Why Some on the Left Still Don’t Get It

I wanted to briefly add one thought on John Kerry’s grilling of Sam Fox which both Pamela and I wrote about yesterday. Predictably, as Pamela wrote, the wingnuts found Kerry’s grilling to be “offensive”, but what was odd is the reaction by some on the left as well, and why I say in the title of the post they “still don’t get it.”

When I went to Crooks and Liars to view the clip, I found the comments accompanying the clip, by someone named “SilentPatriot”, to be disingenuous: “While it’s nice to see Senator Kerry finally get some satisfaction, this is what he should have been doing back in 2004. The SBVT lies were transparent and easily debunked — by official Navy records no less. Although he didn’t get much help from the media who refused to call out the blatant lies, inconsistencies and discrepancies, he could have defused this easily. Instead he ignored and, in turn, validated them.”

Not quite. While the response was a bit slow-footed in the summer, Kerry had forcefully and easily debunked the story by September of ’04. The problem wasn’t his “ignoring and validating” theSBVT attacks, it was the mainstream media and the blogosphere too, I might add, who refused to give proper coverage to the Kerry campaign’s response. Couple that with the tidal wave of money and ads supporting the SBTV (which Kerry could do nothing about, hence the entire discussion of 527’s in the hearings) and the issue was kept alive long after Kerry had discredited it.

Thanks for the clip, but spare us the amateurish Monday morning quarterbacking next time.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Why Some on the Left Still Don’t Get It

  1. Sen Kerry’s reaction to SBVT was weak, and made him look weak. The Clintons always knew that when somebody hits you, you hit him back twice as hard. Sen Kerry didn’t do that, and failed to control the media narrative. I think that’s what really upset people about Kerry’s campaign. He was on the defensive and never was able to control the news cycle like Team W did. Ick.

    Trust me, I understand where you are coming from, but the slow response did hurt him, like it or not. I spoke with Michael Dukakis a little while back, and he freely admits his mistakes in the 88 campaign and knows that he should have won.

    Instead of focusing on defending our mistakes in 2004, let’s just try to avoid them in 2008.

  2. Brian

    There’s a series of posts here from a few months ago of all the news articles that discussed Kerry’s response to the SBVT. Kerry has freely admitted he could have done things differently too and that has been in the press and discussed here.

    What Todd is pointing out is that Silent Patriot insinuated Kerry ignored the attacks. That is not the case. He never ignored them or validated. Interestingly, Silent Patriot pointed to the Nacy records on Fact Check and said Kerry could have used these. The Navy records came from Kerry’s office – during the campaign they were all on JohnKerry.com.

  3. Jean says:

    The Clintons could have not have won in 2004. I know they and their cronies can’t beleive that but it is true. It was all about the politics of fear. They and their allies (Terry and co. ) claim that they would have pushed back better is just a way to diss John Kerry to make themselves look good. It is so ridiculous. You don’t see Mr Clinton giving his fight back speel on anymore tv shows since Sen Kerry decided not to run.

    Most people are sick of politics of the Clintons and smearing bloggers on both sides. Let me tell you all — It makes you look weak!

    I’d like to see some democrats show some character instead of taking the easy cheap shot that is meaningless (but makes them feel good to blame someone) and give John Kerry the respect and credit he deserves. Where is the character? John Kerry has it. John Kerry is a fighter and he proven it for himself and those he supports and for progressive values. And I am glad he is on our side.

  4. Indie Liberal says:

    Jean Says:
    March 1st, 2007 at 6:03 pm

    Amen, sister.

  5. pen says:

    Jean is correct. the clintons couldn’t have won in 04 which is why Hillary didn’t run. There was no way in the rovian politics of fear that hill could have beat dubya.

    The clintons were happy to give the kerry campaign bad advice, carville was slipping secrets to his wife who told chenney and Edwards couldn’t even stand up to chenney in the debates and win his home state.

    Kerry didn’t do everything right, and neither did the democratic party.
    The dem leadership backstabbed their candidate instead of standing behind him, Terry mac bankrupted a lot of the state dem party groups but he gets a pat on the back.

    Had the dem party backed Gore and Kerry like they should have bush wouldn’t have gotten in there to begin with. Since bill left in 00 it’s been about getting hillary in for many in this party and the last 6 years of pure hell we’ve had to endure is justifiable in the clinton supporters’ eyes.

    I don’t think the left will ever give Kerry a fair shake, while bill and hillary can sell this party up the river and get the royal treatment while they do it.

    It’s really sad.

  6. mbk says:

    pen and Jean,

    I’m with you both.
    Sad, indeed, and also infuriating.