Am I the only one who thinks this AWOL stuff is a distraction?

[skygazer]

Bush has nothing to stand on in regards to the issues yet we're back to pounding on the AWOL stuff AGAIN. As is to be expected, the spin has immediately been put on it, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the documents etc. which takes the focus away from the actual allegations.

In the meantime, no one talks about the issues. Kerry has so much more to offer on the economy, Iraq, the environment, etc. than Bush does but Bush doesn't have to defend his record on those things because nobody's calling him on them. It's all this shit about what happened during Vietnam and sounds no different to the average person than the same shit did about Kerry with the Swifties. With the GOP firmly in control of the media, it simply looks like another smear attempt.

I still think the way to go is to keep pointing out what a crappy job Bush has done in every aspect of his presidency.

[Trajan]

1. Why not attack EVERYTHING about Bush ?

Dont limit youself ...

[daveskilt]

2. what economy?, what war? look at my youthful indiscretion!

now he can say he admits his mistakes (as long as they are vague and 30 year old) and appear to be the 'common man' while no one attacks his record from the last 4 miserable shitty years

[miss_kitty]

3. "the only one thinking AWOL stuff is a distraction? no you aren't

but no one is listening...there are a lot of 'weapons of mass distraction' out there. and those seem to be drawing all the fire, so their plan is working...sigh

[ProfessorPlum]

4. Don't sweat it

Check out http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004_09_05_digbysblog_archive.html#109476694917161965">this post from Digby, on why these little dramas are both trivial, and important and necessary:

"
These little dramas in campaigns, which seem to be about everything but what we informed voters believe are the essential issues, actually serve as character and issues proxies for the electorate to come to its gut reasoning. Therefore, the Vietnam drama was a way of illustrating the contrast between the high achieving Kerry and the screw-up son of privilege. This was a man who did his duty without complaint but was not afraid to later challenge the orthodoxy that was leading the country into ruin. This picture provides a gut reason for people to vote for Kerry over the privileged playboy who doesn't seem to realize that he's made a mistake.

And, on another level the campaign controversy itself works as a proxy for each man's will to win. In that fight, George Bush has shown repeatedly that he is determined, most recently when he winked and nodded at what is now a notorious smear campaign. In this proxy fight, it is important that Kerry be seen as giving as good as he gets. "If you wimp out when George W. Bush attacks you, what will you do if there's another terrorist attack?" This is not particularly rational, but for many, it is a short cut to figuring out if Kerry is willing to be tough on terrorism. In this sense, the picture of Bush becomes uneasily contradictory and vague, while Kerry is sharply and consistently tough, both in his past and in the present.
...

It would be wise for Democrats to accept that in order to win and have the power to implement the policies we care so much about, we have to be ready to construct a narrative that will instruct the public through their emotions and their gut instincts rather than through an intellectual engagement on the issues alone. It doesn't have to be dishonest and it doesn't have to be dirty. What it has to be is authentically connected to what you really want to do and it has to be executed in a way that respects the instincts of the populace."

It does seem unfortunate, as Get Your War On points out, that this really is the campaign, the campaign for adults too, but that's the way it is.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Great analysis, Prof.

the ability to win political power is more important than running a high minded campaign.

Character is much more lasting than are campaign promises and is used by voters to sort out the candidates. That's why character

And if the commercial/advertizing culture has taught us anything, it should be that people respond to advertizing on a gut level, not on an intellectual level.

An hour of TV watching will confirm this. It is unfortunate but true.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. You're not the only one at all.

As much as I like them hitting Bush in any way possible, I think the whole Vietnam thing is a giant distraction from the important things that we would REALLY win on. Bush is going to be seen as better on terrorism. We have to give him that. What we need to do is hit him where it REALLY hurts, which is basically every other domestic issue.

[Owlet]

6. Why is Bush seen as better on terrorism?

I've never understood this, but poll after poll seems to say that a good majority of our fellow citizens feel that way. This administration has pparently managed to get EVERY issue viewed through the prism of terrorism. Or national security. And just what is 'national security'? Does it mean that if the nation is more secure, then we are individually safer? Somehow I don't think so. Standing in line at the airport watching some poor old granny removing her orthopedic shoes doesn't make me feel any safer: it just pisses me off.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. It pisses me off too.

But there comes a point where you have to concede that and attack a more vulnerable point. Turn the focus away from terrorism and toward jobs, education, health care, etc. Every single non-terrorism/nat'l security issue is in Kerry's favor, so why let them frame it as a single-issue election?

[spotbird]

8. No you are not, it smells like a set-up to me.

This will obviously help Bush more than Kerry.