should release her records without delay.  Kerry should also.

Far be it for me to help Democrats, but there are some basic rules of fair play, negotiations and Game Theory that many of the Democrats floating proposals for dealing with the issue of Michigan and Floriday need to heed.

1.  When you bring the candidates in for negotiations, the proposals you offer cannot deterministically choose a candidate.  You cannot ask a candidate to agree to a plan that will give up his bid for a nomination.  This does not mean that you cannot offer something that will likely cause a candidate to lose.  It means you cannot offer something that will certainly cause a candidate to lose.  As an example, as of this point, a 50-50 division of delegates will likely be advantageous to Obama, but it would not certainlty doom Hillary.  If such an offer is made soon, that is fine as long as when the offer is accepted, there is still a chance for Hillary to win.  That doesn't mean that Hillary should accept such an offer; it means that the offer can be made.  Once it becomes mathematically impossible for Hillary to win with such an offer, that offer should not be made.  The subsequent elections can doom her chances, not he acceptance of the offer.  You cannot make an offer that dooms the candidtate.

2.  You cannot allow someone to benefit from breaking the rules.  The rules are made ahead of the contest.  Everyone knows the rules going in.  Everyone knows the consequences of breaking the rules.  The states knew the consequences when they scheduled their primaries.  The candidates knew this when one pulled his name from the ballot and the other did not.  Obama was justified in taking his name off the ballots in Michigan and Florida if that is what the rules required.  To allow the primary results to stand, punishes Obama for going along with the rules and rewards both the states and Hillary for breaking the rules.  Hillary may be known for breaking rules, but we don't need to reward her.  It could be argued that the expectations were that the rules would not be followed and that after some negotiating and lobbying, the results from these primaries could be honored. This argues for consistent enforcement of the rules.  The expectation that rules would be ignored is poisonous.  Otherwise, the rules mean nothing.

3.  Results of a contest where the rules were not followed are always tainted.  This goes beyond the occasional asterisk in the record books.  The results may be rendered meaningless.  It may be argued that the people made their choices and that they should be listened to.  But without Obama on the ballot, without active campaigning by both candidates, the decision is not a fair one.  Of course, if they made decisions based on strategy, that is one thing.  But if they pulled one TV spot because they were following the rules, that the campaign is tainted.  The people have not made their choice.  The people have reacted to an unfair camaign.

This means that the only fair thing to do is to have new elections.  They do have to be fair, and secure. Funny how democrats are worried more about security in their primaries that in general elections, but that is for another post.  It also may mean that the New Hampshire primary results should be attenuated to apply the rules.  It may mean that some of the Republican contests would be affected.  Whatever the rules say should be followed talmudically.

That is what Ann Coulter seems to be saying in her latest article.  But we can't "Make a deal."  And it does matter that you choose the right door.  The Right door.

Let me confess something.  I like Ann's work.  Many conservatives may not admit this.  But RightTeacher1 will.  She is . . . caustic, to be sure.  And I do disagree with her on occasion. 

On the other hand, she defended Joe McCarthy as a man who was actually right.  That if people know exactly what happened in that "Have you no decency?" episode, they would have a different opinion than they would just reading history books and watching movies of the event.  (How many people still think SENATOR McCarthy had anything to do with the HOUSE Unamerican Activities Committee.)  That he was a man more sinned against than sinning.  But he was, well, . . . caustic.  I tried to get people on leftist boards to defend history's verdict.  They were very helpful about how much they hated Ann.  They were very helpful about how much they hated McCarthy.  But when I would solicit facts about why he and Ann are wrong and they are right, they would tell me that that is not what their board is about--they aren't interested in facts.  They had no real critiques about what he did.  He just rubbed people the wrong way.

Ann rubs people the wrong way.

And she does that as she tells people that we now have to choose between three senators for our next president (meaning of course, that our next president will be a senator--something that hasn't happened since JFK) and that all three are democrats.

Well, she's wrong.  McCain has an R next to his name.  He may be to the left of anyone who might be reading this, but his is no RINO.

She refutes my previous posts (OK, not directly) that McCain may have an 82 LIFETIME conservative rating, but that RECENTLY his rating has been closer to 62.  Fine.  Probably a good point.  But we need to look at a number of things.

First, if I understand this rating correctly, 62 would still be "conservative."  Not as conservative as we'd like (I'm still a Romney guy, even though I'm a McCain guy), but certainly no democrat.

Second, what are the ratings of Obama or Billary.  That is what democrats should look like.  McCain is no democrat.

Third, we already know some of his colossal blunders.  He's already taken a hit for them.  We already take those into account.  Don't hit him a second time because those blunders lowered his conservative rating.  Is there anything that the 62 ratings tell us that we didn't already know?

We know about immigration, Bush's tax cuts, campaign finance reform, judges, and the environment.  Isn't that alone enough to lower his rating to 62?  Is Ann telling us there is more?

But McCain is no democrat.

He is right on the war.  Take either Billary (Ann's choice) or Obama, and we will give up in Iraq.  Does it matter that we're winning?  I recall a tape made by one Osama Bin Laden from December 2001, where he talks about America as a paper tiger after eight years of Clinton 41.  And that is just because we didn't engage when threatened several times over those eight years.  We all remember the result.  We will never forget the result.  Imagine how much more of a paper tiger we would seem to Jihadists if, after all this time, all this blood and all this treasure, we ran away when we weren't losing, just because our leaders didn't have the stomach to finish the job.  They would try something worse than 9/11.  Something that might even succeed if the Obama Billary people manage to weaken FISA and the Patriot act and other acts and agencies that have kept us safe for almost seven years.  This would not happen with McCain.  Ok, there is still the torture issue, but that is understandable.  McCain is still no democrat.

On immigration, McCain has said we would do enforcement first.  I hope someone asks him if that means that we'll get our damn fence.  I hope he gives the right answer.  I hope he means it.  Certainly his position is better than Obama Billary's.  Not giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.  If he asks me, I'll tell him what to do.  I also hope he appoints people who can give him good advice.  After all, McCain is no democrat.

On the Tax Cuts, we understand why he did it.  He believes in the integrity of the budget.  But we're at war.  He knows that.  He wants to keep non-defense spending under control.  Does anyone reading this disagree with that?  He needs to have Romney or Rudy explain to him about taxes and a vibrant  economy.  And he'll listen because McCain is no democrat.

On campaign finance reform, I don't have a response.  I hope he's seen the error of his ways, but is too stubborn to admit it.  Certainly after one campaign running against Obama Billary and their 527's, he will come to appreciate what a mess he made.  Certainly then, he'll be no democrat.

On judges, he has said and I believe that he will pick Roberts's and Alitos.  I prefer Scalias's, but that is just me.  His problem with judges was over procedures, not over the kind of judges we will need.  In that case, it may be good to keep him out of the senate.  He is no democrat.

On environment, I am hopeful that an educated McCain will not blunder.  The need for energy independence and his understanding of national security would compel a change on his ANWR stance.  The enlightenment he needs to get about business and the economy would make him renounce his McCain-Lieberman farce.  I am hopeful because I know he is no democrat.

This is not an impassioned defense.  In my refrain, I am not taking my cue from Mark Antony.  I am not being ironic.  I wish I could make a better case.  I know Romney (or Rudy) would be better.  I am a month behind in listing to talk radio podcasts, and so I am hearing about a wistful time when Romney was still in it. But, McCain has won according to the rules, as George Will reminds us.  I know there are still problems with McCain that I don't have answers for.  But we are stuck with him.

Right now we have a choice of three and soon we will have a choice of two.  One will have and R after his name and he will win the war, cut spending, and appoint good judges.  The other will have a D after his/her/his name and will appoint activist judges, raise taxes, increase spending and lose the war.  The person with a D after his/her/his name may get us killed.

That is the choice we have.  We can't make a deal.  Door number one, door number two, or door number three.  Which ever you choose, it is vital that McCain is on the other side.