I can't help but notice that Kausfiles has been uncharacteristically silent on the subject of Swift Boat Veterans for Smearing Kerry. Very interesting.
P.S. What I mean is that Kaus should probably post something about the ads. Like he should either defend them in some slimy way, or admit the wrongness of the whole thing. But conservative bloggers seem to prefer ignoring the problem.
P.P.S. Kausfiles is dumb.
I should mention I'll be on a panel discussing political blogging at JournalCon D.C. this weekend. I'll be sure to mention this for you. :)
Whoa.. really?
kick ass..
Ummmm, hasn't Mickey Kaus already said that he's voting for Kerry? How does that make him a "conservative" blogger?
I've never seen Kaus say that. In fact, here's an August 11 post that suggests otherwise:
Discussing the weak July job numbers on the Labor Department's "establishment" survey, a New York Sun editorial Monday argued:
Even an avowed Kerry voter, Slate's Mickey Kaus, wrote over the weekend that that flaw in the establishment survey is "glaring" and "troubling." [Emphasis added]
Wow, that was easy. Attend one measly Democratic fundraiser and you get to pull off the old "even an avowed Kerry voter" scam! It took the New Republic decades of hard work and ideological treason to achieve its sought-after "Even the Liberal" status (as in "even the liberal New Republic favors invading tk"). ... This was clearly the most effective $300 I've spent in years. ... 1:28 A.M.
Ummmm, when Atrios is saying "Kaus (who I met, annoyingly), is apparently voting for Kerry even though he hates him"
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_07_25_atrios_archive.html#109128423582169594
and when Kaus describes himself "As a loyal Kerry supporter..."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104312/
So he critisizes Kerry and points out his flaws...that makes him conservative? Does that make Andrew Sullivan a liberal for pointing out Bush's flaws and questioning his support for him? I'd argue that the ability to support a candidate while still recognizing that candidate's flaws rather than blindly parroting the party line makes you more of a centrist and independent than a "conservative" or "liberal."
Well, would the fact that he intends to vote Kerry make him liberal?
As an off-and-on reader I was under the impression that Kaus was pretty consistently conservative. I've seen him criticize Kerry and I've seen him criticize people who criticize Bush, but that's about it.
Kaus has said he's voting for Kerry, but I don't know if I even believe him. His primary schtick these days focuses on (often arcane) reasons why Democrats are panicked and/or doomed against Bush. Very strange. I can't blame anyone for thinking Kaus is conservative, since at a glance he does appear strongly anti-Kerry.
Yeah, even in the link SomeGuy provided, I can't find a place where Kaus says he'll vote for Kerry or why -- only references to the way people reacted to his decision (and those references are pretty vague).
Just another pro-Kerry item he doesn't want to post about? Hmm.
By the way, here's a little known Furdell comments rule: never start your comment "Ummmm." It's stupid.
Indeed. Maybe the Swiftees should run a contest to design their newest commercial, then crown the victor the one who compares Kerry to Hitler.
Oh wait; only Democrats can have ass-hat 527s.
Oh, har-de-har. But there are some key differences between the MoveOn.org ad and the Swift Boat Vets ad.
1.) The MoveOn ad was, as you say, a contest entry, posted to the site supposedly before it was adequately screened. MoveOn removed the ad. (The Swift Boats ad was made under much more usual circumstances and airs on television.)
2.) John Kerry publically decried the MoveOn ad. Bush and his spokespeople have refused to comment on the Swift Boats ad one way or the other.
3.) None of this has anything to do with Mickey Kaus or his blog -- unless you're complaining that Kaus was much quicker to decry THAT ad, in which case, good point.
1) While the MoveOn Hitler ad was an on-line only contest entry, MoveOn HAS produced and aired ads that accuse Bush of being AWOL during his National Guard stint. A charge that has never been proven by anyone that has leveled it. Whether or not you agree with that ad, you have to admit that the Bush AWOL charges have no more or less merit than the Kerry Swift Boat charges. If anything, the Swift Boat charges have MORE merit as they've already proven that Kerry lied about part of his service (you know, the whole Cambodia thing...but that's irrelvent since it happened 35 years ago...as opposed to the entirely relevant Bush AWOL charges, that were 32 years ago.
2) Bush has said that he has nothing to critisize in regards to Kerry's service and that he finds Kerry's service to be honorable. Has Kerry every said the same in regards to Bush's National Guard service or decried the baseless accusations of his own Party chair that Bush was AWOL?
3) I don't recall Kaus saying one thing or another about the Hitler ad. Link Please.
1.) We're getting farther and farther from the point at hand here. I never claimed MoveOn.org or its actions were in any way less deplorable than Swift Boat Vets. I'm interested in the silence on the part of Bush and much of the conservative...ahem...blogosphere in decrying the ad for being, as it is, offensively false.
2.) Indeed, Bush does have nothing to criticize re: Kerry's service. After all, Bush ducked service via the National Guard. Furthermore, whereas Kerry can produce a guy who can honestly say "this man, while injured and being fired on, pulled me to safety with complete disregard for his own life," Bush has trouble producing anyone who can say "Yeah, I vaguely remember him being there."
3.) Pure speculation.