blatham wrote:finn
What we were addressing was the credibility of the specific claim that Kerry would be weak on defence.
You were, but I'm not convinced that was the thrust of the original post. In fact, your first posting recognized that the gist of the NY Post article was Kerry flip flopping. Subsequently you felt compelled to address your opinion of a Republican Spin/Slander machine. If you were truly addressing the credibility of a charge that "Kerry is weak on defense," you would have offered us some substantive evidence of Kerry being "strong" on defense. Having served (quite honorably) in the military doesn't constitute such evidence any more than Clinton's draft dodging constitutes credible evidence that he was "weak" on defense.
blatham wrote:That specific charge was/is predictable, and loses credibility for that.
How so? If we assume the charge is credible, than it stands to reason that it is predictable. Are charges only credible if they come out of left field?
That the charge was predictable is a footnote to the debate, not the closing statement.
blatham wrote:And particularly so in this exact circumstance where the Repub project is to portray Bush as firm on defence.
More predictable perhaps, but less credible because of this portrayal?
Polls consistently show that the American populace generally believe that Republicans are "stronger" on defense than "Democrats." Whether or not the GOP is pandering to this preconception is immaterial. It is a valid question for a Democratic nominee to answer.
The article offers evidence of Kerry's flip flopping and being weak on defense which you seem to be inclined to ignore in their entirety, in favor of focusing on the predictability of the charges.
blatham wrote:If we had been talking about a Dem campaign claim that Bush was dangerous for the environment, then yes, you'd be right, that too would be predictable.
But would that predictability reduce the credibility of the charge in your eyes? Somehow I doubt it.
blatham wrote:I'm not claiming that Dems are innocent in any general way of predictable hobby-horses in campaigning.
I do not think it is absurd to single out a party, or an individual given that one does it with the care and accuracy one can muster. Circumstances change, administrations change, and individuals change. We could just drop any sort of analysis and specificity and say "everybody does it", but I think that's the simplistic non-answer.
I think you're being disingenuous here. If the thrust of the debate was "Should the GOP resort to stock charges during campaigns?" the argument that "Dems do it too!" would be evasive. Introducing the question of the partisan nature of any charge against Kerry demands an acknowledgment that this is a practice of both parties or else you are guilty of your own specific charge:
Quote:"Now, the move being made, and you do it here again, is to argue that some species of complaint is bound to be forwarded...that anyone who might normally vote democrat can be expected to say negative things...therefore, what they say is merely and only a consequence of partisanship."
And if you resist offering evidence to counter the argument of the NY Post, than you are guilty of your companion charge:
Quote:"You've pretty much given up on specifics (WOMD, cakewalk war, resolute leader, compassionate conservatism, no child left behind, etc) because none of those is any longer defensible..."
BTW - Sneering at the NY Post is hardly a convincing counter.
