Insulting the Troops

This story is completely overblown.

By now you've all heard the controversy over John Kerry's widely cited comments during a campaign event with Phil Angelides earlier this week.

Kerry has said that he messed up the punchline for the joke. I have no reason to doubt that, because to think the contrary would imply that he planned those comments in advance, which no rational person would think was the case.

But between the event on Monday and Kerry's two apologies today [the first being a half-hearted "apology" during a phone interview with Don Imus], the Republicans dusted off the Anti-Kerry Machine that worked so well for them in 2004 and turned him into a political piñata.

The only real upside effect to this for Republicans is firing up the base, which it did to great effect in 2004 every time Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth. Remember how they hammered him to great effect over "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it"? Other than the red meat value of energizing their base, I see no benefit to Republicans in trying to keep this story alive. However, there is no down ballot effect on the Democrats, since Kerry is not on any ballot this year.

This might have been an issue in the Tennessee Senate race, where Harold Ford was Kerry's campaign co-chairman two years ago and Bob Corker might have tried to make an issue out of it at the last minute. Ford defused that possible scenario by criticizing Kerry and calling for him to apologize. Jon Tester also criticized him.

The only real damage to this is that it neutralized Kerry as a surrogate or campaigner during the final week. Politically, Kerry did the correct thing by removing himself from the equation and not becoming a distraction to the Democratic candidates he was going to be campaigning for. If this had happened weeks or months ago, Kerry's absence as a fundraiser would have hurt the Democrats. You can argue over whether the apology was or was not necessary, but in giving it Kerry has taken away the Republicans' ability to continue to push the story. By neutralizing the issue and removing himself from the races, Kerry is doing the right thing for his party.

That would have been the end of it, but along came John Boehner and the Democrats figured out very quickly that two can play at that game.

Howard Dean and Harry Reid immediately entered the fray, putting out statements calling on Boehner to apologize. I doubt this will get anywhere near the amount of traction that Kerry's comments got, but Republicans made it fair game as an issue and Democrats are fighting back.

Supporting the Troops

Captain's Quarters points out the photo on this section of the DNC's website:



The problem? The soldier is Canadian.

Blowback

Be careful where you point those...

Previously, I mentioned as one example the recent Mike DeWine campaign ad attacking Sherrod Brown's national security credentials which used images of a burning World Trade Center.

The Hotline has the rebuttal ad from the Ohio Democratic Party.

At one point, the voiceover says Senator DeWine "failed us on the Intelligence Committee before 9/11 and on weapons of mass destruction."

Maybe somebody should tell the Ohio Democratic Party that there are Democrats on the Intelligence Committee as well? How was their performance before 9/11 and on weapons of mass destruction any better?

Dead People as Political Props

Photo from the Missouri Civil War Museum.

This topic is brought up because of the recent Republican uproar over an ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee which used an image of a flag draped caskets of soldiers killed in Iraq. You can view the ad here.

I personally don't believe in using any images of dead in ads for any political purpose because they have no way of speaking out for themselves. If I were a media consultant for a candidate or campaign, I wouldn't touch the dead or their relatives in any of my ads with a proverbial twenty foot pole. In my view it cheapens the discourse by trying to shamelessly and overtly exploit someone else's tragedy to score political points.

Unfortunately, the DCCC ad is hardly the first, and only use of dead people for a political statement, by the Republicans or the Democrats in this election cycle or previous ones.

Republican Senator Mike DeWine's re-eelection campaign recently made an ad attacking his opponent Sherrod Brown's national security credentials. The ad uses an image of a burning World Trade Center on 9/11. Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the ad online, so I can only link to this article from the Columbus Dispatch.

In 2004, President Bush's first re-election ad briefly showed images of the World Trade Center rubble a flag-covered body being moved from Ground Zero.

Fast forward a few months later, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry obtained the endorsement of "the Jersey Girls," four 9/11 widows who lobbied for the creation of the 9/11 Commission and reforms of the intelligence and homeland security community, and immediately put one of them in an ad and had them hit the campaign trail for him. I can't find the ad online, so you'll have to settle with the written account from Fox News that I linked to.

At the same time, Progress for America, a conservative 527 group, did this emotionally wrenching ad of President Bush's meeting with a little girl from Ohio whose mother was killed in the World Trade Center. According to Fox News, this was the biggest single political ad buy in history, worth $17 million.

But you have to go waaaaay back to the 1944 presidential election campaign, in the middle of World War II, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had "I Remember Pearl Harbor" buttons made for his re-election campaign for a fourth term. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any images of the buttons themselves online, only written references to them. If I do find it later, I will update this posting to include a link or image.

Neither party can or should claim a higher sense of morality or outrage for using images of dead people or their families for political purposes. As far as I can tell they are both equally shameless and opportunistic on this subject.