The Republican Attack Strategy

February 15, 2006
By Eric Tsetsi

There is no level too low, no topic out of bounds, and no such thing as fair play when it comes to Republicans who want power. Anyone who stands in the way of their quest - some might call it a crusade - is bound to be the target of an onslaught of personal attacks. Even fellow Republicans aren't immune.

John McCain became the subject of attacks from the Bush campaign in the Republican Presidential primary of 2000. After winning New Hampshire, McCain was set to win South Carolina, which purportedly would have sealed his victory over Bush. Almost immediately, rumors started to fly and McCain's image took a bare-knuckle hit on the jaw. His military record, his sanity, even his sexuality and fidelity were questioned. Many people believe Bush's campaign architect, Karl Rove, was behind the attacks although it was never proved. Ultimately, McCain lost South Carolina and the Republican nomination went to Bush.

The next Republican opponent to be subjected to bitter personal attacks was Max Cleland. In his 2002 Senate race against Saxby Chambliss, Cleland was undermined by a misleading and slanderous advertisement, which juxtaposed Cleland's image with that of Osama bin laden and Saddam Hussein. The advertisement also accused Cleland of voting against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security when in fact he supported the idea even before President Bush did. Right-wing political shock pundit, Ann Coulter, also suggested Cleland didn't deserve the title of "war hero." However, Unlike Chambliss, Cleland served honorably in Vietnam and received the Bronze Star and the Silver Star for his service and dedication to the country. Chambliss ultimately won the election in a surprising victory over Cleland, which helped Republicans monopolize their control of Congress.

The Republican attack machine was quickly perfecting its ability to raise questions about an opponent's military service and patriotism while tainting their character. By 2004 they had gotten it down to such an art, a new term was coined. They now call it "swift boating."

John Kerry and President Bush's battle for the presidency was a heated one and as Kerry emerged from the presidential debates victorious, he had to contend with the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." The Swift Boat Veterans, motivated by big money and a chip on their shoulder, assailed Kerry's war record. With Bush contributors behind them as well as a number of Republican political operatives the Swift Boat Veterans asserted Kerry had betrayed the country in his 1971 Senate testimony regarding war crimes committed during Vietnam. They also suggested Kerry didn't deserve the numerous medals he received for his service to the country, which included three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. Attacks on Kerry's military record helped the Bush Administration retain its position in the White House as half the country writhed in defeat.

In light of all the success Republicans have had smearing their rivals' characters, as well as their military records, it's no surprise they have continued to do so with impunity.

The most recent instances of Republican "swift boating" occurred shortly after John Murtha (D-PA) expressed his view of the Iraq war. Murtha, a long time hawk, called for troops to be redeployed out of Iraq at "the soonest practicable time."

Jean Schmidt (R-OH) was one of the first Republicans to attack Murtha. Schmidt, in effect, called Murtha a cut-and-run coward on the House floor. Afterward, she claimed she didn't know Murtha served in the U.S. Marine Corp for 37 years, retired as a colonel in 1990 and has been a congressman for 31 years. However, the White House did know and decided to attack Murtha regardless. White House spokesman Scott McClellan likened Murtha's stance on the War in Iraq to that of Michael Moore and the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party. Going even further, Cybercast News Service – an obviously conservative "news" publication – actually claimed Murtha didn't deserve the Purple Hearts he received while serving in Vietnam and insinuated he had actually lied to receive the medals. The fact is, anyone who stands in the way, or dissents from the Republican line, will face personal attacks of an unscrupulous nature from a host of sources.

As the 2006 mid-term election heats up, Republicans will almost certainly renew and increase the political attacks against opponents to their unitary control of government. However, they aren't simply attacking the political opposition, they are attacking the very foundation of American democracy. The one party rule of Republicans has eroded constitutional checks and balances and thoroughly corrupted the party. As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Remember 9/11 (it happened on Bush's watch), the non-existent WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, secret torture prisons, misused intelligence reports, CIA leaks, the Abramoff lobbying scandal, Hurricane Katrina, Diebold Inc., NSA warrantless spying and numerous others? In light of so many scandals, the tactics Republicans use to attain power appear minor in comparison to what they do with that power once they get it.

One political party should never control every branch of government. It allows for corruption without accountability and leaves a large portion of the population without adequate representation. If "We the People" cannot reinstate some sense of balance in America, which is a very real possibility thanks to Republican redistricting, our country may well proceed down a road from which there is no return. If that happens the Republican attack strategy will have succeeded.