Rich Lowry points out that many people polled want the country to go in a “new direction.” He also points out the vapidity of the assumption of many in the press that such folk, like those who think the country is on the “wrong track” or disapprove of the president’s job, will be Kerry voters. I’ve also pointed this out before.

I disapprove of the president’s performance, on many levels, think the country needs a new direction, and is on the wrong track. Am I going to be voting for Kerry? Of course not, because I’m afraid he’ll derail the train completely.

I was amused yesterday, driving down the coast of Florida, as I listened to Sean Hannity’s “man (and woman) in the street interviews” in which none of the Kerry supporters could identify a single accomplishment in his career, or a single position that he took that they agreed with, that would cause them to vote for him. Many didn’t even know the name of his running mate. It was simply sufficient for him to not be George Bush. If I’d been doing the interviews, I’d have asked how they knew that they wouldn’t be making things worse by electing a guy they admittedly knew absolutely nothing about. But Sean is never quite that quick on the uptake. In any event, one suspects that many of the empty vessels he interviewed won’t bother to vote, despite their stated support for Kerry.

Anyway, this foolish tendency of the media to translate in their minds unhappiness with George Bush into automatic support for Kerry is one of the reasons that they continue to fool themselves about the latter’s prospects in November. I suspect they’re in for a shock.

Richard Holbrooke has a column on Vietnam in yesterday’s WaPo, and how it shaped his (and Kerry’s) generation’s world view. Greg Djerejian has some comments on it (and more importantly, on the potential implications of Kerry’s Senate testimony in 1971–one more reason that he would be a dangerous CinC), but I noticed that he has (at least) one disingenuous sentence in it:

His personal saga embodies the American experience in Vietnam. First he was a good hero in a bad war — a man who volunteered for duty in the Navy and then asked for an assignment on the boats that were to ply the dangerous rivers of Vietnam…

Yes, he volunteered for Swift Boats, and yes, they were (eventually) to ply the dangerous rivers of Vietnam, but my understanding is that at the time he volunteered, he didn’t know that–they were only plying the much less dangerous coastal waters at the time. This is a point that many (all?) Kerry defenders somehow conveniently leave out (just as they ignore the fact that the National Guard in which George Bush enlisted actually was doing duty in Vietnam at the time he signed up).

I had a rushed (in that I had no time for side trips, or pics) trip across the glorious southern US, but arrived safely in Florida almost exactly three days to the hour after I left California.

The only immediate post I have is on an interview of MoDo by Charlie Rose just before bed (I had little time for anything except drive or sleep) in a motel just east of San Antonio. She was explaining how she was having trouble deciding whether Bushie attacked Iraq because Saddam attempted to kill his father, or because he was trying to upstage his father (for not taking him out thirteen years ago). Then one of her colleagues suggested, “why not both”?

Hilarious. That one certainly must have had them tittering about the water coolers on West 43rd Street. And, of course, Charlie wouldn’t ask the obvious question, so I will.

Why not neither, Maureen?

Why not employ Occam’s Razor?

Isn’t it possible that he invaded Iraq for exactly the reasons that he stated? That Saddam was determined to accumulate WMD, that he was in violation of every agreement since the end of the Gulf War, that we couldn’t wait until the threat was imminent, that he was a continuing source of instability in a region? Is it really necessary to introduce oedipal motivations into this, which half your readers won’t even understand?

Apparently the state of the Gray Lady is that, yes, it is.

If you’re a Kerry fan.

The Swift Boat controversy is taking its toll, even if it’s not showing up that strongly in the polls yet. People have been dumping his stock for the last couple days. If they could sell short, they probably would.

[Update a couple minutes later]

And Kerry’s chickens continue to come home to roost. His problems may be just beginning. Judging by the disproportionate impact of the Swift Vet ads, in terms of their funding, I suspect that this documentary will similarly have much more impact than Michael Moore’s polemic.

[Yet another update a minute or two later]

Whoops, spoke too soon. Kerry’s woes are showing up in the polls, too.

The (Clinton-appointed) FEC Chairman just shot him down.

The (Clinton-appointed) FEC Chairman just shot him down.

The (Clinton-appointed) FEC Chairman just shot him down.

…demand that this web site come down? After all, it’s what they expect Bush to do.

Cap’n Ed dissects a hypocritical piece in Business Week on the Swift Boat controversy:

So let me get this straight — MoveOn is more credible because of the transparent nature of the illegal coordination between the Democrats and the 527, while the Swiftvets suffer because no one can establish these links? And they claim inside knowledge because they served in the same unit and the same area as John Kerry, much the way William Rood did — they went out on patrols with Kerry and observed him from close quarters on rivers and canals where the two banks often spread less than 100 yards apart while they patrolled with their 50-foot PCFs. Peterson hasn’t spent much time distinguishing the operational tactics of PCFs, which rarely if ever went out alone on patrols.

Peterson’s perspective, then, is that while John Kerry’s testimony should go unchallenged because he served four months in combat, the Swiftvets — who to a man completed at least their one-year tours or left due to disabling wounds — should shut up about theirs. And the candidate who didn’t make his service any kind of qualification should expect to be slandered, but the nominee who wrapped himself in his four-month stint and surrounded himself with former shipmates for his nominating speech should get a free pass to avoid scrutiny of that record. It’s a point of view, all right — one that reeks of hypocrisy and self-service.

Cap’n Ed dissects a hypocritical piece in Business Week on the Swift Boat controversy:

So let me get this straight — MoveOn is more credible because of the transparent nature of the illegal coordination between the Democrats and the 527, while the Swiftvets suffer because no one can establish these links? And they claim inside knowledge because they served in the same unit and the same area as John Kerry, much the way William Rood did — they went out on patrols with Kerry and observed him from close quarters on rivers and canals where the two banks often spread less than 100 yards apart while they patrolled with their 50-foot PCFs. Peterson hasn’t spent much time distinguishing the operational tactics of PCFs, which rarely if ever went out alone on patrols.

Peterson’s perspective, then, is that while John Kerry’s testimony should go unchallenged because he served four months in combat, the Swiftvets — who to a man completed at least their one-year tours or left due to disabling wounds — should shut up about theirs. And the candidate who didn’t make his service any kind of qualification should expect to be slandered, but the nominee who wrapped himself in his four-month stint and surrounded himself with former shipmates for his nominating speech should get a free pass to avoid scrutiny of that record. It’s a point of view, all right — one that reeks of hypocrisy and self-service.